Why did Jim McCotter leave?

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.

[anonymoustoday]

I cannot answer your question with any certaintly, but I can add a bit of information of which others appear to be unaware and which might be relevant.

Barbara McCotter (Jim's wife) came from money. In the early 70s, it was whispered that her father (Edward Bison) was worth between $10-20 million. It was also common knowledge among the elders who knew Jim - as well as those who knew Barb's family - that they were sending the McCotter family money on a regular basis. I recall that Jim, Barb, and the kids always had excellent living quarters, a nice vehicle, and higher end clothing (Izod, Ralph Lauren) when they came home to visit, while everyone else in their group lived like nomads.

Bison died in 1984 and his wife (Mary) in 1986. As far as I know, Barb was the only child they had. Draw your own conclusions, but it seems rather clear to me that Jim came into a heck of a lot of money and thought he could parlay that into more money and more influence.

He has failed in virtually every venture he has undertaken, including the media (newspaper and radio) and resorts (Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado). Maverick Jets has had all sorts of problems, too, from what I read.

People speak of Jim as if he is two people - the Jim prior to 1986 and the Jim after 1986. For those of us who knew him in his younger days, Jim is Jim - manipulative, ambitious, aggressive, persuasive, conniving, and hungry for power, money, and influence.

No one told me that before!  Yet it sure does explain how he got the money to own and start so many flawed businesses.  I also see the implication of him "all of a sudden becoming bored" (a comment from a previous National Leader) with being a GCI leader when all that money was suddenly calling to be spent, assuming that is the way it really went down.

Still doesn't explain away Jim's disregard for the doctrine he began: "it is the sin of divorce to leave the GCI family."  

[Jim]

That's interesting to hear about where the money may have come from.   I've often wondered, and hoped it wasn't pilfered from the church.  I knew a former GCM pastor who bought himself a car with church money, and I'll never forget his regret of whether is was right or not. 

[Jim]

Here's my theory.   I've noticed over the years that people who are fulfilled at what they are doing in a ministry tend to continue with what they are doing, and those that either have problems or are not fulfilled will often have some reason for changing or leaving that ministry.  However, the reason they give is usually not the real reason (which I don't have a problem with, btw)  In Jim's case he had a big problem. He had created an out of control monster in helping create GCM.

GCM had caught the media's attention.  Although GCM steered it's members away from reading anything negative about the church, I'm quite certain a man like Jim McCotter was keeping tabs on negative articles which were coming out all over the country concerning the strange practices going on.  Articles, which if you go back and read, (I've been researching) sound pretty bad.  All of us in GCM were warned not to listen or speak to any cult awareness groups, and to dismiss negative press coverage as attacks from the devil (some were, and are)  I think McCotter was beginning to realize that there were serious, irreparable flaws the the church, and that he had made some pretty serious miscalculations, such as pushing for many of it's members to run for democratic political office shortly before he left.  It was front page news, and a huge mistake.  It made GCM'ers look like bumbling idiots.   I believe that is the straw which began to make the whole thing to heavy for him to bear.  He wanted to distance himself as far away as possible from the runaway machine he helped create.  Unlike many elders who were stuck being elders with their 5 kids, he had the means and the way to scram, leaving another one of his messes behind.  Apparently, he's has a track record of that.

[theresearchpersona]

Here's my theory.   I've noticed over the years that people who are fulfilled at what they are doing in a ministry tend to continue with what they are doing, and those that either have problems or are not fulfilled will often have some reason for changing or leaving that ministry.  However, the reason they give is usually not the real reason (which I don't have a problem with, btw)  In Jim's case he had a big problem. He had created an out of control monster in helping create GCM.

GCM had caught the media's attention.  Although GCM steered it's members away from reading anything negative about the church, I'm quite certain a man like Jim McCotter was keeping tabs on negative articles which were coming out all over the country concerning the strange practices going on.  Articles, which if you go back and read, (I've been researching) sound pretty bad.  All of us in GCM were warned not to listen or speak to any cult awareness groups, and to dismiss negative press coverage as attacks from the devil (some were, and are)  I think McCotter was beginning to realize that there were serious, irreparable flaws the the church, and that he had made some pretty serious miscalculations, such as pushing for many of it's members to run for democratic political office shortly before he left.  It was front page news, and a huge mistake.  It made GCM'ers look like bumbling idiots.   I believe that is the straw which began to make the whole thing to heavy for him to bear.  He wanted to distance himself as far away as possible from the runaway machine he helped create.  Unlike many elders who were stuck being elders with their 5 kids, he had the means and the way to scram, leaving another one of his messes behind.  Apparently, he's has a track record of that.

I've noticed that any group ever started by ambitious young persons (or a persons) always turn-out not just flawed, but seriously so, in either or both doctrine or practice (each useless without the other, the latter 'living' built on the former, and one of the primary, but not only, purposes of the former).There are legion modern examples, one of the easiest (and most public) being Mark Driscoll and the organizations he's started. There are also plenty of historical examples, but not just young...just as today not all the screwed-up junk that gets going is all by youngins'.

I don't know that I trust those who start-up churches without having been vetted by authority that knows what it's doing (actually, something, since he was mentioned, Driscoll admits he should have gone through, but didn't). There's importance in continuity with the Church (and I mean the Church, not with all the claimants, counterfeits, or substitutes); even more important in the life of men, whether the believer is a preacher or not, is the word--handled aright; and of course, to understand that, the Spirit of God enlightening the eyes (i.e., giving understanding)--though it's worth mentioning that we're commanded to 'test the spirits to see whether they are of God or men'...even that implies knowing how to handle that word.

It's interesting to look at this kind of thing, which happens over and over through history: McCotter interestingly compares to Darby way back when, for instance. I don't have a particular problem with believers exiting one assembly or group thereof and re-forming a new one together once the old is overtaken, perverted, etc. (when the PCUSA fell into theological liberalism, for instance, J. G. Machen and other ministers who fought for what fundamentalists call (and think are the only) 'essentials' were eventually defrocked for daring stand-up for the faith, and for that exited and re-grouped into the OPC which, for a long time, was very faithful (today it's battling-out heresies, etc., and I'm unsure how long it will be before more defection--re-group type action/s will be needed)).

What's troubling, though, is when men decide they're able to start a Church, manipulate men, whatever (and one notices consistently--at least I do in the (admittedly) limited knowledge I have of such occurences), like Darby, McCotter, Driscoll, etc., is that even when there is some semblance of orthodoxy, if there is, the practice never seems to align, or the orthodoxy is in perhaps preaching, sometimes, and it is 'believed', but the lives don't necessarily evidence it; there's the flip-side situation (that's no better) where  rules, tricks, methods, etc., are used to to get the 'goats' (as one guy put it) to behave as sheep, or (to put it another way) devices people use to have 'a form of godliness' (which one preacher I heard speaking on the subject called 'making twice-childes of hell'); but worse, any time such 'movements' grow out of men's schemes, (among the examples I know), it does massive damage not just to the participants, but the Church at large, not only for presenting other voices and creating confusion (not that it isn't good for the Church at large to get challenges), but that often those participants, zealous and well-meaning or sincere as they may be, themselves without knowledge, however, spread the other teachings and actively try to do so (if they're not under orders to do so).

I find it interesting that what I've gathered about McCotter's teachings and tactics both, everything from practically claiming to being the leader of the ONLY NT Church, an apostle (i.e. inspired-he did, after all, claim to 'see a vision of God He showed me in acts ...bla...'), sending his disciples into other churches to lure people out to McCotter, the vociferous allegiance to McCotter and his disciples his disciples demonstrated (and still demonstrate) even over the word they supposedly profess...all mirrors what occurred with Darby and his followers: who even proceeded after his death to edit the man's notes, documents, annotations to the Bible, propagandize with tracts (as he also did--not unlike the GC propaganda) about him, and etc..

The same can be said of Driscoll (not only defended no matter what by his followers, but himself admits to being ruthless to whoever gets in his way); of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, etc. etc. (though the latter three claim to be 'seeking the unchurches, the irreligious' all the while using the church and what's good as a convenient target to make the world think 'cool', and inevitably luring people after them for what 'sounds good' or 'is very thoughtful' and so on).

It ends-up that much leaven is spread about, and it disturbs the sheep, emboldens the deluded, and makes enemies for the church who act in the name of Christ--but without any apparent understanding of what they're doing: and they're not necessarily uneducated, but rather they don't show any sign of being 'taught of God'.

It is a very bad thing for men to become celebrities in the Church--perhaps it's comparable to those 'super apostles' Paul had to deal with; it's also very bad for men to be innovators AND celebrities-similar defensiveness of followers of John Piper (with many who get caught-up in his celebrity and passion the), for instance, can be seen: especially those who were the "I was a Christian but not really living it/sure/excited/..., but then I learned of 'Christian Hedonism'/'read 'Desiring God'". ; ( I had the 'pleasure"' (not) to live with several such Christians, two of whom were exceedingly into the things of the world, one of which was excessively inconsiderate and disproportionately bad-tempered, self-interested, and held grudges like no other--no forgiveness of letting go of evils (or perceived evils) done to oneself: all I could think of is 'where's the gospel in these?'

A guy like Piper is relatively orthodox, but such philosophies as that he created are really serious: the current pastor the Metropolitan Tabernacle, for instance, unequivocally concluded it makes him dangerous--and that's before the enamorment of those who look to such men as the 'savior of my faith' or 'enlivener of it': and I've struggled to find any such persons willing to hear criticism or be cautioned and directed NOT to so esteem men; similarly there are other orthodox men, who're given so much gratitude by their admirers or those they've helped as to be highly difficult to question, and hence dangerous: two very significant men in our day (and they are a great services to the Church, and champion of the word) would surprise some in this regard: R.C. Sproul & John MacArthur, and for various points and reasons; and by no means would I want someone not to pay attention to these guys--'Hard to Believe' (MacArthur) is one of the best short books on the offense of the gospel I've ever read; Sproul is often highly interesting in philosophical matters (not necessarily always safe-I am cautious about whether he goes too far, but in many cases very edifying and useful for the instruction of Christians); there's plenty of names and their requisite qualifications that can be given, but the point is: men should not esteem men over God, or even very highly at all? What is important about any such men of our day except that and where they preach the word? Which is not their own, so why are they made celebrities? Who cares about their personalities, for instance, if they're obedient to and careful handlers of the word!

There's a danger such men can go off into serious error, and in large part remain unchallenged and uncorrected: similar to the averted disaster (among many, though many are now 'captive') among Reformed groups with the 'Federal Vision' proponents (if you thought bumbling, sort-of laughable, scripture-wresting Bill Gothard (a heavy influence on GC) was bad, try-on some highly educated, erudite, extremely brilliant apparently-orthodox who claim to hold to historic confessions...and then in the most minutely subtle of ways take to redefining words, or even just changing the senses slightly, to totally change the outlook and teaching, and move toward their own agendas): these sorts of guys are superstars among some churches/gropus and teachers in the Reformed camp nowadays, and it's very unfortunate.

The other danger, of course, is when someone thinks themselves very important--when they get ambitious like that; something God's 'learned me' is to be faithful howerever I'm at, and grow, not fret (though I do, and I'm still repenting), and pray and trust Him; I find it acceptable that men everywhere should take their responsibilities, and all good that they ought to do, highly seriously and soberly (for many reasons, but won't here, now, elucidate), but to be content in the restrictions upon them in life. It may sound weird, but I seem often to get serious health issues, sometimes crippling/disabling physically--and often that affecting even my mind such that I slow or shutdown; I'll finally get-onto studying hard again, and then a year's progress seems obliterated for being incapable of doing much. It's really frustrating, but in light of all such things, I'm also glad: I'm glad I get disciplined by God, get beat-down by life, humbled, set in hard situations doctrinally and interpesonally, and have nothing to boast of. I'm glad for having been crushed through GC and forced to compare things ('prove all things'), and from all that losing more opportunities and time than before going to a university I could ever have imagined to receive: better Christ than the world, humility/humiliation than pride.

Men who want to feel important, 'do great things', and steer the vessel...don't make biblical sense: they're contrary; and when faithful men have been placed into positions to do good, and have power in Christ, and work much good for His reign, I wish all around them, and the Church at large, would constantly remind everyone in loud cries 'don't esteem them--any 'good' they have is only that which they've received; don't be unduly influenced, in all things examine everything carefully by the word'.

[lone gone]

It isn't surprising that some feel as if God has used them they can then conclude that God will continue to use them in the same way.

I feel strongly that this is a sign of the "theology of Glory"at work...... vs. the "theology of the Cross".

Peter fell victim to the Glory message.... he feared the men of the circumcision, who could approve or disapprove of his actions.
Paul corrected him to his face.... yet we don't know whether Peter repented then or later....

Paul's ministry fell apart in later years.   He states that almost all fell away.  He was saddened but not disheartened. Paul understood the Theology of the Cross, that God doesn't always lead us continuously in Glory that we can see. Things seem to fall apart. Maybe there are reasons for this that we cannot see...( much like TRP getting sick and somehow this works together for good.)

I guess I am not surprised that someone who "feels led by the Spirit" to start a ministry should be tempted to think of that ministry as his/her own... and that they'd hang on to it. I am also not surprised that by leaving it they would puzzle many people with their actions. I have never heard anyone talk about being led by the Spirit to end a ministry or turn it over to someone else.

Gods ways are not our ways. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away,  Blessed be the name of the Lord.

[lone gone]

1st Corinthians 3:9-15

     For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
    Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.


This from my morning devotions.

[cltexprt]

Personally, I think there were probably several reasons for Jim's leaving.

Yes, he did "want to make money." Running GCI was hindering that desire.

But I think he had become bored with GCI. As evident in the history of GCx in my book "Marching to Zion," Jim lost interest in many ventures he either started or to which he gave the initial "vision" (nice GCx word!). Among those were Today's Student, The (Christian) Cause, Potential, US Press, Americans for Biblical Government, Great Commission Academy, and extra-GCx ventures Sun Publications (Orlando), and the earlier radio syndication company, and the whole media enterprise in New Zealand. None of these lasted more than 2 or 3 years.

When Paul Martin and I met with the national leadership in July 1991, the subject of Jim's leaving came up. Tom Short (yes, _that_ Tom Short) said, "When Jim left GCI that was an answer to prayer for many of us" -- almost a direct quote.

The next day Paul and I, along with Bill Taylor and Rick Harvey met with Dave Bovenmyer, John Hopler, Tom Schroeder, and Mike Keator from 8:30 am to 1:30 the following am. During that time Dave B. told us the "Jim left to pursue his business interests" version.

The following year (1992) another ex-member (of Linworth Road CC, et al.) told me that Tom S. told him that he had essentially given the board an ultimatum: "Either Jim goes or I go." Ironically, they're both gone now.

This info is not yet part of "MTZ."

Larry Pile

[Linda]

Nice to hear from you Larry. Thanks for posting.

[BTDT]

Larry, I was at Great Commission Church of Maryland when Jim left. Nothing was said publicly other than the "left for business interests" thing, but the sense of relief among many leaders and members was very clear, almost palpable.  Breaks my heart that so much of his legacy evidently still remains.

[calgal]

I read somewhere in these posts that he appeared at a Faithwalkers conference in early 2000s ... any insight here?

calgal

[dth75]

I think he left from the non stop persecution from his former background in the plymouth brethren. They were relentless and he didn't want the group to suffer from the attacks on him.

[Linda]

Why do you think that?

[crowhill]

I was there when he left, and for several years afterward. It was very weird. Before he left he was held up as the GCC model. But leaving was completely contrary to that model (i.e., that every man's chief goal in life should be to become an elder and make disciples).

No explanation was given publicly, and when you pursued it in private you got embarrassed, hush-hush sort of answers.

My best guess is that Jim simply didn't believe in the GCC model any longer and wanted to move on to other things -- media or business or government. He wasn't satisfied with making disciples. He wanted more power / influence.

That's my guess.

It was a very discouraging thing for everybody in the Maryland church, and the cover-up / lack of honesty about it was very disturbing.

[Captain Bible]

I read somewhere in these posts that he appeared at a Faithwalkers conference in early 2000s ... any insight here?

calgal

Yes, I was there. I think the first faithwalkers 2007? (before it was big, only five hundred people....)
Wish I had those audio files. But from memory I think He was only there for a moment, it was like a royal visit. Let me tell you Rick W. Spread it thick, I mean Thick... "Brother If you ever want to come back, I would love to have you in my church." -RW. 

I remember it being awkward, like RW was paying his dues to Jim. I did say hi to him after word. Jim seemed like he could hardly wait to get the hell out of there. The whole thing was strange. My wife was there too, she remembers it as: "your welcome back anytime brother." -RW

[journey46]

older and wiser
i, too, am older and wiser

while i agree with your assessment (always follow the money), as being the most plausible given jim's fruit in christ
it is not the most noteworthy
can you edit it with links to the bison family fortune and barbara's inheritance.
otherwise it is just heresy or opinion.
(funny, i just reread that, i meant to write hear say.)

i googled the bison's (edward or mary) and found nothing

former srf columbus ohio