Grace Community Church in Jacksonville?

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.

[lone gone]

Has anyone seen today's story on Fox News about the lady in Jacksonville Fl. who is being excommunicated from her church for an immoral relationship? While I agree that she needs to "clean up her act", the actions of the church are looking mighty heavy handed and suspicious.... like GC. She has left the church, sent them a letter of resignation, and yet they are pursuing her in order to discipline her. They are threatening to out her sins to everyone.

She turned the tables on them and announced it herself.

I couldn't find that the church mentioned is associated with any particular church body or denomination.

[saved]

The pastors have degrees... so probably not GC.

[Linda]

I saw this on Fox and Friends and couldn't figure out why it made the news. (Of course, the reporter left several important elements out of the story, I hate it when they do that.)

Anyway, from what I could tell, a single woman, confessed some sexual immorality to her pastors. She didn't, as far as the report mentioned, repent. It sounded like she wanted to keep living this lifestyle and continue in the church.

The pastors said she couldn't and scheduled a meeting with the whole congregation over this for some time in January.

To me, it sounds like Matthew 18 doing what Matthew 18 is supposed to do.

The woman went to the press complaining that her confessed immorality was going to be made public by her church. The irony of that, of course, is that by going to the press she was the one who made her sin public. The Fox and Friends trio were amused by the situation and commented that instead of just the church, now the whole world knows.

[lone gone]

Here is an excerpt.

Hancock, who is divorced, said the problems began in March, when she started telling her church mentor about her relationship — in what she thought were confidential conversations.

“As it progressed I told her about it and she said, 'You’ve got to get out, you’re biblically wrong,'” Hancock said.

Despite knowing her relationship was against church rules, Hancock said she never realized that disclosing it would trigger the first in a three-step process used by the church to deal with sinners: private admonishment, admonishment in the presence of witnesses and finally public admonishment.

Still, she said she tried to follow her mentor’s advice and break up with Young, who wasn't a member of the church.

“I must have gone through 10 breakups trying to end it, but after not having the power to do it I would go back,” she said. “It was hard to give up somebody I love.”

Hancock learned that her private sessions with her mentor hadn’t been so private after all, when in October her mentor pulled her aside in church and asked her come into another room.

“In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’"

It was then that Hancock said she decided to leave Grace Community Church.

“I told them, ‘I cannot believe you people are doing this. I’m not going any further — I’m never coming here again,’” she recalled.

Her boyfriend said the church wouldn’t let it end there.

“The pastor kept calling her, and I informed him that she [Hancock] would appreciate it if neither he nor any member of his church contacted her ever again,” Young told FOXNews.com.

Almost two months later, Hancock received the letter from the elders of Grace Community Church, explaining that she had left them no choice but to continue the disciplinary process.

“Your refusal to repent and be restored in your relationship with God and His Church leaves us with no alternative than to carry out the third step of the discipline process,” the letter explained. “In accordance with Matthew 18:17, we intend to ‘tell it to the church.’”

Darrell L. Bock, a research professor for the Dallas Theological Seminary, said that public admonishment is not uncommon in churches that focus on discipline but added, "Most churches would handle this much more privately than this particular community is choosing to do."

This kind of process normally would happen after "much more private interaction" with the person, Block said, and is normally reserved for church leaders as opposed to "a normal member of the church."

More importantly, he said, the actions are unusual given that Hancock had severed her relationship with the church.

This is not normal.... Non-leaders handling discipline,  the believer broke up with the man 10 times while trying to deal with it. The man wasn't a member.... and there is no record of them counseling her to marry the man to make it right. The woman left the church. yet they persist in pursuing the matter. Finally after the woman is no longer in fellowship and not claiming to be in fellowship, they try to force repentance with a threat of exposure in a public service... where non-believers and non-members could be in attendance and who have no business being involved.

This is a poor imitation of Matt 18.

[theresearchpersona]

This is not normal.... Non-leaders handling discipline,  the believer broke up with the man 10 times while trying to deal with it. The man wasn't a member.... and there is no record of them counseling her to marry the man to make it right. The woman left the church. yet they persist in pursuing the matter. Finally after the woman is no longer in fellowship and not claiming to be in fellowship, they try to force repentance with a threat of exposure in a public service... where non-believers and non-members could be in attendance and who have no business being involved.

This is a poor imitation of Matt 18.

Where in Matthew 18 does it invoke "leaders"? It says that anyone who knows about someone in sin is to go to that person privately, then with witnesses, then to the whole Church; never does it say anything explicitly about "pastors", does it? If that were the case you'd get the cronyism of GC and leadership would be able to trample upon and throw-out all that it sees as a threat, even when biblically it is supposed to be exposed. Furthermore, where did the pastors not handle this? It says her pastor kept calling; it looks like even despite her insistence against repenting they not only just removed her from fellowship, but also diligently pursued her to repent and return.

American "churches" often either have no or unbiblical soft "discipline", or they have abuse by men hiding/protecting something. From the information we have this appears like one of the most biblical examples of following Matthew 18 I've ever heard of; and even despite her unwillingness, it's not unbiblical for them to keep contacting her: it would be if they were wrong, but otherwise it's quite mature to plead for her to actually repent.

And no, telling her to marry the man to make it right...is not biblical. Saying she ought would also be foolish:

1. Does the man even claim to be a Christian.
2. Does he show that he is (in this situation both he and she demonstrate otherwise, though apparently true repentance would leave us to assume they are).
3. Related to that, why isn't he, then, going to Church with her?
4. If he is going to Church, where, and what do they teach?
5. What's the relationship actually about? If they went about things the wrong way, why not repent and follow through with being holy and proper with one another till actually getting married?

Suggesting that just getting married "to make it right" can, but from what I've seen rarely does, "work out" (whether or not those people stay married): and personally I'd be more afraid for them that they not actually ever remorse over the sin and repent because they think by getting married they've "made it right" when no such thing can be done. Sin is sin. Getting married, however, when we take the above into consideration, would be great; in fact, the NT itself urges anyone who burns with passion to marry.

But saying "This is a poor imitation of Matthew 18" is just untrue; bravo to that Church for this: I'm glad the public has just been privileged to see biblical discipline: it appears to me they acted only in her best interest with love: sad for that girl to lose that.

[Linda]

Matthew 18 says:

“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.  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. 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.

The article you quoted was difficult for me to understand. First of all, who was this "mentor" person. A church friend she looked to for advice or an assigned "mentor".

It seems to me that if Matthew 18 was going to apply anywhere, this would be the time and it sounds like the leaders were actually trying to do it right. Think about it, if you became aware of unrepentant sin on the part of a Christian who was in your church, how could you go to step 2 if you didn't tell someone?

She is the one who has made her sin known to the entire world. Not the leaders, they were just trying to deal with it as a church.

The weird part is that she says she left and they are still pursuing her. I guess the question I have is did she withdraw her membership or did she just stop attending. I suppose if she did the latter, they might have a reason to call her to let her know they were going to be removing her from the membership roll in an attempt to let her state her case before the congregation.

I would want more information on this one before I drew any conclusions.

To bring this back to GC, if you read the excommunication transcripts, you will find they call "sin" things that are not sin (like correcting bad doctrine or pointing out false teaching). They wouldn't even let Bill Taylor speak in his own defense in front of the leaders, much less the congregation.

It looks to me like a big difference between this church and GC is that GC considers the leadership to be "the church", while the Florida church at least allows the congregation to have a voice. The tacit assumption in GC is that all the gifts needed to making wise decisions are held by the elders alone.

[Linda]

I just googled and found the article online. There is a pdf of the pastor's letter. I really don't have a problem with it.

The article states:

Hancock sent a formal letter of resignation after receiving the elders' ultimatum in hopes of solving the dispute. She said she fears for her 20-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter if the church carries out its threat.

Apparently, she was still a member of the church when the decision was made to have the congregational meeting and she was boldly continuing in sin. If there ever was a case for removal from a church, this would be it. She apparently feared that it would be humiliating for a public announcement of her sin to be made in front of her kids (who still attend). If concern over her children was her prime goal, I would think she would start by ending her immoral lifestyle and by God's grace, setting a better example at home.

My point is that the excommunications at GC were not for unrepentant sin. Also, as I mentioned yesterday, we were told that immorality on the part of GC elders had surely occurred and been covered up. (I have no idea who or what.)

[theresearchpersona]

So as to be fair if what was meant above about handling this more privately was "they didn't need to announce this to the whole world", that I agree with; but also remember that, just as Linda just reminded me, she exposed herself, not the other way around.

As for formalities (membership, etc.); we're not bound just by mere formalities like a statement on paper of intent to be a member of a congregation; I would hope, for instance, if I were to err, that the congregation I was in would disfellowship me, and yet when they saw or contacted me, to do so telling me to repent; I don't think a pastor or congregation is necessarily absolved from such efforts just because someone tries to escape that discipline by withdrawing membership; it's no wonder that Churches used to request papers from one's previous Church to make sure one was in good standing (with the qualifications, of course, that if the reasons one was not were unbiblical, or trumped/vague, then they might even go so far as to question the "validity" of that previous church); after all, the Church is known by its member's love for one another...which is not just mere affection or emotions or etc., but where people will lay their lives down, and strive after truth, and the benefit of the others, etc.. "Truth" is even a primary point and quality even in love that's good, I believe.

In the NT we see people being commended to one Church or another, saying "accept so and so when he arrives" or whatever.

Anyway, it wouldn't be incorrect for them, now, to treat her as a gentile or tax collector (which we know, of course, isn't attacking/etc., but just not associating with).

[wastedyearsthere]

My question is does Matthew 18 (ex-communication) apply just to church members?  or to attenders?  I remember ex-communicating a friend of mine who was a young believer (definitely not a member) who was sleeping with her boyfriend.

Also, I remember a woman being ex-communicated for depression (she had post partum depression)

I think I heard on this site they no longer ex-communicate but ask people to leave??  What if they refuse?

Maybe we should have a ex-communications category?

[Linda]

My question is does Matthew 18 (ex-communication) apply just to church members?  or to attenders?  I remember ex-communicating a friend of mine who was a young believer (definitely not a member) who was sleeping with her boyfriend.

Also, I remember a woman being ex-communicated for depression (she had post partum depression)

I think I heard on this site they no longer ex-communicate but ask people to leave??  What if they refuse?

Maybe we should have a ex-communications category?

You know, that is an interesting question. I'd never thought of. "Church" today is so seeker friendly that pastors don't explain a lot and anyone can come. However, there are "rules" if you want to join a group.

For example, when I attend a service at a RC church (usually funerals or weddings), I do not take communion. So, in a sense, I am "ex-communitated". This doesn't bother me because I know the rules of the RC church. I don't think they are looking down at me or condemning me, I merely want to be a gracious guest.

It would seem to me that the pastors should not allow this woman to teach or take communion, or participate in a congregational vote (hmmmm, I guess in GC everyone is excommunicated in this area!), but if she shows up and isn't disruptive, I don't see the harm.

I like your idea of a forum for those ex-communicated by GC. I wonder what happened to those people and pray they are doing well. The stories in M2Z still haunt me.

[EverAStudent]

Once a person leaves on their own (due to the threat of impending discipline--excommunication) should the process of Mattew 18 be completed?  As much as it pains me to say these words (for I usually hate what the concept so often stands for), "it depends on the situation."  

The goal of the discipline is to achieve the sinner's repentance and return to fellowship with God and man (and to a lesser degree to protect the church from harmful influences).  For a longtime member of the church, I would see, in general, that completing Matthew 18 may reinforce for that person how dreadful sin is.  For a casual attendee, who may not even be saved, completing such a process may be closer to what Paul warned about, not to judge those "outside the church" with Matthew 18 discipline.  

Other thoughts?

[theresearchpersona]

My question is does Matthew 18 (ex-communication) apply just to church members?  or to attenders?  I remember ex-communicating a friend of mine who was a young believer (definitely not a member) who was sleeping with her boyfriend.

Also, I remember a woman being ex-communicated for depression (she had post partum depression)

I think I heard on this site they no longer ex-communicate but ask people to leave??  What if they refuse?

Maybe we should have a ex-communications category?

The Biblical thing is a disfellowshipping; whether or not the Christian is an papered "member", they ARE members, nonetheless, if they are Christians; an attender who is a Christian really is a member, whether or not people want to accept that; I think this thinking of making distinctions and several categories is a way for people to maintain comfort and avoid responsibilities, though in a real sense also for pastors to know who/not to focus on: but if they're merely visiting, that's one thing: if they're attending, pastor and nonpastor alike have responsibilities to that brother or sister, whether or not they want to.

I can't imagine the apostles making such distinctions as we do these days!

The reason for disfellowshipping is (1) to restore someone in sin, and (2) to preserve the purity of worship; propriety in worship is important, biblically, as we see in such passages as that not doing this/that can even offend the angels.

Merely denying someone communion doesn't cut it, it really isn't disfellowshipping; that's a left-over from Catholicism (though still very current in Catholicism) where to be denied eucharist means that you can't be cleansed of sin by the transubstantiated blood and therefore, if you don't quickly get proper eucharistic communion, you'll be damned if you die. Merely denying communion is just a more pleasant way of dealing with somebody, and one I'm sure that not a few people these days would be fine with (sadly) so long as they can continue hanging-out with everyone; that's sad because we should take communion seriously, it's one of our Savior's ordinances: he commanded we do it, and it's for His memory, and it exhibits/proclaims His death.

[Linda]

The Biblical thing is a disfellowshipping; whether or not the Christian is an papered "member", they ARE members, nonetheless, if they are Christians; an attender who is a Christian really is a member, whether or not people want to accept that;

I understand what you are saying, however "church" today can mean so many things. I agree, that we are all part of the "CHURCH" and in a sense accountable to all believers, however, the idea that leaders (especially "self-proclaimed/perpetuated" leaders) would go around and excommunicate people who had withdrawn their "paper" membership is disturbing. If someone chooses to leave, it seems that the right thing to do is warn them and then turn them over to the Holy Spirit, not try to BE the Holy Spirit by constantly confronting them.

What I meant about the communion part was that different denominations and associations have different "rules". I should not go to a church and expect them to change for me. However, if I am going to join a church, it seems like the right thing for the church to do is explain their rules, policies, beliefs, and history so that I may make a fully informed commitment if I choose to join. When I joined my local GC church, there was A LOT I didn't know that would have affected my decision to join and/or attend had I known.

That said, when three different elders communicated to us that we were slanderous and divisive OVER A YEAR AFTER WE HAD LEFT, it obviously bothered me then and still does now. No one wants to be called slanderous and divisive, however, their actions confirmed to us our decision to leave and later blog was the right one.

I look forward one day to restored relationships with those who are shunning us and while I disagree wholeheartedly with some of their teachings, I wish them all well and am not myself shunning them.

[EverAStudent]

That said, when three different elders communicated to us that we were slanderous and divisive OVER A YEAR AFTER WE HAD LEFT, it obviously bothered me then and still does now.

It is my opinion that pastors (elders) in one local church have not been given the authority by God to initiate "church" discipline against an attendee at an entirely different local church.  The fellowship there has already been ended, so, what could be "restored" by officially ousting someone who is already gone?  Are you not already "out of fellowship" in a meaningful way?

Imagine the pastors of the church in Corinth writing to James in Jerusalem and saying, "Tychus left our church a year ago and moved to Jerusalem.  We have decided that a year ago he was out of line to speak badly to one of our regular members, and we just cannot seem to get over it, so we have decided to ex-communicate him in-absentia, so please consider him ex-communicated--hope you do not mind."  Such an event would speak more of the attitude of the Corinthian pastors than that of Tychus.

[exshep]

This is interesting.  There was  a Grace Community Church in Jacksonville at one point.  I remember that because I was  a member of Grace Community  Church in Plano TX My father in law lives in Jacksonville. I was planning to visit the GC version.   Obvious the GC group had to change its name.  It won't buy me  a cup of coffee, but it is rather curious