I have a confession to make: I’ve been a fan (and regular reader) of the Pyromaniacs blog almost since its inception several years ago. The site’s contributors – Frank Turk, Phil Johnson, Dan Phillips, and someone using the handle “Pecadillo” – have written much that I have found helpful. I’ve always appreciated their willingness to stand on and for the authority of the Bible and to make every effort to let Scripture shape their positions.
My fandom is why I’ve long held out hope that if the Pyro guys could just get an inkling of the crazy dysfunction that has tainted Sovereign Grace Ministries under C.J. Mahaney’s leadership, they’d direct toward SGM some of the same righteous indignation they’ve beamed at the likes of the “Elephant Room” dudes. Or, to put it another way, they’d at least quit acting like SGM were just another Reformed denomination…and quit giving SGM their implied endorsement every time they write excitedly about some conference where C.J. makes an appearance on stage.
I know I’m just a lowly woman, but I have tried. At least a few times over the past four years, I’ve emailed Mr. Johnson. Initially I explained the story of how we happened to start this site, and the craziness that resulted when we soon began to realize that SGM had a lot more troubles beneath the surface than mere “cultural oddities.” In one of our last exchanges, I even attempted to explain to Mr. Johnson how SGM has redefined key words and concepts, so that although the Pyro guys may think they and C.J. Mahaney are all on the same doctrinal team, the SGM leaders have added many layers of SGM-cultural-specific meaning to the notions of (for instance) grace, the pre-eminance of the “local church,” and the necessity of participation in SGM-style small groups in order to experience sanctification (which, in SGMville, is absolutely essential “proof” or validation of one’s salvation…thus making SGM-style small groups practically a requirement, ultimately, for one’s salvation).
To his credit, Mr. Johnson did reply to me. A good portion of his email was essentially a rebuke for blogging about SGM’s issues and providing this forum. But he did respond. And he never quite shut the door on my hopes that someday, he and his co-bloggers would come to a clearer understanding of the way SGM took Charismatic beliefs about present-day apostles, mixed those with 1970s cultic shepherding practices, and then over the years blended all of that with neo-Reformed ideas about pastoral authority to create a whole different animal, a whole different sort of denomination…er, family-of-churches. I thought maybe someday, if those guys could just open their minds a little, they’d finally figure out how SGM has used and abused their own Reformed doctrines in order to shore up the SGM organization’s credibility and provide scriptural support for the systematic spiritual abuse of a lot of people.
Of course, the topics of C.J. Mahaney’s problems and SGM’s dysfunction were always off limits in the comments sections of Team Pyro’s posts. But I still thought that maybe they’d hear from someone who would be able to metaphorically help them yank their fingers out of their ears and force them to stop loudly singing, “La la la la la la!” anytime someone tried to get them to understand that SGM is not a “normal” run-of-the-mill Bible-believing church organization.
I always held out hope, but that hope has grown dim over the years, especially after my last exchange with Mr. Johnson sort of fizzled out. So you can probably imagine my surprise when Mr. Turk put up a post a couple of weeks ago – on a Saturday, oddly enough, when the Pyro guys almost never blog on weekends – that finally permitted people to talk about SGM’s issues.
To say I thought it was a strangely unbalanced discussion would be an understatement. For one thing, Team Pyro’s contributor-in-training, Tom Chantry, was on hand to function as de facto moderator and SGM cheerleader/defender, vigorously attempting to argue with anyone who tried to explain SGM’s problems. When the (de facto) moderator works so hard to dispute and refute anything said for one side of an argument while letting just about anything for the other side stand, unremarked, would indicate a stacked deck. So, too, would Mr. Turk’s ground rules, which declared just about anything having to do with Brent Detwiler’s allegations against C.J. (as recounted n the Ambassadors of Reconciliation report) as off limits, along with other restrictions.
But what was most interesting was how fast and loose the Team Pyro guys played with the definitions of what constituted “slander.” I did not participate in the discussion there that day, but I did watch in amazement as several comments – from people sharing their own personal firsthand experiences with their SGM churches and pastors – were deleted.
How was this possible? Why in the world would Mr. Turk begrudgingly open up space on his team’s blog to have a discussion about a topic…and then refuse to really engage in anything related to the topic, unless it met some arbitrary standard of already-public information?
What was the point?
Why even go through the motions of pretending to be open to the possibility that SGM has problems, if you’re not willing to permit readers to talk about the problems they have experienced firsthand?
This all seemed sort of nonsensical to me. I didn’t understand it.
So I was grateful for reader/commenter “That Bad Dog’s” explanation. Here it is:
One of the issues that came up repeatedly with the Pyro post was the persistent deletion of first-hand accounts of abuse. Why, they ask, would my story be deleted, when this is something that, you know, actually happened, which I know about, because I was there? This they think, because they make the error of acting like a rational being, not having been schooled in modern Reformed ecclesiology.
In daily life we regularly accept first-hand accounts of events — life would not even be possible without it. Our court system so highly values the first-hand account that it is the only kind of account that is normally admissible, and then we allow the jury to determine if they believe some, all, or none of the testimony presented.
This method is highly objectionable to modern Reformed leaders, and a doctrine has been promulgated that I call “Pastoral Immunity.” It is based on 1Tim 5:19, Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. There is an interpretation of the verse that is now so common as to be uncontroversial in Reformed circles. For example, I found this statement of the doctrine readily accessible on the Founders (SBC) site.
Pastors are protected against a charge that is brought by a single individual. Paul is not simply saying that a pastor cannot be indicted and convicted based upon the testimony of one. He is saying that if there is only the testimony of one person, that testimony is to be thrown out of court. It is not be entertained or heard.
It does not take a genius to see how this verse can be wielded as a deadly weapon in the hands an authoritarian, abusive elder.
[The following story is not fictional, but is composited]
Let’s imagine you are a member of FBC Authorityville. You grow concerned about statements or actions made by Pastor Bigpants. You arrange to meet privately with Pastor Bigpants. During your meeting, Pastor Bigpants comes completely unglued, accuses you of a number of outrageous sins, and threatens to “expose you” for various imagined sins before the church if you don’t submit to him. In fact, Pastor Bigpants even pulls a gun out of his desk and waves it menacingly.
What to do? Do you go to the police? The other elders? The congregation? Your spouse? No. According the Reformed doctrine of Pastoral Immunity, there is absolutely nothing you can or should do (except pray, I suppose). You cannot tell anyone, because you are the only witness. It doesn’t matter that it actually happened — that is, that you are making a factually true and accurate record of events that you are willing to swear took place.
I cannot emphasize this enough, so here it is in bold — under this doctrine, a factual, first-hand adverse record of events is morally indistinguishable from malicious and intentional lies.
It gets worse.
Several people have said that people who give first-hand, public accounts of what happened to them were to be faulted for “failing to follow Matt 18.” This is a particularly cruel twist of the knife, because according to the doctrine of Pastoral Immunity, you are barred from seeking redress through Matt 18, and in fact are yourself guilty of sin if you attempt it.
Once again, this is non-controversial amongst today’s Reformed. Here is the Founders site again:
…not only is this accusation not to be acted upon, it is not even to be received. Rather, 1 Timothy 5:19 ought to be cited and the accuser ought to be asked if he or she has another witness to substantiate the accusation. If not, we are not to receive it. The Scripture tells us not to even listen to or entertain an accusation that is unsubstantiated. If it cannot be substantiated, you and I must not participate in the sin of the accuser by listening to it.
Do you see how this works? As long as the abusive pastor engages in his behavior privately, there is literally no limit on what he can do or say, and there is an absolute limit on what you can do or say about it. If you attempt to follow Matt 18 by bringing two witnesses to accompany you in your confrontation, not only are they not to accompany you, but rather, you yourself are to be reproved for your sin. Moreover, people like Team Pyro believe that they are morally obligated under these terms to “not participate in the sin of the accuser by listening to it” by providing a forum for its discussion, or allowing such accounts to be posted. That is why they delete all negative first-hand accounts.
And it still gets worse.
This multiple witness immunity is reserved for church leadership. You don’t get any. Let me explain by returning to our story.
Pastor Bigpants realizes he may have gone too far, and decides to get out in front of the issue. He goes to the other elders and says that during your private meeting, it was actually you who became angry and violent. You are called before the elders and confronted. No substantiating witness is required of the charges against you, because you are not a church leader. Furthermore, your disaffection is already proven — after all, didn’t you request a meeting with Pastor Bigpants to “complain about his ministry”?
Worst of all, you cannot even contradict the accusations made by Pastor Bigpants, because to do so would be — de facto — to accuse a church leader of telling lies, and therefore would require multiple witnesses, which is what you don’t have. And so, in the Kafka-esque world of modern Reformed ecclesiology, just denying the false accusations made against you by an elder makes you guilty of malicious slander.
Well, what do you think? Is “That Bad Dog” right?
Is the mystery of the Reformed blogging world’s persistent turning of their collective blind eye to SGM’s problems solved?
June 1st, 2012 at 8:58 am
Patrick – in #73
Thanks for the fine tuning. It is pretty much what I heard.
You said:
What I was pointing out is that it was not Benny’s idea to leave. He did not feel God was calling him to go start a new church. He was released because of a typical SGM mismanagement issue. Although Metro had no ill will toward Benny SGM certainly had no compunction at releasing a man who had been with the system almost from the start!
You mention “Given what MLC had gone through”. The too little finances issue is probably more of the MLC/SGM problems than the economy (although the recession certainly exacerbated the situation). What MLC had gone through is why Danny stepped down and AO stepped up and Benny was deemed extraneous after all the people left. (Benny -- the one that helped build that church up into what it was at its pinnacle. The Danny-Benny combination was the perfect people at the right time. I am still unclear as to why Benny was the one that got released. Any help there?) The typical bad SGM type decisions that we have seen duplicated at SGM church after SGM church are the root problem that sent the whole thing crumbling.
And although Benny took 53 folks with him, and that IS a great number of people, especially for a church already suffering from loss of membership, those people went out of loyalty to Benny or they wanted to be part of a new cause or church. (MLC/SGM would have really looked bad if they tried to hold on to those where were choosing to leave.) They were not encouraged by MLC nor SGM. There were no typical announcements of the plant and encouragement of people to examine their hearts about being a part of it and regular updates about people selling their homes and finding jobs and all the excitement that comes with an official church plant.
June 1st, 2012 at 9:53 am
5yearsinPDI -
I don’t know if I’d go so far as attributing genius to CJ :) Thankfully, genius doesn’t give us any kudos with God.
“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require if you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:8
I don’t pretend to see into the hearts of men. I am bewildered, though, when it comes to intent with the leaders of SGM. Are they so imbedded in their doctrine that they don’t see what it produces? Do they see what it produces and don’t care, because the result gets them what they want? Do they actually want the result they are getting? Do they not see any of the results? I imagine it is probably a combination of these scenarios for leasers throughout the family of churches. But one thing is obvious, the leader(s?) have set some examples that should not be followed, yet are, by young impressionable men who are put into leadership roles. This is very disturbing and sad.
June 1st, 2012 at 10:16 am
Kris, #94
I saw this “Kafka-esque” reference earlier, but didn’t understand it, (and just didn’t investigate that term, yet.)
So you repeated it, and I Googled it.
Holy cow!
The title of my story could be changed to “Defenders Kafka-esque experience in SGM”
I might think I would want to read Kafka now, but I don’t have to, I experienced it personally.
***To SGM defenders: You may not have had a bad experience, but trust me, if you cross your pastor, you WILL enter an alternate universe, or at least the Twilight Zone. I know, I did.
June 1st, 2012 at 3:29 pm
I’m a little late to the party and there is much that has already been said…but in regards to CJ’s message at NEXT I just want to point out my favorite delusional moment of the sermon.
“Listen—if Paul can identify evidences of God’s grace at work in the Corinthian church, we can do it for our church.”
This is a perfect example of him using scripture half way to serve his needs. I take issue with CJ’s impression of Corinthians. Yes Paul was aware of grace in these people but MOST of the letter to the people in Corinth was to correct and bring awareness to the multitudes of deficiencies these folks had. There is no qualifier in CJs sermon anywhere that allows for people to bring forth real issues with their pastors. It seems incredibly self serving to me that he would have people focus on only what is positive and throw out the possibility that real people are hurting and wounded by how they have been treated. Oh and don’t forget the catch 22 in deciding to leave a SGM church… you certainly will leave lonely. The only word I can think of to describe him is just plain delusion. Almost like he doesn’t even realize what he is saying… but of course no one he “respects” has the nerve to confront him.
June 1st, 2012 at 6:51 pm
CoraSusie #81 — I’m intrigued by your comment, “If you knew who I was and my history, you would understand why”.
Are you someone who has gone/still goes to CovFel? Just curious.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Hi, I just read the blog post here and I hope and pray you do not take this offensively. But his blog post sums up one of the huge frustrations for me in most of Christendom: People keep expecting the big leaders to change.
And because they are expecting leaders to change or other big leaders to see the problems with certain leaders… if they just have enough information or the right information…… tons of time is wasted.
Precious time on informing the sheep that this stuff is not how God’s kingdom on earth works and to get out. Warn people. When the money dries up the leaders have to find new followers. And they will. It is what they do.
As long as the focus is on getting the “leaders to repent” or other leaders to see the real problem, they actually control you. (Does anyone else see the irony in wanting and waiting for Christian leaders to repent?)
Some really do think it is all about Christianity for these guys. It really isn’t for these guys. It is their business. It is what they do. They have staked their entire lives building these little kingdoms they control. And they view bloggers they don’t control as threats to themselves, too.
Basically, by engaging these guys all you do is open yourselves up to be misinterpreted, used and even rebuked. Why people trust these guys amazes me. They are very charming one on one. Almost all of them are. I saw this same type of thing take place at TWW who came away thinking Phil Johnson was such a nice guy. But what does that have to do with truth? With protecting heinous behavior by other leaders? About promoting cult leaders? Obviously they have no problem with it. And there is a reason for that: They want their followers to be good little followers, too.
The hardest thing about Christianity is abiding in Christ. We want a king to follow. A king to teach us and tell us what is truth. A king to please. But that is not how it works. We learn from one another IF we are abiding in Christ. We are given different gifts IF we are abiding in Christ. We don’t need a king. It makes God angry when we want a king besides King Jesus.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“1 Timothy 5:19 WEB
19 Don’t receive an accusation against an elder, except at the word of two or three witnesses.”
How many here think Paul wrote that to Timothy in order to protect evil actions by elders?
If an elder molested a child and no eye witnesses but the child, then what? no investigation? We throw it out?
See, these guys do not want you to have common sense. They use proof texting as a shield to protect themselves.
Paige Patterson used this verse to protect pastor Darryl Gilyard, When women who had been molested and harassed when to Patterson for help (his mentor), Patterson trotted out this verse.
Gilyard just finished a prison term for his crimes against women and young girls. And is now pastoring another church.
That is how it works, folks. This proof text is used to enable evil. But that does not scare them and because it doesn’t, that should scare everyone away from them. They are not the real thing.
Not only this but let’s face it, Elders are not commanded in each letter for each church. People take proof texts and apply them across the board. If such things were so very important, we would find them in each letter. The Corinthian church was around 9 years without elders. We don’t even know who the elders were in the places they were suggested. And most Epistles are written to the entire church to deal with situations. The closest thing we find to an elder in Corinth is Chloe! Because she had “people”. :o)
The real question is what is an elder. If you can define that correctly in the spiritual sense it is used, you would run from these guys in the first place. They ain’t it.
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Imalone -
I have slowly come to the conclusion that you are correct in saying that it is unlikely that these leaders will “see the light” as far as condoning or, in some cases, practicing authoritarian methods are concerned. Anything beyond prayer is probably a waste of time.
You seem to imply that all of them are not Christians. I wouldn’t go that far. Beyond the fact that only God knows who are His, we know that believers can sin grievously and still be believers. Also, I wouldn’t put all of them on the same level of culpability. Despite their lapses, I don’t think MacArthur, and, yes, Johnson, are on the same plane as Mahaney, for instance.
Yes, warning people is a good use of time.
June 3rd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
“You seem to imply that all of them are not Christians. I wouldn’t go that far.”
Let’s do an experiment. Spend the next few years doing nothing but prayer and study on what it means to abide in Christ. What would you act like? What would you be doing? Use scripture as a model.
You would be working at whatever you do to earn a living to the Glory of God. You would be helping other Christians who need help. You would be encouraging people, etc, etc. You would live IN the world but not be OF it. You would understand 1 Corin 5 perfectly. You would love justice and seek it for others.
An amazing document is the letter to Diognes in chapter 5 where he talks about how “Christians” live in the 2nd (I think) century.
You would not be seeking to build a large group of followers to control. You would be helping other belivers to maturity to they can go on to help more people. You would not want them to stay immature so they follow you and give you their money. That would be unseemly and you would know it.
The list is long but the point is this. Many people have ignored what went it is to be after the ascension and before the second coming or our deaths. How are we to live as believers? ONce we really focus on that, we will recognize what is not the real thing very easily. Some will want to parse meanings like what is a sin and what is not. How much money or not, etc. That is not the point and I won’t go there. Christianity was never meant to be a cult of personality.
I do often wonder why people think that those who live in a ministry bubble can teach them about living as believers in the real world. It really makes no sense because they don’t live in the real world at all. They live and move in a ministry bubble.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:39 am
While I would agree that only God truly knows a mans heart, I do become concerned when ‘Christians’ prefer the term ‘savior’ over the name of Jesus.
This while building a legalistic system that puts its membership to task, thus creating a dependency on the man made sanctification machine they have
created from their somewhat ‘unique’ interpretations of the scripture. Lets not forget while they are thankful for the savior, his sacrifice
simply makes you eligible for membership in said machine. Christ is thus reduced to a first step, the starting point in a lifetime of sin sniffing,
judging others, submitting to the whims of men like CJ who for some reason can not even practice what he preaches.
I see a lot of Christianity in SGM, just never heard much about the life and example of Jesus. There was plenty of the Cross to go around though.
Plenty about Paul and the local church as well.
If SGM is what true Christianity looks like, count me out.
June 4th, 2012 at 9:47 am
I am amazed at how well ‘That Bad Dog’ describes the process of pastor and elder interaction with ‘recalcitrant’ sheep in his writing. I have been both an observer and recipient of this process in the last year. I think there are two things that contribute to this theological base that justifies elder abuse--the first I have heard first-hand, the second is a conclusion reached after many years in leadership and practice with quality elders.
First, is the belief in one’s positional authority as a result of being an elder or pastor. A quote from a young pastor--”If you and I have different opinions, mine is right because God has put me in the place of authority in the church”. There was no appeal to Scripture or even a reasonable logic--just an I’m right and you are wrong because of position.
Second, is the sense that many have that their preferences are indicative of God’s will and direction, even in areas that are not sin or directly addressed by Scripture. No one else’s preferences have validity because they are not ordained by God in the positional authority of elder/pastor. I was on the search committee that screened this particular young man; in some private conversation I had with him I told him that I had great concern with his answers to many of our questions about why he had done certain things in his previous Christian leadership position was prefaced with ‘God told me or God led me’. It was the policy of the current elder board at our church (including the pastor) to not allow statements like that in our discussions because it closed down discussions. After all, how do you disagree with ‘God told me’. We called that playing the God card and it was banned--appeals could be made to biblical authority, and to wisdom and experience--but not to personal revelation apart from the other contexts. Again, we did not dispute that God speaks to His people, but held out that in cases like this, the wisdom would be evident, pure and peacable, and easily understood.
Conversations end, and I think abuse begins, when we try to justify our actions and behaviors soley on the ‘God card’. It allows the one playing the ‘God card’ to marginalize those who hold different views and even think of them in the sin of rebellion for their lack of agreement for what the ‘God card’ player (only the elder or pastor gets to use that card, btw) decrees.
June 4th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Rick, You have nailed it mostly. Everything in these systems hinges on a Gentile understanding and interpretation of the “authority” of man in the Body. The system can be Calvinistic, seeker or fundy. All of them appeal to the Gentile interpretation of authority. And that is something Jesus said expressly NOT to do.
A true elder (spiritually mature) would never seek “authority” over people. But speaks with only authority of the Word and their fruit since their sanctification is obvious by their humility and calloused knees. A true elder would be appalled at the thought of having “authority” over people. That is wolf behavior. They will beg, plead, seek to persuade, often with tears in their eyes…. as Paul did.
June 4th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
If what ‘BadDog’ so aptly described only occurred in certain Reformed circles! Alas, that is not the case. In fact, if you were to read the testimony from the current Catholic clergy abuse trial taking place in Pennsylvania, you’d see a prime example of “Pastors are protected against a charge that is brought by a single individual” within the Catholic Church as well. It usually takes many collaborated stories for any credibility to be established. How many claims of individual abuse in churches went unanswered prior to the advent of the internet simply because it was difficult for individuals to collaborate their stories and find other victims?
His description played out in a very similar way for us in a non-Reformed church several years back. The church holds all the cards. You hold none.
One final comment, from an outsider to SGM who just read the AOR report (sorry I’m getting to this late). Page 19 of the report outlines SGM’s response to cases involving sexual misconduct. AOR summarizes SGM’s response as follows: “SGM leaders offered care and concern, they sought professional legal and counseling help for SGM and key leaders involved, and in some cases they helped connect parties to Christian mediators.” This statement hit me like a brick, not because of what it said, but because of what it DIDN’T say. Did anyone else pick up that there is no mention of SGM cooperating with the police or other law enforcement agencies? I couldn’t help but wonder if the AOR was hired by the Catholic Church, if they would receive a pass as well.
June 4th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
RE #106 from Iamalone..
Although you are talking about the blog post at the start of this thread…you could just as easily be referring to Dave Harvey at CovFel!!!! Or maybe even others throughout sgm
“People keep expecting the big leaders to change.
And because they are expecting leaders to change or other big leaders to see the problems with certain leaders… if they just have enough information or the right information…… tons of time is wasted.”
“Some really do think it is all about Christianity for these guys. It really isn’t for these guys. It is their business. It is what they do. They have staked their entire lives building these little kingdoms they control. “
June 4th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Brent Detwiler speaks publically about C.J. Notice how he gets choked up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9rdo7eZCKE
June 4th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Good post Rick.
Many of the young pastors in positional authority fail to grasp what is called functional authority-or talents, giftings, experience, education, special abilities.
A father has authority to make decisions for his kids, but a wise father will consider very seriously the counsel of the surgeon looking at X rays. Or the counsel of the school teacher who is with kiddo all day and thinks kiddo needs to stay back a year. Or the huge concern of wife at home with kid acting up.
A president has positional authority, but he surrounds himself (theoretically) with wise advisors and gives serious concerns to their opinions. Same with the governor, the mayor.
My husband has a boss who runs the company of over 100 people. But when my hub tells the boss that the client service reps are promising impossible deadlines, boss will give hub the freedom to tell clients they have to push the date back a couple months, or else boss will throw a few extra warm bodies at the job. Company is successful because boss listens to the rank and file.
A good pastor will look to the functional authority of people in his church who are gifted to deal with buildings, computers, children, teens, struggling marriages, addicts. He will be aware of who the intercessors are, who the evangelistic people are, who is naturally good at counseling. A good pastor knows that while he has the power and responsibility to make the final decisison on all sorts of things- doctrine, preaching, sunday school, schedules, building usage, major directions, small group format and topics, outside speakers, etc- he will have a healthier church if he avails himself of all the functional authority in the body that he possibly can. They may be laymen, they may be professionals, they may be supportive, they may be critical. But he will want their imput.
The nonsense in SGM and other shepherding churches where because of position, a magical ability to suddenly make the right decision on every topic from nursing babies to dealing with pedophiles is assumed, is rediculous. I have gotten good advice from my kids on subjects when they were not even teens yet. A wise authority knows that their position is not God’s call to self sufficient decision making. We are a many membered body and need each other- really need each other, not just lip service.
June 5th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Rick,5 years, good posts. Pride, arrogance are the root of much sin, but LOVE covers a multitude of sin.
From Thomas Campbell….
For, dark and despairing, my sight I may seal,
But man cannot cover what
God would reveal.
June 5th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Hi everyone, I’m a long-time (last July) lurker, first-time poster. I was perusing the Pyromaniacs blog this morning and came upon this article from Dan Phillips: http://www.teampyro.org/2012/05/two-marriage-myths-busted.html. Pretty good stuff, overall. But in light of Kris’s hypothesis about “pastoral immunity” and (especially) the SGM responses in the cases of Wallace, Happymom, exCLCer, and so on, this quote really stood out to me:
“But really — a woman’s husband commits adultery. You immediately begin to search for what she did to bring this on herself? On what Biblical warrant? Even if you can find twelve things she did wrong as a wife, does that make his sin of adultery to any degree her fault? A man’s wife incessantly tongue-lashes and emasculates him. First thing you do is start listing off his failure as a leader? On what Biblical warrant? Even if you can find twelve things he did wrong as a husband, does that make her sin of verbal assaults to any degree his fault?”
I can find nothing to disagree with in this paragraph…which makes their response to those hurt by SGM all the more ironic.
June 5th, 2012 at 9:26 am
Greetings. I saw this on the Puritanboard forum as a comment, discussing a man who is departing from Protestant orthodoxy. I thought some of you might like it.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:53 am
The whistleblower_
You’re point?…so Brent imitates his master by man-crying about how great CJ is. Big deal…What would you expect at a CJ love feast?
Personally, I don’t really care all that much about Brent and his ongoing mission to expose CJ. I don’t need Brent to tell me what I already know and experienced first hand. If you’re point is to show Brent’s hypocrisy, than take it up with Brent. I’ve expressed many times that Brent has as much blame as CJ in this whole debacle.
But again, your point? Am I misunderstanding your intentions?