There is a famous quote from George Santayana that goes like this: "Those who cannot remember their past are condemned to repeat it." That best sums up the reason I write this today, for I have seen it come true in the church and college ministry I attended in Fort Collins.
This church is a proud member of the Great Commission Movement, whose full history may be viewed here. What I want to point out here as being of particular note was the criticism and accusations of cult-like activity that the Movement came under in the 1970's and 80's (covered here in the Wikipedia article on the Movement). The Movement, in general, responded negatively toward this criticism at first, excommunicating an estimated 500 members, but in 1991 began to see that parts of the criticism were, sadly, valid and issued A Statement Recognizing Early Errors and Weaknesses in the Development of the Great Commission Association of Churches. The statement recognized a number of church errors and listed actions to be taken to correct these errors and reconcile the church with alienated former members. The statement was ratified by the Movement's pastors and national leaders on July 19, 1991.
That being said, it should be old news, totally without importance today. The statement was issued a full 21 years ago and everything it admits should no doubt have been addressed by now. However, I would still recommend any current or prospective members of the Great Commission Movement or its affiliated churches and ministries to read the statement for themselves. I would also advise members of the leadership of the same to make the statement a part of the curriculum for new members or at least new leaders and elders. Admittedly, a statement of errors past is not good promotional material. FedEx would probably be ill-advised to post the video of one of their employee's tossing a computer monitor on their site or use it at the end of a commercial. However, it would probably be a good idea to show the video during employee or management training sessions to make sure the next generation of FedEx employees know that this is not acceptable behavior. The Great Commission Movement should similarly use this Statement of Error to their advantage--for those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.
As it is today, neither the past criticism nor the statement made in response to it are common knowledge among members of the Great Commission Movement. The statement itself cannot be found on any Great Commission website. I had to go to one of the sites of the Movement's critics to find it. So it seems today that the Great Commission does not recall its history and, sadly, my personal experience is that they are indeed repeating it.
In section 2, part 1 of the statement, the Movement confesses, "In the past, we did not always clearly communicate the difference between a scriptural command, a scriptural principle, and a personal preference. And while it is not always easy to determine those differences, it is important to do so in order to allow individuals in the church to hold and express biblically-based convictions that are different from those of their leaders." And further, "failing to properly distinguish a command from a principle or preference resulted at times in legalism. An individual who had a conviction contrary to that of the pastors was sometimes considered rebellious, even though that conviction was one permitted by the Word. The result was that a person might be forced to choose between violating his or her conscience or remaining 'rebellious.'"
One of the admitted examples of this failure follows:
There are other ways the group is repeating history. They have demonstrated "the expectation that all believers be as actively involved as we were in sharing the gospel and the conclusion that if they were not they were not obeying God's perfect will for their lives" (Section 1, Part 2). This is particularly evident in the views some members have developed on school work, who view any time it interrupts their church involvement as a fault to be ashamed of. This also is repeating history, as the statement confesses that the Movement has historically demonstrated a "lack of emphasis on formal education," confessing, "In most cases, this lack of emphasis on education resulted in the failure by church leaders to stress to students the importance of committing their time and effort to excelling in their studies, and the resulting belief that involvement with church activities was more important than schoolwork" (Section 2, Part 5). There have also been times when leaders, in discipling others, have been "overly directive in the personal affairs of church members and," more damagingly, "were not...sufficiently sensitive to the Holy Spirit's leading in the person's life" (Section 2, Part 2).
I offer this and the links to the statement itself as constructive criticism, as lessons in history. Myself, as an individual and an administrator of an online forum have often had to learn the importance of listening to criticism and learning from history the hard way. It is my hope that the Great Commission Movement may be spared having to repeat the darker aspects of its history any further and that its members and leaders may individual be spared participating in or experiencing such repetition themselves.
This church is a proud member of the Great Commission Movement, whose full history may be viewed here. What I want to point out here as being of particular note was the criticism and accusations of cult-like activity that the Movement came under in the 1970's and 80's (covered here in the Wikipedia article on the Movement). The Movement, in general, responded negatively toward this criticism at first, excommunicating an estimated 500 members, but in 1991 began to see that parts of the criticism were, sadly, valid and issued A Statement Recognizing Early Errors and Weaknesses in the Development of the Great Commission Association of Churches. The statement recognized a number of church errors and listed actions to be taken to correct these errors and reconcile the church with alienated former members. The statement was ratified by the Movement's pastors and national leaders on July 19, 1991.
That being said, it should be old news, totally without importance today. The statement was issued a full 21 years ago and everything it admits should no doubt have been addressed by now. However, I would still recommend any current or prospective members of the Great Commission Movement or its affiliated churches and ministries to read the statement for themselves. I would also advise members of the leadership of the same to make the statement a part of the curriculum for new members or at least new leaders and elders. Admittedly, a statement of errors past is not good promotional material. FedEx would probably be ill-advised to post the video of one of their employee's tossing a computer monitor on their site or use it at the end of a commercial. However, it would probably be a good idea to show the video during employee or management training sessions to make sure the next generation of FedEx employees know that this is not acceptable behavior. The Great Commission Movement should similarly use this Statement of Error to their advantage--for those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.
As it is today, neither the past criticism nor the statement made in response to it are common knowledge among members of the Great Commission Movement. The statement itself cannot be found on any Great Commission website. I had to go to one of the sites of the Movement's critics to find it. So it seems today that the Great Commission does not recall its history and, sadly, my personal experience is that they are indeed repeating it.
In section 2, part 1 of the statement, the Movement confesses, "In the past, we did not always clearly communicate the difference between a scriptural command, a scriptural principle, and a personal preference. And while it is not always easy to determine those differences, it is important to do so in order to allow individuals in the church to hold and express biblically-based convictions that are different from those of their leaders." And further, "failing to properly distinguish a command from a principle or preference resulted at times in legalism. An individual who had a conviction contrary to that of the pastors was sometimes considered rebellious, even though that conviction was one permitted by the Word. The result was that a person might be forced to choose between violating his or her conscience or remaining 'rebellious.'"
One of the admitted examples of this failure follows:
A third example of our failure to clearly distinguish between commands and principles concerns the area of dating. Many of us in the early years of our churches encouraged young men and women to refrain from dating until they had a fairly strong conviction that God was leading them toward marriage to a particular individual. This had some very positive results including the lack of many problems that casual dating can cause (temptation to immorality, trauma and strife because of romantic breakups, distraction from a devotion to holiness and service to the Lord) and contributed to the formation of many, many strong marriages. However, it also had negative results including alienating believers who did not share our preference and causing some who did to develop a bad attitude toward Christians who dated. It is our present understanding that discouraging casual dating was a preference of many of us leaders and not a command or even a principle of Scripture, although there are many principles that may be used to support the preference. We believe that individuals are free to have different preferences as to how serious they want to be before they begin dating someone. Pastors may suggest or encourage their own personal preference concerning dating, as well as their reasons for that preference, but they should be careful to clearly communicate that it is simply their preference, and that others may be equally valid.Here, I am sorry to say the church and especially the college ministry I attended has repeated history with a vengeance. The college ministry published, distributed, and delivered a series of messages on a booklet entitled "Rock Solid Relationships" in 2008 that presented a model of relationships that rejected dating as "God's standard." The group's teaching and especially the private sessions with its leaders communicate that any other preference on dating is a sin. A leader of the group has repeatedly expressed disdain to me for those who hold other preferences and especially their church and para-church organizations--accusing them of enforcing or allowing a culture of divorce and sexual immorality. Many good marriages have resulted from following this preference, of course, but these have not been without their trials and more than one couple who eventually courted and got married to the joy of the church were subjected to months or years of guilt from their leaders for even having feelings for each other. Those Christians who do not share or agree to this preference are not told that their convictions may be equally valid but are accused of sinful living or desires. If they persist, they are labeled as "rebellious" and ostracized from the group or subjected or threatened with church discipline (another part of the statement addresses the Movement's improper use of church discipline). In some instances, members yielding to this pressure have rushed into marriages to avoid the guilt and criticism, only to have these ill-advised marriages fall apart. When pressed, some members of the group leadership did admit that their attitude toward dating was not a command but a principle. At no point did anyone admit or even seem to be aware that it was nothing more than a preference or personal conviction, and that others might be equally valid.
There are other ways the group is repeating history. They have demonstrated "the expectation that all believers be as actively involved as we were in sharing the gospel and the conclusion that if they were not they were not obeying God's perfect will for their lives" (Section 1, Part 2). This is particularly evident in the views some members have developed on school work, who view any time it interrupts their church involvement as a fault to be ashamed of. This also is repeating history, as the statement confesses that the Movement has historically demonstrated a "lack of emphasis on formal education," confessing, "In most cases, this lack of emphasis on education resulted in the failure by church leaders to stress to students the importance of committing their time and effort to excelling in their studies, and the resulting belief that involvement with church activities was more important than schoolwork" (Section 2, Part 5). There have also been times when leaders, in discipling others, have been "overly directive in the personal affairs of church members and," more damagingly, "were not...sufficiently sensitive to the Holy Spirit's leading in the person's life" (Section 2, Part 2).
I offer this and the links to the statement itself as constructive criticism, as lessons in history. Myself, as an individual and an administrator of an online forum have often had to learn the importance of listening to criticism and learning from history the hard way. It is my hope that the Great Commission Movement may be spared having to repeat the darker aspects of its history any further and that its members and leaders may individual be spared participating in or experiencing such repetition themselves.
WHattup former Rocker! Hahahahahahaha! :D Good article! One thing about the post-College world of Summitview is it is a LOT different, and less strict. There is a value placed on work-ethic and because 20 somethings from the workplace have come from different viewpoints on dating, they don't push the 'don't date' thing.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'd say, when you do talk to current Rockers, encourage them toward Christ and not just say, "Don't do these things."
Point taken. "Don't" is generally not the most helpful advice for anyone. Fortunately, the leaders of the Great Commission Movement sat down and figured out the positive steps to take in pursuing Christ and overcoming these weaknesses in their statement 21 years ago. All that remains is being aware of and implementing these steps.
Delete