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.

[observer]

There's plenty to say about the "Dealing with Criticisms" paper, but for now one observation will suffice: It was written by three people, but claims to be speaking for a "movement" of 45,000. It's voice clearly reflects this limitation.

[Miss Current]

You are kind of on top of this aren't you Namaste?  I delve into this area too.  If you want to compare notes, shoot me an email off list.  Below I listed some questions from Form 1023 which is the orginal application an organization files to become a tax-exempt charitable organiztion.  Some "churches" can avoid this but it is definitely in their best interest to file this form.  In it they are supposed to attach their "governing documents".

Additionally, I attached questions from a Form 990 which is required to be filed by nonprofits annually...although churches are exempt from filing this in most cases.  Although possibly exempt from having to file a Form 990, a nonprofit is not exempt from having to disclose to the IRS any changes in its governing documents in order for the IRS to determine if the nonprofit can continue to maintain its tax-exempt status.

ALL of the information listed in my post here which a nonprofit would turn over to the IRS is open to PUBLIC INSPECTION.  Therefore, it appears GC would be in violation of its tax-exempt status if it did NOT disclose ANY of its governing documents to someone requesting them.


Form 1023 “Application for Recognition of Exemption Under 501()(3) of the Internal Revenue Code”

Part II

Question 1

Are you a corporation? If “Yes,” attach a copy of your articles of incorporation showing certification
of filing with the appropriate state agency. Include copies of any amendments to your articles and
be sure they also show state filing certification.

Question 3

Are you an unincorporated association? If “Yes,” attach a copy of your articles of association,
constitution, or other similar organizing document that is dated and includes at least two signatures.
Include signed and dated copies of any amendments.

Form 990 “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax”

Part VI

Question 76

Did the organization make a change in its activities or methods of conducting activities? If “Yes,” attach a
detailed statement of each change

Question 77

Were any changes made in the organizing or governing documents but not reported to the IRS?
If “Yes,” attach a conformed copy of the changes.

[randomous]

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.

I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of churches in general getting approval to build, I think the specific issue with that is that they elected to do a special GCM-wide fundraising project (The A2 project, which you can coincidentally still give to on the GCM website).  So basically, it looks to me like Ann Arbor asked GCM for help in the fundraising aspect, and before they would start they would obviously need GCM's go-ahead saying that the funding was ready.

[The Clone]

What year is it?  2007.  So that apology letter was written up in 1991.  Hmmmmmm,  Don't we get it yet?  THEY DON'T CARE!  Asking for this is legal and all (but don't ask too many times, wink wink) and do it 20 years later.  Huh?  Dave B. was a fall guy according to one of my sources.  He couldn't stand up to his peers then, and is a passive/aggressive now, still.  Do you really think "the answer" will ever come.  

A dear Punjabi woman friend of mine said to me ...(i.e. for those who don't know the country of India, that is North India)...

Ruth-ji said this to me: "A dogs tail is always crooked."  The path to fairness for us is long gone.

[MamaD]

There's plenty to say about the "Dealing with Criticisms" paper, but for now one observation will suffice: It was written by three people, but claims to be speaking for a "movement" of 45,000. It's voice clearly reflects this limitation.

Actually, it claims to be speaking for the pastors and national leaders, not all 45,000 (or whatever it was at that time) members (who had nothing to apologize for). According to the document all pastors and leaders at that time ratified the statement. So, either the document is in error, or anyone who was a pastor or leader in 1991 agreed with the statement because it says:

This statement was ratified by the pastors and national leaders of the Great Commission Association of churches on July 19, 1991.

[namaste]

Miss Current-

Yeah, I guess you could say that I'm kinda on top of this.  

FWIW, I *completely* agree with you that it appears pretty shady that they've apparently failed to disclose the "Articles of Association" in tax filings.  I do want to be clear that they may have done so, and I just haven't come across a filing that includes them yet.  But I have heard from others who have examined tax filings/non-profit applications that they do not appear to have filed the articles of association.  So....it's not just me.

I have not written a letter to GC requesting them yet, largely because I was waiting to see if Dave B. would do the right thing and provide them to J as requested.  Since it they have not done that, my opinion is that the prudent thing to do will be to request them formally.

I will take care of that, and will send the applicable requests via certified mail, return receipt requested (CMRRR).  I will post the text of my request here.  I anticipate having that letter prepared my Monday (so if you don't see it, pester me).

[observer]

MamaD said:

Actually, it claims to be speaking for the pastors and national leaders, not all 45,000 (or whatever it was at that time) members (who had nothing to apologize for). According to the document all pastors and leaders at that time ratified the statement.

----

I am not talking about the original statement, but the recent (dated 2007) letter from Bovenmeyer, Hopler, and Whitney. This letter postures as some sort of authoritative statement about the current situation in GCx by making no qualifications as to how its assertions are conditioned by the perspectives and experiences of the signed authors or their own interests. Simple attributions of error in the past to "immaturity" or categorizing criticisms as either  "valid" or "invalid" (are such labels really helpful?) strikes me as an attempt of pastors (ie. the threesome national leaders signing the "letter") to posture authoritatively as their own ultimate judge over their own and the "movement's" conduct. And who really cares whether Jim McCotter agreed to the error statement or not? Where did he earn the moral authority to declare his critique of the movement's "weaknesses" apart from a personal apology (never offered) for teaching wrongly?

Basically, this letter reflects the pattern of GCx (and a very cultic one) of a small number of leaders unilaterally making truth pronouncements (often without rigor) and through means that are remarkably offhanded and without rhetorical or intellectual substance.

And the notion of GCx as "grassroots" stated in the letter would probably not hold serious weight if its actual history were studied from outside the movement. I suppose it could be defined as a form of grassroots authoritarianism. But it could most definitely not be understood as large numbers of GCx "assemblies" spontaneously emerging as they did--without the controlling influence of "elders"--as pre-millenial, rapture awaiting, home schooling, kid-spanking, non-birth controlling, young earth creationist, republican voting, believer-baptising, non-charismatic inerrantist fundamentalists just because the bible tells them so.

If Hopler, Bovenmeyer, Whitney et. al. think this kind of uniformity in GC (which seems far beyond what most actual religious movements would have) was some sort of "grasroots" phenomenon apart from the powerful influence of leadership, what do they attribute it to?

[MamaD]

Observer,

Sorry about misunderstanding you. It was me, not Miss Current. I forgot about the newly released Dealing With Criticisms paper.

I love the line there that says criticisms exist for primarily one reason: The Glory of God.

What in the world?! Sometimes criticisms exist because there is something wrong and needing correction!

I am glad though that the structure of GCx is out in the open on their web page. I, for one, would never have joined the church had I known of the past history and the current structure.

[observer]

MamaD,

You nailed it:  Sometimes things need correcting because they are wrong, a point undermined by any attempt to spiritualize the reasons for criticism.

The preacherly rhetorical style of this letter shows that at least some things about GCx have never changed. The leaders speak blindly from priviledged positions.

[puff of purple smoke]

So, it seems the question of "Did GC ever develop the promised book of government" is settled (with the answer of "No"). The book of government was one of the big selling points of the church error statement, and was mentioned multiple times throughout it. It was the promise that something was being done formally to prevent future problems. What it seems Dave is basically saying, now, in drawn out paragraphs that attempt to explain it away, is, "We [GC Leaders] changed our minds in 1994 and have decided instead to let the churches do whatever they want under the banner of being autonomous." While a great way to avoid future movement-wide persecution by introducing a new 'autonomous' excuse, it's a kick in the face to people who were actually expecting the movement to follow through on the reforms they promised.

The Book of Government was a very important piece of the error statement. Here is how it is described at one point in it: "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." -- They acknowledged that simply the statement alone wasn't going to fix everything, and that formality was needed. But apparently 3 years later they decided that the "needed formality" wasn't so needed after all.

It angers me that a "Christian organization" would have the guts to promise something like this, so formally and publicly, take all the credos they received from their critics for being so "humble," and then just not follow through. A "book of government" in a church organization that otherwise didn't have one is a very big deal, it suggests major change. Where was their 1994 public statement explaining their decision to not release it? If there wasn't one, they simply let the public and former critics of GC erroneously believe one had been released and implemented. That the governmental structure of GC had changed, and that things were on the up and up. That would be called "lying" for those of you biblical scholars out there.

I'll end this rant by quoting what Miss Current said in the post that started this thread:

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.

[namaste]

I am glad though that the structure of GCx is out in the open on their web page. I, for one, would never have joined the church had I known of the past history and the current structure.

Precisely.  Organizations operating in a completely above-board manner would not use a national association as "validation" without providing access to the terms of membership.

[Angry]

Dave Bovenmeyer states -
"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 ....."

Do any of you computer savvy people know how to add this VERY revealing information to the wiki site?

It is important to get the truth out to potential members.

Angry

[puff of purple smoke]

Dave Bovenmeyer states -
"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 ....."

Do any of you computer savvy people know how to add this VERY revealing information to the wiki site?

It is important to get the truth out to potential members.

Angry

It's a private correspondence so it probably can't be quoted.

[Angry]

Great point -

You're a good guy Puff -

Angry

[MamaD]

One of the saddest things to me about this whole experience is that I went into it with a positive attitude and thinking the best about everyone over the course of two years.

These people, after all, were our friends.

We overlooked a lot of stuff that seemed like issues of "preference".

Unwise changes to youth ministry seemed matters of preference. (We didn't think it wise that 16 year old girls be meeting in a "church" just for 16 -24 year olds (including unsaved college age boys) at 10:30 at night, for example, but our solution was to express our concern, and when the decision came down anyway, we found a different youth group for our daughter rather than to leave the church. We wanted to be loyal).

When a founding pastor (currently on the GCM board) told a gathering of 1200 that we were his bride, we still stayed. Loyalty mattered to us. (Now, I would have walked out the door and not looked back after that talk, but I am wiser now than I was then.)

We did ask some questions and did some googling. Through googling we learned of the Statement of Error. We asked a founding pastor for a copy. The Statement of Error even says to ask your local pastor about it. Our pastor (currently sitting on the GCM board) gave us a bewildered look and said, "I seem to remember something, but it was more a statement of clarification than apology. Would you like me to find a copy?"

We said yes. He never got back to us.

Here's my point. When you are sincerely trying to resolve issues with fellow believers, you need to operate under the assumption that the goal is resolution and there will be no deception.

I can't say that this pastor lied. But, it seems obvious to me that this pastor knew that the Statement of Error was more than a statement of "clarification." If you sincerely apologize for something, you should remember. And, if you tell someone who you know is asking lots of questions that you will get them a paper, you should get them the paper.

Now, of course, people are able to get that statement on gcmwarning, but it wasn't available then. And, finally, it is available on the gcmweb page (guess they'd rather people view it on their site than gcmwarning!) I really believe that most of the discussions here could have been avoided had those in charge lived up to the promise of the Statement of Error.

I see, also that they have a new video posted on that site. Lots of Bill Bright references. One thing that stuck out to me was a Bill Bright quote about how churches need to give up their logos and egos and work together. I find it interesting that while the video talks about churches giving up their logos and working together, the talk that is coming down at conferences is loyalty to "the movement" for life.

That seems deceptive to me.

[namaste]

MamaD-
In total agreement with you on everything in your post.

Dave Brovenmeyer, if you're reading here, the answer is YES, you should release those materials.  Personal preference about their embarassing state aside, the fact of the matter is that that document is pretty much the only thing remotely resembling a binding document regarding the governing of the organization (on both a local and national level).

Perspective members (and current members) should have full knowledge (or at least the ability to access said information) that for all intents and purposes, there is no practical manner for addressing grievances with the leadership of member churches.  

I realize my opinion may be unpopular, but I personally don't have a problem with GC developing "Articles of Organization" in lieu of a "Book of Government," and I really don't have a problem that what they did develop is woefully out of date and a flat out embarassment to the organization.

Hey, these things happen.  In my experience, GC leadership tends to be more vision focused than administration focused anyway.

What I DO have a HUGE problem with, is the evasiveness with which requests are met.  Someone shouldn't have to ask a half dozen times before finally getting the answer Dave gave to J.  When someone asks for the book of gov't, it's flat out dishonest to claim there isn't one, while knowing full well that what the person is asking for is actually the articles of association.

Quite frankly, it is morally repugnant to read through the slippery, manipulative tactics used to avoid release of the Articles of Association outlined in the correspondence posted here.  The individuals responsible for choosing to respond to J's request in such a manner should be ashmaned of their behavior.

I get better accountability from my elected officials than can be gotten from GC.

[The Clone]

Posting Dave's Response:

I DISAGREE that we could not post it on Wiki.  A national leader should be cited in a public website and psedo-forum as in Wiki, since he basically saying "No," when the public record of the Statement of Weaknesses is saying we will publish it.

Again, GCx is a very decieptive organization and asking to do for what THEY SAID and we getting nick-picked for that is unbelievable.  It shows again that who controls the past, controls the future, and I am citing Orwells in 1984.  They control the past and will control the future of GCM and AGAIN our hands are tied.  

What can we do?

-The Clone

[namaste]

Oh for crying out loud!!!

I must admit, life happens, I've put this on the back burner for far too long, and I just needed to step back and take a break for awhile.

Yeesh.  I truly cannot believe that supposed "men of God" are going to force me to pony up ~$5 a letter to send a certified request for the documents.

[namaste]

edited: I see I got my "book of whatever" names mixed up.  I'll change those names in my letter.

Yeesh.

Alright.  I just pounded out a letter.  I'll send it out certified mail tomorrow.  :roll:

As a former member of Great Commission Ministries, I was very disheartened to discover that your organization is apparently conspiring to keep certain documents (The "Book of Discipline") unavailable for public review.  Please consider this letter a formal request for said documents.

I understand that it is the position of GCAC that these documents are under review and will be released at a later date (allegedly as yet to be determined).  Unfortunately, it does not appear that GCAC is exercising due dilligence in reviewing said documents, as it is my understanding that these documents have been reqested by multiple individuals, on multiple occassions, and still the documents have not been produced.  For your reference, several of the requests that have been made and the response from GCAC has been enclosed for your review.

Further, it is my understanding that in order to be in complete compliance with IRS regulations governing non-profit entities, any applicant for such status must provide ALL organizational documents, including, but certainly not limited to: Articles of Organization, by-laws, and other disciplinary documents binding on the organization.  As such, I was surprised not to find GCAC's "Book of Discipline" referenced or included in any such filing.

An organization such as GCAC, which holds itself in such high esteem, should have no problem releasing any documents that govern their membership.  The "Book of Discipline" is such a document.  Therefore, I respectfully request a complete copy of said document be delivered to me no later than thirty (30) days from your confirmed receipt of this letter.

The time for editing and review has long since passed.  Please provide these documents to me at the address referenced above within the time frame specified.  Should you choose not to do so, be advised that I will take any and all action necessary (within the bounds of the law) to obtain these documents.

Kindest regards,
namaste

[namaste]

Does anyone have e-mail addresses (and/or other contact info) for the gc board members?