Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /homepages/40/d238947241/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/paged-comments/paged-comments.php on line 31
Addendum To The Previous Post - SGM Survivors


Addendum To The Previous Post

With respect to the previous post:

Ok, here’s the deal…

As Guy said, I’m presently out of town with limited internet access.  (As I type this, I’m sitting in Starbucks, feeling kinda like all those CLC pastors who have to hit “the blogs” while sipping their $5 lattes or enjoying lunch at Panera. :D )  Consequently, I have not been able to comment and clarify until just now.

I heard about Josh’s message from three different people, two of whom have been absolutely accurate in everything they’ve ever shared with me.  All three folks said they’d been at CLC on Sunday morning and took away essentially the same message from Josh Harris’ remarks – that Josh expressed regret for having urged people to read online.  All three folks also shared – in one way or another – that they suspected our traffic here would slow down now, because Josh’s teaching would have a dampening effect on people’s open-mindedness about “the blogs.”

I haven’t listened for myself to the recording of the teaching.  This is, first of all, due to my lack of internet access.  But it’s also due to the fact that Guy and I are aware that Covenant Life Church has edited out portions of teachings before they are posted online…which (in my thinking) makes sound files less trustworthy than accounts from people who were actually there.

That being said, though, I will amend the post to reflect the clarification so many of you provided.

I have noticed, however, that no one is disputing the part about how CLCers can look forward to further teachings on “gossip” and “slander.” Or the fact that Ken Sande is on the roster as a guest speaker. Those two (thus far) undisputed aspects of the original post would indicate that even if Josh Harris is all over the map with his “precise” instructions about, “Read the documents for yourselves, but don’t read them, but read them with discernment, but be careful about gossip and slander, which we will teach you about soon,” it seems to me that SGM/CLC is still trying to control how Brent’s documents (and by extension, the “blogs”) are perceived and understood.

Is “discernment” really such a weak area for SGMers, that they cannot be trusted to read Brent’s documents for themselves without all that special tutoring about what to think and how to think?  Are CLCers so stupid that they would forget that Brent’s documents represent the perspective of “one man”?


If so, then I would think CLC pastors would have bigger fish to fry, even, than CJ’s problems right now.  What they’d have on their hands, if they’re REALLY so worried about their members’ discernment and reading ability, is a case of a weak-minded congregation.

Since I do NOT think that CLCers are actually that dumb, and since I think most CLCers have enough discernment to be trusted to read for themselves and draw correct conclusions without a bunch of special training, I think all this chatter about “read with discernment, and don’t gossip” is unnecessary and an insult to the congregation.

255 comments to Addendum To The Previous Post

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All

  1. Steve240
    August 3rd, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Thanks everyone who answered my question about the “independent” board members being friends of C.J. I just looked at the Wartburg Watch and they did a good analysis of this supposed “impartiality” of these 3 men.


    They even quoted some of my discussions I had with Ortlund on Ortlund’s blog.

  2. katie
    August 3rd, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    iwasdeleted –
    i’d also love to hear where you are attending church now. i’m trying to collect ideas of where to visit :-)

  3. Fried Fish
    August 3rd, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    @Breezey – I don’t claim to be a deep student of Calvinism or Reformed theology of any other kind, although I have read the Heidelberg Catechism… But I have a really hard time especially with the “L” in the TULIP anagram. How do you tell someone who is broken, hurting, cast aside, marginalized, abused and even in despair of life itself, that Jesus loves them and MAY have died for their sins, depending on whether or not they are one of the elect….. ? If you are a 5 point Calvinist and you tell them Jesus DID die for their sins, according to your theology you may have just lied to them…. doesn’t make much sense to me, with no offense intended to the Calvinists here.

  4. keepinstep
    August 3rd, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    @Jedi #243 – Would you please use paragraph breaks? I can’t read #243 at all because it’s just one huge square of grayness on my screen.

    Thank you.

  5. NLR
    August 3rd, 2011 at 10:57 pm


    That is so perfect how you describe those relationships. That was also my experience to the tee!


    Just sent you an email :wink:


    I wish I had your words. What you said, about being fake and phony… So true. I wish I could have given that response when I had needed it in the past. I appreciate how you can see through that as not truly genuine and the cognitive dissonance there. I have never been able to describe it as well. I see that you caught that issue with you going to church. I saw through that as well and thought is this person for real. They can’t even truly see how this is none of their business, but also how they are pushing their agenda. I can’t stand that. I often don’t feel clever enough to come back as you did so clearly. I’ve got a lot to learn :wink:

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All