ow does an abusive church or organization recover its
spiritual integrity? The only answer I can give is to tell
how one such group did so. That group was the
organization of which I was a member for five and a half years,
Great Commission Churches (GCC). If and when other cults or
cult-like groups seek to reform themselves, they may find lessons
in the journey of GCC.
So how did GCC do it? Like most groups that end up either as
destructive cults or abusive churches, GCC did not begin that
way. From its origins in the late 1960s, GCC provided a caring
environment for many young Christians to begin a spiritual life
and to grow in that life. This church had a lot of the features that
one expects to characterize a church. Its members were a warm,
friendly bunch of people (mostly in their twenties, but also a few
older couples and their families). It was not bound by tradition
but sought to emphasize knowing and serving God according to
the teaching of the Bible. There was no emphasis on money—in
fact, there were no collections taken at all in those days. And
there had so far not been any drive to erect or purchase a build-
ing to serve as a meeting place (most meetings were held in
homes or on the campus of the University of
Arizona). In addition, church members often sought to help the
needy. In other words, the emphases seemed to be in the right
place.
However, things changed. Even in the early years, some of the
seeds of later abuses showed themselves to those with the
courage to look. Initially, GCC welcomed spiritual help from men
associated with the so-called “Open” or “Christian” Brethren (from
which many early GCC leaders had come) although, after a few
years, GCC founder and chief elder Jim McCotter
counseled local elders against inviting such “outsiders” to address
their groups. He was afraid these outsiders might teach
something he would have to correct afterward. Thus, GCC
gradually became more insular and exclusive, believing that it
was closer than any other church to reflecting the first-century-
church lifestyle and beliefs.
There were other things that made me uncomfortable. At the
time, however, they were things with which I felt I could live.
For example, the church leaders tried to get the members,
including those with growing families, to participate in the
on-campus “witnessing.” I thought this focus was an inversion of
priorities, at least for the latter. But I concluded that it was not
really a major error, and I was willing to participate occasionally
in the campus outreach so I let it slide.
Later, other things began to bother me, and I learned that I was
not the only one. Some examples were doctrinal, although they
did not affect primary beliefs of historic Christianity as they are
contained in the Apostles’ Creed and other early, historic church
statements of faith. The most troubling concerns were behavioral
in nature namely, authoritarianism and inconsistent and
hypocritical ethical standards. For example (based on a list by a
former elder),
• The church tended to regard people more for their utilitarian
value than for their true, essential worth. In other words, it
treated them as deployable agents in accomplishing the goal
of world evangelization more than as human individuals with
their own aptitudes and gifts, which were being wasted in this
recruiting-team environment.
• Uniformity around an evangelistic strategy became the
substitute for true biblical unity based on the sharing of our
common life in Christ. Thus, the focus was wrong. As the
Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it, the “chief end of man”
is “to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.”
• Authoritarianism developed to maintain that uniformity for
example,
-Domination over members’ personal lives outside biblical
moral directives—e.g., telling them who could or could not
be their roommates, whether or not they could visit their
parents during the Christmas season, whom to marry or not
marry, and many other things.
-The tendency to make the elders’ interpretation of the
Scriptures the last word on the subject, virtually “sanctifying”
the elders’ teaching.
-Cultivation of uncritical submission and identification of
criticism as stemming from a “bad heart,” thus creating a
“non-falsifiable system.”
-A focus on eradicating and preventing “faction” and “slander”
(redefined as any criticism of the group, its leaders, or its
teachings, true or not, and even if it was not intended to be
negatively critical) as crucial sins.
-The cultivation of an "imitation principal [sic]" whereby the
members were encouraged to pattern their thinking and
behavior after their leaders, without critically evaluating
whether or not that thinking or behavior was biblical,
correct, or just.
• The movement had become basically a closed system that
allowed very little, if any, influence from the rest of the
Christian community, let alone the rest of society. Any such
influence tended to be carefully controlled.
• A sense of elitism was cultivated from the self-perception
that GCC was the only group that really followed the New
Testament pattern of church life.
• Loyalty to the movement, and especially to founder Jim McCotter,
who was the ultimate source of any developing changes in the
theology or practice, was highly cultivated as a result.
• Ethics drifted in a pragmatic direction, becoming ethics of
expediency, with a lack of integral consistency this shift led to
the justification of exaggeration, half-truths, and, at times,
outright lies and injustice in the treatment of people. In fact,
this atmosphere is what finally led Paul and Barb Martin and
others to break their ties with the movement.
Failure to go along with the plans, programs, and lifestyles that
national and local GCC leaders promoted often resulted in those
persons who opted out being regarded as less spiritually mature
and disobedient to God’s will. In short, these individuals were
looked on, often, as “dead wood.”Consequently, many concluded
they couldn’t live up to God’s standards and could only look
forward to living as “second-class” citizens in God’s kingdom.
The bottom line in all of this and more was that, in various ways
and to different degrees, people were being hurt.
Another individual who became alarmed at the gradual
deterioration of GCC was one of the elders in Columbus, Ohio,
Bill Taylor. During a meeting of national leaders in 1974, Bill
expressed his displeasure with the cultural ethos that founder
Jim McCotter was introducing into the movement. Bill accused
McCotter of acting like a “king-bishop,” compelling (or trying
to compel) members simply to accept his interpretation of the
Bible and fall in line with it, among other things.
H
An Abusive
Church Movement
Recovers Its
Balance
Back
From
the
Brink
By Lawrence A. Pile
8 ICSA TODAY VOLUME 4 |NUMBER 2 |2013 9
ICSA_volume4Issue2_Final 8/9/13 8:31 PM Page 10
spiritual integrity? The only answer I can give is to tell
how one such group did so. That group was the
organization of which I was a member for five and a half years,
Great Commission Churches (GCC). If and when other cults or
cult-like groups seek to reform themselves, they may find lessons
in the journey of GCC.
So how did GCC do it? Like most groups that end up either as
destructive cults or abusive churches, GCC did not begin that
way. From its origins in the late 1960s, GCC provided a caring
environment for many young Christians to begin a spiritual life
and to grow in that life. This church had a lot of the features that
one expects to characterize a church. Its members were a warm,
friendly bunch of people (mostly in their twenties, but also a few
older couples and their families). It was not bound by tradition
but sought to emphasize knowing and serving God according to
the teaching of the Bible. There was no emphasis on money—in
fact, there were no collections taken at all in those days. And
there had so far not been any drive to erect or purchase a build-
ing to serve as a meeting place (most meetings were held in
homes or on the campus of the University of
Arizona). In addition, church members often sought to help the
needy. In other words, the emphases seemed to be in the right
place.
However, things changed. Even in the early years, some of the
seeds of later abuses showed themselves to those with the
courage to look. Initially, GCC welcomed spiritual help from men
associated with the so-called “Open” or “Christian” Brethren (from
which many early GCC leaders had come) although, after a few
years, GCC founder and chief elder Jim McCotter
counseled local elders against inviting such “outsiders” to address
their groups. He was afraid these outsiders might teach
something he would have to correct afterward. Thus, GCC
gradually became more insular and exclusive, believing that it
was closer than any other church to reflecting the first-century-
church lifestyle and beliefs.
There were other things that made me uncomfortable. At the
time, however, they were things with which I felt I could live.
For example, the church leaders tried to get the members,
including those with growing families, to participate in the
on-campus “witnessing.” I thought this focus was an inversion of
priorities, at least for the latter. But I concluded that it was not
really a major error, and I was willing to participate occasionally
in the campus outreach so I let it slide.
Later, other things began to bother me, and I learned that I was
not the only one. Some examples were doctrinal, although they
did not affect primary beliefs of historic Christianity as they are
contained in the Apostles’ Creed and other early, historic church
statements of faith. The most troubling concerns were behavioral
in nature namely, authoritarianism and inconsistent and
hypocritical ethical standards. For example (based on a list by a
former elder),
• The church tended to regard people more for their utilitarian
value than for their true, essential worth. In other words, it
treated them as deployable agents in accomplishing the goal
of world evangelization more than as human individuals with
their own aptitudes and gifts, which were being wasted in this
recruiting-team environment.
• Uniformity around an evangelistic strategy became the
substitute for true biblical unity based on the sharing of our
common life in Christ. Thus, the focus was wrong. As the
Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it, the “chief end of man”
is “to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.”
• Authoritarianism developed to maintain that uniformity for
example,
-Domination over members’ personal lives outside biblical
moral directives—e.g., telling them who could or could not
be their roommates, whether or not they could visit their
parents during the Christmas season, whom to marry or not
marry, and many other things.
-The tendency to make the elders’ interpretation of the
Scriptures the last word on the subject, virtually “sanctifying”
the elders’ teaching.
-Cultivation of uncritical submission and identification of
criticism as stemming from a “bad heart,” thus creating a
“non-falsifiable system.”
-A focus on eradicating and preventing “faction” and “slander”
(redefined as any criticism of the group, its leaders, or its
teachings, true or not, and even if it was not intended to be
negatively critical) as crucial sins.
-The cultivation of an "imitation principal [sic]" whereby the
members were encouraged to pattern their thinking and
behavior after their leaders, without critically evaluating
whether or not that thinking or behavior was biblical,
correct, or just.
• The movement had become basically a closed system that
allowed very little, if any, influence from the rest of the
Christian community, let alone the rest of society. Any such
influence tended to be carefully controlled.
• A sense of elitism was cultivated from the self-perception
that GCC was the only group that really followed the New
Testament pattern of church life.
• Loyalty to the movement, and especially to founder Jim McCotter,
who was the ultimate source of any developing changes in the
theology or practice, was highly cultivated as a result.
• Ethics drifted in a pragmatic direction, becoming ethics of
expediency, with a lack of integral consistency this shift led to
the justification of exaggeration, half-truths, and, at times,
outright lies and injustice in the treatment of people. In fact,
this atmosphere is what finally led Paul and Barb Martin and
others to break their ties with the movement.
Failure to go along with the plans, programs, and lifestyles that
national and local GCC leaders promoted often resulted in those
persons who opted out being regarded as less spiritually mature
and disobedient to God’s will. In short, these individuals were
looked on, often, as “dead wood.”Consequently, many concluded
they couldn’t live up to God’s standards and could only look
forward to living as “second-class” citizens in God’s kingdom.
The bottom line in all of this and more was that, in various ways
and to different degrees, people were being hurt.
Another individual who became alarmed at the gradual
deterioration of GCC was one of the elders in Columbus, Ohio,
Bill Taylor. During a meeting of national leaders in 1974, Bill
expressed his displeasure with the cultural ethos that founder
Jim McCotter was introducing into the movement. Bill accused
McCotter of acting like a “king-bishop,” compelling (or trying
to compel) members simply to accept his interpretation of the
Bible and fall in line with it, among other things.
H
An Abusive
Church Movement
Recovers Its
Balance
Back
From
the
Brink
By Lawrence A. Pile
8 ICSA TODAY VOLUME 4 |NUMBER 2 |2013 9
ICSA_volume4Issue2_Final 8/9/13 8:31 PM Page 10
