Temporary setback or permanant damage

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.

[theresearchpersona]

All by getting abused (no, not burned GC: you did not burn me...I turned against the falsities and wicked deceits that pass as good but rob the sheep: and that's why I, and others, must work against you).

To be clear for Mr. Sam I am speaking of the poor teachings and actions; not only in general practice in GC, but the actions taken by their leadership to silence and abuse people: both in practice and in response to criticism: I've also seen them tell a lot of lies, firsthand, as well, and I've wondered how they justify it--perhaps in the name of defending the sheep, or their ideas as good for the sheep: but I've not questioned their motives...yet their actions have been deceitful, as we've all here seen firsthand in such actions as GCM trying to conceal its associations just recently and its new member from Acts29 not responding; or in GC hiding its history in the past and as it continues to; or in the outright lies told across GC when this site appeared--and the shady deeds of the "pastor" who showed-up and couldn't give an answer to those here who gave simple facts, and so who left accusing those here while acting as if he were without sin.

The falsities and wicked deceits presented by GC as God's will and good for the sheep, though, rob them: and that I'm against: and so against those who've pawned them upon them, and you know that scripture makes no distinction between a man and his message? Whether it be God or man, we're told we identify one by the other. What I hope for is repentance, and turning to the true Gospel and Christ in Trust--and that's something worth contending for, for those currently leading them astray, and those so deceived. It is because the Jesus of the Word, and not that of men's ideas, is so inestimably greater, His commands more dear, His worship far superior, than any counterfeit, any substitute, any purpose or vision that men pretends to be the Lord's!

[DrSam]

Gentlemen,

Have it as you want to.

I see plenty of contradictions in your statements and references to scripture that to me clearly do not apply... but I give you grace. I hope you give grace back to me.

The forum claims to be a "safe" place but does that mean it is OK to trash people and make dogmatic statements judging the motives of those who hurt? No one judges the motives of the likes of those who have written about GC and are motivated to get "heads on a platter" (and not denied by) such as the Zion brother.

Is it possible to be neutral due to a healing process? I think so. I was accused of being a "prostitute" for GC and then some founders of this forum jumped on the person saying such. I think that when healing takes place you move to see both sides because until healing takes place one is typically blinded by the pain and wounds received. Healing transcends all that. It seems that your gentlemen have difficulty understanding that so you find it "strangely odd" that I don't condemn as you do.

I hope your guys can move forward with your lives realizing that none of us are 100% scriptural and the amount of error is sufficient to have us all condemned and judged... but God sees our heart. He trains us but can transcend our blinded spots. I recommend looking up the "Johari Window" at http://www.psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/07/08/the-johari-window/

I also recommend that in our "zeal for the word" we don't become arrogant learners who use the word for our ego pleasure and beat up people with it. GC has been guilty of this due to youthfulness, I have been guilty of slicing people up when I was in Bible College and Seminary, especially with three years of Greek Exegesis and one of Biblical Hebrew, along with sitting under five translators of the NIV. God had to take my arrogance of "having superior knowledge" and abase it showing me that I knew nothing without love and humility. I trust your gentlemen do not fall into this. This is an error typical of spiritual youthfulness. It is a form of spiritual ego grandiosity. It quenches the Spirit and hurt those around us.

I wish you the best in your spiritual journey.

Your servant,

MR. Samuel Lopez De Victoria

[Angry]

DrSam, EAS, TRP, Linda -

The healing forum is described as a "no debate" area within the De-Commissioned forums.  Let's please take a step back from slamming each other over symantics.  Let's attempt to move forward with suggestions as to how we can help each other grow and heal.

The things GC* has elected to spread can be viewed as fertilizer by some, sh1t by others.  GC* insiders will claim it will grow flowers, people burned by GC* will say it grows weeds and smells yucky.

Regardless, let's all take off our dirty boots and walk barefoot with the Lord through the beautiful green pastures he has laid before us.

Life is too short.

[Linda]

Angry,

I use the RSS feed to get new comments and it takes me directly to the comment, not the top of the page where the forum name is written. I did not realize that I was commenting on the healing forum.

Linda

[theresearchpersona]

I didn't realize this particular thread was THF, either: using too many tabs: did know about the "Anyone from the early seventies" one, though; however I don't know how combative or debative it really is here: EAS was correcting Sam's mis-taking, and Linda backed him: I wanted to clarify for Sam since I thought his accusation merited a response, not for substance, but for Sam himself's sake. AS for "slamming", I don't think they were doing that, although I think Sam was going off on some weird assumptions and tangents: as for my original comment about them not burning me, I said that because some in GC have portrayed those that left as doing so over bitterness for that vague "getting burned" in order to obscure the actual facts and protests involved and what those people brought-up that was/is truly evil, wrong, bad, (i.e. unscriptural); by portraying things like that they make it out to seem, somewhat ridiculously, that people had expected of leadership to be absolutely perfect and by that impossible standard were failed and hurt deeply, whereas in truth the things that were done were "nonoptional non-negotiables" which many who left only mentioned for being, according to the Word, wrong: and even against God's will as found in the Word.

That why I wanted to let GC* know that no, "you haven't burned me": I'm not a product of reacting to some misdeed of theirs, but willful defiance[1] of what is truly evil, and robs the sheep: in obedience to the Lord's leading.

[1] And not in a rebellious spirit, but in one of obedience to God and not men, and wanting the sheep to be freed of GC's heavy yoke.

Grace.

[EverAStudent]

One of the very first things I was required to learn by the church I attended immediately after leaving GCI was the Four Rules of Communication.  What an awesome set of communication principles by which to live (assuming one can do so perfectly...)!!!!

I took the liberty to rework them a bit, but they remain essentially the four rules:  http://thefaithfulword.org/fourguidelines.html

A lack in both the original four rules and the reworked version is that there is no prohibition on assuming you know another's heart, motives, or secret thoughts.  With time, I hope to update them yet again.  Even in one of my studies on anger/insults I only touch on it very briefly (I will link to it here in case anyone may find it of use: http://thefaithfulword.org/fearpunishment.html )

Of course, I wish I could live up fully to the principles that I embrace...sigh...still learning and growing, I am afraid.

[theresearchpersona]

It really can be hard to be consistent even with one's own principles! Lately I'm learning over and over how much I've learned and forgotten, even learned where I once had it all "down pat" and applied...I'm glad I forgot, though...got humbled in the meantime!

And how about a re-ordering:

1. Think before talking.
2. Speak only truth.
3. Keep Current.
4. Edify others.
[5. Remember, you know not another’s motives (unless they express them).]

And a comment, while prohibiting statements like 'you're always' is a good idea literally, remember that statements like that are for effect, and have connotations...so I don't know that I'd advise people no to use them: they're consistent with their meaning when someone is pretty consistent about something; Jesus, after all, used hyperbole (a mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds: note the NIV "helps" here by removing that detail, which might be handy info since I know lots of GCers read that one, and so do lots of Christians, (have it!)).

In principle it's a good idea, though, especially if someone is very prone towards but not necessarily consistent in something. Thanks a bunch. : )

[EverAStudent]

And a comment, while prohibiting statements like 'you're always' is a good idea literally, remember that statements like that are for effect, and have connotations...so I don't know that I'd advise people no to use them: they're consistent with their meaning when someone is pretty consistent about something; Jesus, after all, used hyperbole (a mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds: note the NIV "helps" here by removing that detail, which might be handy info since I know lots of GCers read that one, and so do lots of Christians, (have it!)).

Actually, that is a good observation.  Scripture writers used language much as we do, using words like "all" and "everyone" to mean "many" (e.g. we say, "everyone showed up at the rally" or "the whole town was there" when we just mean a great many came).  

Perhaps in the next update I should change the wording to "never use 100% words when leveling an accusation or being critical."  What do you think?

[theresearchpersona]

I don't know...I think it depends on how well you know the person: since there were the talks with Swampy about her critical husband it brought to mind someone saying to their spouse "why are you always critical of me", and that wouldn't mean that person were always so.

I think good advise would be something like "100% words aren't advisable it likely to be misconstrued", or perhaps in cases like GC where they might purposefully take such things literally to say something like "see, they're critical of us no matter what", or some other twist, then again it's best not to give anyone fodder to misconstrue and warp.

Also, though, because of sensitivities, if someone is hurt they're more prone to not take your words well: especially if hurting--i.e. those words can bring-out a reaction; very basically put, it depends on the relationship, state of the communicators (we hope they're communicating), situation, how sensitive the issue is for each person.

I think something of importance is having good examples of communication: GC in many cases might depict that as a succinct, efficient, get-'er-done motivator (business) who never stirs-up anything that might touch GC. You can make 'em uncomfortable if you're trying to get them to do something...but no, don't preach anything that might unsettle someone who’s assured falsely; don’t test ‘em.; be nothing but “affirming”, keep the comfort (repeat, unless  you need people to do something). The "comfort" is so unbelievers will feel welcome and invited, by the way: even if it means squashing contention for the faith when you figure-out someone came out of a horrid background with poor teaching and might not even have the gospel at all. (fuming)

The best examples of communicators I know do nothing like this—if someone is upset, they’ll perceive it and ask “why”. Simple. If someone brings an uncomfortable subject up, they don’t bury it, they actually dialogue, and then prove it. I’m talking from observing older married couples, but what’s interesting is that that dynamic is partly just normal for relationships in general, but then Christians have the extra part of proving things with scripture. You bring something up in GC, especially uncomfortable, or if it might expose laxity of the pastors as protectors (like all their recommended “biographies” of which many were suspect “Christians” full of shady claims) and it was just “HUSH”, or "enough".

That’s enough for examples. The first and primary thing to communication…you have to love truth, and esteem no one but God: else it’s useless.

[MidnightRider]

 I have said it here before, but sincerity is the most overrated of the virtues.

Midnight,

Explain yourself. Is you comment directed to me or are you saying that my statement is wrong? I would appreciate that you clarify the meaning of what you said.

Sam,

I am willing to go along with your statement that the GCx leaders were sincere. OTOH, I think the ex-GCxers here are sincere. In fact, it's hard to think of who isn't sincere. Just about anybody from Mother Teresa to Hitler can be sincere.
(Oops. I lose the argument by the Hitler Rule.   )

Sincere just means you really believe in whatever it is you are saying or doing. But sincere people can do a lot of bad stuff. Which tells me sincerity is not much of a mitigating factor.

[DrSam]

Midnight,

Thanks for your solidarity. I don't think I used the word "sincerity." It does not describe what I was saying. I am saying that  both sides are trying to love Jesus the best they can and that they, in their hearts, are motivated by a good heart for God. I believe that of the folks here that are severely hurt and angry and I believe that of the GCx pastors, many of which I know. People mistake my defending their heart for agreeing with what they did. Those are two totally different things. I have gotten trashed here for standing up against very vitriolic speech calling these brothers wicked or evil.

I have shared that all the verses on orthodox thinking by those here or from GCx does not excuse us of still being heretics on some level. God does not strike us down even though we can get pretty arrogant with our many proof texts and theological arguments in the "light" we espouse. That is elitism of being better because "I know more 'truth' than you do!" I call that arrogance no matter on which side it is found and both have it.
I've been there and done that even better than these guys have with Greek and Hebrew diagramatical linguistical analysis and historical-analytical approaches.

When I defend the GCx brothers it is for these reasons. The offended are often guilty of the same attitudes they have ascribed GCx. One particular gentleman who has written extensively texts used here I have engaged in the past. He has openly admitted that he wants heads on a platter and has even made snide remarks about me being Hispanic. I thought these actions from him and his kind have been very childish and based on narcissism trying to make himself feel superior by putting me down. I don't respect that since that is not humility but simply the flesh trying to exact blood and flesh and feeling superior/better. This kind of person is lauded here and I am vilified for confronting him. I have also pointed out that I believe he loves Jesus just as much as those he attacks. Somehow folks feel that cannot happen. Surely they must be evil and wicked but not the accusers! (I don't think either is).

Anyways. I am in the middle and see good and bad on both sides. I've been on both sides. I am now in the third position. Healed. I guess some here think that is being arrogant and judgmental. That's not my attitude but that is what is the view of some here.

God bless,

Sam

 I have said it here before, but sincerity is the most overrated of the virtues.

Midnight,

Explain yourself. Is you comment directed to me or are you saying that my statement is wrong? I would appreciate that you clarify the meaning of what you said.

Sam,

I am willing to go along with your statement that the GCx leaders were sincere. OTOH, I think the ex-GCxers here are sincere. In fact, it's hard to think of who isn't sincere. Just about anybody from Mother Teresa to Hitler can be sincere.
(Oops. I lose the argument by the Hitler Rule.   )

Sincere just means you really believe in whatever it is you are saying or doing. But sincere people can do a lot of bad stuff. Which tells me sincerity is not much of a mitigating factor.

[theresearchpersona]

Response here: http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/index.php/topic,637.0.html