Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
December 02, 2021, 11:23:08 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: GCM pastor in the news.  (Read 40000 times)
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« on: August 01, 2007, 06:28:52 pm »

A GCM pastor, Tim Rude of Walnut Creek Community Church in Des Moines,  has been on the CNN news site based on anti-Catholic statements he made in regards to the upcoming straw poll.  The following statements seem to be telling us that Walnut Creek leaders may be trying to get people to vote for Huckabee, as a pastor.  

Statement 1:  "XXXX church is trying to gain 1000 votes of people who were not planning on going to the Iowa Straw Poll from our efforts alone.  Would you join us in accomplishing this goal?"

Statement 2:  "And I am sure that you are aware that our entire Walnut Creek leadership staff, to my knowledge, is supporting Mike Huckabee.
On July 20, we drove up to Ames and spoke with pastors XXX and XXX about our position and were well received. However, it sounds like you are the men we need to communicate with about our advocacy."

The main issue at hand however are the anti Catholic statement he made about being a "recovering Catholic" and questioning the judgment of Catholics.

Remember though, that he did apologize.  I am sure he never intended for his email to go public.

Here's a few links for the scandal.


This link includes the original email:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/catholic_v_protestant_in_iowa_1.php

Here's a blog on ABC news that refers to it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/07/anti-catholic-b.html

Here's another blog that refers to it:
http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/08/brownback-campa.html

Here's the CNN article:

August 1, 2007
Rude e-mail causes battle in Iowa

Brownback demanded an apology from former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee Wednesday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback demanded an apology from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Wednesday for an e-mail sent to religious leaders in Iowa as part of what Brownback called an “effort to demoralize his supporters.”

Rev. Tim Rude, a volunteer for Huckabee’s campaign, sent an e-mail to evangelicals in Iowa, trying to persuade them to choose Huckabee over Brownback. Rude, a self-proclaimed “recovering Catholic,” criticized Brownback for converting to Catholicism and said that’s all he needs to “know about his discernment” to choose Huckabee over him.

Huckabee said he had nothing to do with Rude’s letter. “We are glad that Rev. Rude issued an apology and clarification for his comments. They were not authorized by, disseminated by, approved by, or condoned by the campaign,” Huckabee said in a statement.

But Brownback’s campaign still slammed Huckabee for not directly apologizing for the letter.

“Why is Governor Huckabee hesitating to denounce the anti-Catholic comments from his supporter, Pastor Tim Rude? It is hard to imagine that Governor Huckabee thinks Pastor Tim Rude’s prejudiced tactics are acceptable,” Brownback spokesman John Rankin said.

Brownback and Huckabee are two of the candidates planning to participate in Iowa’s straw poll in less than two weeks.

–CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich
Logged

Glad to be free.
randomous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86



« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2007, 09:57:22 pm »

I don't really have a comment regarding the article and news.  However, as I read, I noticed the first comment at the bottom by "agatha", which reads "I can say, however, that he is a member of an association of churches that has made the list of several cult watch groups. Here is a link about Tim
Rude's association of churches."
I am the only one who thinks that's a bit immature?  And misleading?  By several I presume you mean 3 over the past 30 years, none of which currently list them at all and haven't for probably close to 20 years.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2007, 01:56:06 am »

I would have to say that my comment on the blog was probably immature , but not misleading-- at least not intentionally.   Smiley  GCM is still being "watched."  And honestly, I would never want to be a member of a church that had ever been seriously labelled a cult, so it wouldn't matter to me if this occured, 5, 50 or 100 years ago.  As we've all quibbled about before, GCM is probably not a cult today, however it is still authoritarian and harmful.  I am still getting over my membership in this organization even to this day.

This pastor's reference to Catholics having questionable judgment by nature of being Catholics is exactly the kind of elitist attitude that some GCM pastors display.  And it's one of the behaviors mentioned in the infamous apology.  There have been times when GCM pastors called Catholicism a satanic cult.  That is really inappropriate and wrong.  

I think it's interesting that a pastor is getting called out on it in the public eye.  I think people might be interested in knowing that this isn't the first time this group has been under scrutiny.

That said, Randomous, I do feel kind of bad for putting that in there now, plus the comment feature on that blog didn't allow me to link to GCM Warning, which might have clarified that I don't think the group is a cult.  Of course who in the world would know what a TACO is?
Logged

Glad to be free.
MamaD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2007, 04:18:43 am »

Quote
By several I presume you mean 3 over the past 30 years, none of which currently list them at all and haven't for probably close to 20 years.


Rick Ross (who now has a link to gcmwarning posted on his web site), Cultic Studies Journal, and I think Steve Alan Hassan (couldn't get the page to load) currently mention Great Commission by name. I don't know what you are referring to in your comment about how it is not currently listed on these sites. And the referencing of this very blog on Rick Ross indicates to me that it is a current issue.

Please understand, I'm not saying GCM is a cult, but am saying it is sobering to see it mentioned on these sites. If I were in leadership, I would want to go out of my way to show that things had changed.
Logged
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2007, 12:00:34 pm »

Randomous-

So it's OK to break the law, mislead your congregation, and bash Catholics (all of which Tim did or suggested doing), but not OK to point out that Tim pastors in a church of questionable repute? Call it immature, but I'm sure most people reading the article had no idea that Rev. Rude is part of an organization which makes most Evangelicals look like Catholics.  I'm happy Agatha pointed out this piece of information.

By the way, does anyone know (or can guess) who Tim was writing this letter to? This whole thing sounds intra-GCM, complete with a powwow in Ames. I wonder how this letter was leaked to the public.
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2007, 12:22:11 pm »

Rev. Rude's apology is pretty ridiculous. He clearly is only sorry because the email was leaked. And what's with protestants should vote for protestants? Is  it really 1517?  Are we really voting for a president simply to advancing some quack, theocratic agenda? What about real issues like Health Care and the War? How would a Catholic's stance be any different than a Protestant?

I'm not at all surprised that Rev. Rude would make such a statement. I've experienced similar of elitism and political mongering from other member of GCM. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
nateswinton
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 264



« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2007, 03:52:06 pm »

"This whole thing sounds intra-GCM, complete with a powwow in Ames."

Not sure what you're basing the Ames connection off of, Gene (though I don't totally blame you for making the logical jump).  We've got a lot of Brownback fans around here.  I'm voting Mormon, personally Smiley (seriously)  Any concrete reason to bring Ames into this?
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2007, 03:59:19 pm »

Hi Nate, Nice to hear from you...

Now about the Ames connnection.  Here's the part in Tim's email that Gene was talking about.

"And I am sure that you are aware that our entire Walnut Creek leadership staff, to my knowledge, is supporting Mike Huckabee.

On July 20, we drove up to Ames and spoke with pastors XXX and XXX about our position and were well received. However, it sounds like you are the men we need to communicate with about our advocacy.nice to hear from you."
Logged

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

Posts: 264



« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2007, 04:30:04 pm »

Shoot, now I'm embarrassed Smiley  I read everything BUT the original email.  It didn't load last night when I was catching up on all this stuff.  Ha ha, well I guess the Ames GCM vote is gonna be split three ways!
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2007, 05:20:23 pm »

I suppose that it is entirely possible that the pastors he was referring to in Ames weren't gcm pastors after all.  Anyway.  It's interesting.
Logged

Glad to be free.
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2007, 06:17:12 am »

Quote from: "randomous"
I don't really have a comment regarding the article and news.  However, as I read, I noticed the first comment at the bottom by "agatha", which reads "I can say, however, that he is a member of an association of churches that has made the list of several cult watch groups. Here is a link about Tim
Rude's association of churches."
I am the only one who thinks that's a bit immature?  And misleading?  By several I presume you mean 3 over the past 30 years, none of which currently list them at all and haven't for probably close to 20 years.


The people who are going to be offended by that blog comment are the same people who are offended when people mention GC's past rather than pretend it didn't happen. Those same types of people want to pretend it never happened and has no relevance to the modern movement, even though many of us here have experienced firsthand the same problems that got them into trouble in the past. In my opinion, that method of dealing with the past is just going to result in future problems. If GC is still afraid of its past they haven't fully reformed. If they had, they wouldn't be so scared of discussing it.

As far as the Catholic bashing, what else is new? The mentality of my GC church was always us vs. them, as seen in marketing campaigns designed to remind you how much GC "isn't your parent's church."
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2007, 02:31:03 pm »

A dear Christian friend who lives on the west coast visits MN twice each year to see family and friends. When she was in town it was often my pleasure to take her to visit her uncle, Father Albert at the Little Brothers of the Poor in St. Paul.

He was an interesting and delightful Christian man. We visited there just prior to his death and he was too ill for many visitors, so I sat in the lobby while my friend visited her beloved uncle.

As I sat, I noted a Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics sitting on the table next to me. I read it and thought it was excellent. I think Pastor Rude would probably agree if he thought it through a little more.

Here's the link to the guide:
www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf

I thought the "How Not to Vote" section on page 10 was especially good.

One other thing. Our last three children were born at a Catholic hospital. It was our choice. Why, you ask? Because, being self employeed, and having to pay cash for our babies (we were only covered for complications), we didn't want our money to go to a medical facility that profited off of abortions. We chose the only one in town that didn't offer them.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
randomous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86



« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2007, 08:33:12 am »

Puff - the issue is not one of hiding the past, but rather of making sure that we're not confusing the past with the present.  Nobody actually considers GC a cult right now (as far as watch groups go), and the ones who "list" info on it have nothing in the past twenty years really, all GCI-era stuff.  
As for G Prince's comments, I've no idea what you mean when you say GC "makes evangelicals look like Catholics".  But as far as the divide between envagelical and catholic, GC's definitely not alone in disagreeing with Catholicism.  If any of you are going to bash GC for being "anti-Catholic", you're going to have to bash the majority of the rest of the evangelical groups in our country.  There's a distinct difference in teaching.  It's not a matter of elitism; a lot of evangelicals feel that there is a lot of heresy even regarding the gospel present there.  It's a major stretch to relate expressing that to the elitism in the paper.  
BTW Agatha, I appreciate your apology.
Logged
einmal
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2007, 01:32:18 pm »

Randomous - The point of contention has nothing to do with the differences that exist in the teachings of Evangelical or Catholic teachings.  In fact, if one wants to be intellectually honest, one could easily purport that evangelicals wind up playing the heresy card when it comes to the differences in Evangelical denominations (i.e. GCM vs. American Baptist).

It *is* a matter of elitism and arrogance in Christian context when one flagrantly dismisses a candidate based on their identity as a Catholic. While I don't agree with Catholic doctrine, I can tell you that Catholic men and women have done a lot for the sake of Christ in this world and continue to do so.  Conversely I know a lot of self identified Evangelicals producing little or no fruit.

Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit," not by the label they choose to identify how they're "working out their faith."  

That's the difference.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2007, 04:16:00 pm »

Quote
the ones who "list" info on it have nothing in the past twenty years


I beg to differ.

Why do you keep saying this?

Rick Ross gives a link to GCMwarning on his site. That's pretty current.

Two books (Churches that Abuse and Cult-proofing Your Kids) published by Zondervan came out after the name change and apology and mention Great Commission by name.

So, cult or no cult, taco or no taco, there is stuff in recent years.

Honestly, if I were a leader, I would be working hard to distance myself from the past error and work with those who are trying to point it out.

Sadly, it has apparently never occurred to the leadership that God in his mercy and patience might, just might, be using a lot of Christians (both current members and former members), in a lot of states, to try to correct some error.

Instead, it seems like the messengers are being attacked, criticized, shunned,  and slandered and the wagons are being circled to protect the old ways.

Reading that Jim McCotter spoke at a church in Arizona within the last two years seems to indicate that there is a return to the old ways with no distancing from the past error.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2007, 09:33:47 pm »

Quote
Puff - the issue is not one of hiding the past, but rather of making sure that we're not confusing the past with the present. Nobody actually considers GC a cult right now (as far as watch groups go)

Actually, most of the groups that used to label the movement a cult (the biggest being the Cult Awareness Network, which was huge back in its day) were sued out of business or overrun by Scientology in the 90's. Of course, the GC Spin Machine turns the bankruptcy of the CAN (and other cult watch dog groups that used to criticize GC) into "GC hasn't been on those watch lists in over a decade!", implying that GC was taken off for good behavior rather than 'removed by default' when the groups were bankrupted. I doubt that if the CAN were around today (and not run by Scientologists) they'd be any more impressed with GC's "reforms" than most of us are.

Responding, the GC Spin Machine would say, "Well, none of the current watchdog groups are actively criticizing GC" implying that something took the place of the CAN, but there really isn't a nationwide cult watchdog movement around anymore that can even be compared to what CAN was, and what the anti-cult movement of the 70's and 80's produced. Cults are very rarely reported on in the news nowadays, at least compared to when the CAN was around. A lot of it could be fear of being sued like the CAN was, but whatever the reason nothing has really taken its place, other than perhaps the Internet.

All I know is that I've seen plenty of past articles and papers where watchdog groups are labeling the movement a cult, but I've yet to see anything where experts are praising the movement's reforms or actually /removing/ GC from any cult list. Listening to GC defenders, though, you'd think that GC's 1991 error statement was the be all to end all, that every cult watchdog group in the country just crossed GCM/GCAC off their lists after witnessing GC's amazing reforms, and that all of GC's critics are now either satisified with the past reforms or divisive kooks. Fact is, GC was still on the CAN cult list 3 years after the error statement, in 1994 when the CAN was bankrupted, and it would probably be on it today if they hadn't been. I've talked to enough former members, pastors, etc. of the modern movement to know that there are many serious problems still in the movement that need to be addressed. Of course as long as current members try to ignore this they will never solve any of their issues and will only continue to see themselves as being persecuted, victims, etc.
Logged
namaste
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201



« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2007, 09:43:09 am »

Geez, THAT was the guy who's been in the news for that obnoxious e-mail regarding the Iowa Straw Poll?!

Forget apologies, that is nothing short of an all out embarassment to the organization.  Maybe they should send out a memo to pastors and explain that the organization really doesn't need another black eye.  

What's more, as someone who is involved with politics, I know how consuming (in time alone) such pursuits can be.  How does this guy find time to shepherd his flock while he does the political bidding of some hack who thinks he has a shot at being the leader of the "free" world?

On a personal note, after our GC-nightmare, we joined a Catholic Church.  As such, I find the remarks in question to be deeply offensive coming from a GC pastor.
Logged

Om, shanti.
The Clone
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2007, 11:27:51 pm »

i'd like to point out, though, that an organization (especially in this case, where the org. is a group of churches) is a collection of people trying to accomplish a common goal.
Logged
namaste
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201



« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2007, 06:39:35 am »

Quote from: "The Clone"
i'd like to point out, though, that an organization (especially in this case, where the org. is a group of churches) is a collection of people trying to accomplish a common goal.


Now THAT'S the best laugh I've gotten in a loooooong time.
Logged

Om, shanti.
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2007, 03:57:08 am »

Quote from: "AgathaL'Orange"
There have been times when GCM pastors called Catholicism a satanic cult.  That is really inappropriate and wrong.


Actually it's not...Catholicism denies the sufficiency of Christ, puts all salvation as subject to the pope...even the title "vicar of Christ" literally means "in place of Christ" which is the Greek "antichrist" ("anti" in Greek means "in place of" and "against", it's the latin that means "against"). If you've ever read the catechism or examined its history...or been in it (my family background is Irish Roman Catholic) or known others that escaped the legalism and false doctrines of Catholicism you'd know otherwise: the Bible does tell us that a good servant calls-out false teachings and teachers, not play-nice.

Nothing with the intention of replacing Christ is anything but Satanic.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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