Bonus Post: Understanding the Rot of GCC
Why can an institution and the men in it continue in their blindness?
With the bombshell report by Kate Shellnut in Christianity Today on the repeated failures of Grace Community church I wanted to collate what I’ve written in the past both in short form and hyperlinked to longer works of mine. I’ve written about GCC before, but this new revelation brings questions as to why a group of men would not just fail, but fail multiple times in caring for abuse victims. Failures I might add, in counsel and ideology, that led to the sexual abuse of children. Why, even twenty years later would the same sentiments and counsel be given if there were multiple accounts of that approach not only not working, but ending in the harm of both the person counseled and her children? I’ve written extensively on Authoritarianism and the effects so let me draw out three things that I know to be operative:
1: A Misunderstanding of Positional Power and Authority (Link here)
MacArthur, Piper, Grudem and others make a fundamental error in how they view what “authority” is. They view Positions of Power as synonymous with Authority. If someone is in a position of power they are there because God allowed them to achieve that position and so they are to be respected/obeyed regardless of the actions of that person. I contend however, “Positional Power may give someone the power to direct someone else, however that direction is only legitimate if it is for the intended use of the authorizer. Just because someone is in a place of POSITIONAL power does not mean they have AUTHORITY….If the only thing that authorizes a person’s power is their position, and that obedience is owed merely because of this, then you will have a conflict when that positional power is used wrongly.” Because MacArthur and the Elders of GCC see their “divine” positional power as continuous as an abusive husbands (the power all comes from the same place- God); to undermine a husband’s authority also undermines theirs.
I argue that, “…all true authority is power given by another and directed for their ends. As such it is necessarily limited and accountable. I personally cannot think of a position of authority (operating rightly) where these four elements are not in play.” This has direct implications the second issue:
A Misunderstanding of Sovereignty and Authority (Link here)
As I state, “Too many Christians confuse sovereignty and authority. Sovereignty says, ‘This entity is owed obedience. Period.’ Authority says, “This person is owed obedience when it is appropriate’. Authoritarians will try to say that persons (institutions) in power are supposed to be representational in the way God is sovereign. I argue that we can only be representational in that we are submitted agents of the sovereign. Between the two there is a world of difference. Let me be very clear, you can say that a person in authority should be submitted to Christ (for example Doug Wilson does this profusely). However, if your definition for authority is that the person in a position of power, regardless of person or action, is owed obedience simply because of their position, then definitionally you are demanding obedience to a sovereign.”
It’s a confusion about how we are called to represent God in our authority, “The problem is always that submission is supposed to be given to authorities (but often to father’s and husbands) as if they are God. This often twists representational relationships almost exclusively (in scripture) from the authority’s responsibility to act like God, to instead demand unconditional obedience as if the authority is God.”
You confuse Positional Power with a false idea of Sovereignty and you get situations where Elders are telling wives they have to submit to their abusive husbands, even after they’ve been arrested for battery.
A False Belief in Ideological Fruitfulness Despite the Evidence (Link here)
This is probably the closest to the actual issue,
“First there is the presumption that “we” have the “right” ideology/theology. This creates an evident problem and a cascading crisis- what do you do with those who disagree with you? Especially when they disagree on moral even exegetical grounds? Are they all merely deceived? Even worse, at what point can you hold fellowship with those who disagree? The problem is that if all of your beliefs are built around certain core beliefs (like inerrancy for example), to compromise on one is to pull out the support that seemingly upholds it all…Also, one’s “rightness” has little to do with actual fruit (love, joy, peace, etc.) but the fidelity one holds to certain beliefs. This makes the entire proposition fraught because fruit is assumed from the ideology. Thus, there is the situation where ideological/theological positions are in some cases demanded because they presumably produce fruit; but whether they actually produce that fruit is never evaluated. In fact, to question the validity of the theology/ideology is itself heresy.”
This is probably closest to the issue- because what we believe about marriage must be true (It isn’t: here, here, and here); we HAVE to believe our ideology will produce a desired outcome. Because of what our idea of what marriage is must produce a desired outcome, “…we confuse ideals with process and results. What I mean is that often we call people to an ideal because we want something that ideal presumably produces. We want families to look a certain way because we believe families are evangelistic tools. We want relationships to work a certain way to produce security or avoid heartache. We want children to respond to discipline so that they’ll respond to God, etc. ect. Often we start at what we believe to be a Godly outcome, look for an example that produced it, then “industrialize” the example as an ideal to get the desired result…”
Thus there is an assumption that what “may” have worked in one instance “must” work in all. So the wrong thing is continually prescribed mostly to keep up appearances, “The problem is that often we have made the ideal so normative that we don’t even care to admit that there is a reality outside of the “ideal”. In many cases the “ideal” is so “normal” that anything that falls short of the ideal isn’t even admitted to. Thus, we have whole churches where every marriage is happy and thriving, where both men and women are completely satisfied in their roles, etc.”
What Does Repentance Look Like? (Link here)
I think this pretty much gets at it, “Authority without accountability in a way seems worse than mere bullying because you know this power is supposed to be used for other intents- as long as it is allowed to be used otherwise it would appear that this aberrant use IS authorized. The outrage when it comes to church sex abuse scandals is that when victims are silenced and perpetrators allowed to continue in positions of authority, the church is effectively condoning their sin even as it claims to condemn it.”
What does real authority look like? “…perhaps THE thing that uniquely sets apart legitimate authority from mere power: legitimate authority not only accepts accountability, it welcomes it. This is why those who clearly understand the representational nature of their positions of authority welcome both transparency and accountability. Those who obfuscate their dealings behind closed doors, NDA’s and lawyers, who keep secret financial records, or who silence whistleblowers are almost always working to preserve their POWER. Those who use their APPOINTED power RIGHTLY do not care who know it.”
Our call is to hold those who claim the name of Christ to account. To remind them they are not Sovereign but accountable. That their ideologies can and in many ways have become idols. That exposure is calling them to repent.