A Theory of Why Sovereign Grace Churches Seemed to Side With Perpetrators
March 22, 2018 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
The following post first appeared on this site back in 2011. Given the recent fresh attention Sovereign Grace Churches’ issues have been receiving – including Rachel Denhollander’s interview on Fox News as well as the Christianity Today article – I thought this post was worth revisiting. Yes, it’s rather lengthy, but it does a really good job of explaining why Sovereign Grace pastors may have been uniquely primed to take the side of perpetrators over victims. It also makes a strong case for the notion that Sovereign Grace’s dysfunction goes way beyond the alleged coverup of abuse, as terrible as those situations were. For many years, the organization promoted doctrines and practices that on the surface seemed perfectly biblical and orthodox but were actually just subtly twisted enough to be dangerous. The abuse cases allegedly covered up by Sovereign Grace leadership are merely one symptom of the subtly twisted doctrines and practices.
Anyway, here are my thoughts.
———————————
While I am the first to say that any coverup of sex abuse is horrific and evil, particularly when done by a church, I think it would be interesting to explore the mindset behind any such coverup.
What is it about their SGM training that would make SGM pastors respond to abusers in such a way? Why would SGM pastors appear to extend more grace to perpetrators than to victims? Why would SGM pastors believe that they should be the primary source of counsel and support for perpetrators? Why would SGM pastors exhibit a reluctance to get outside help or call upon law enforcement to deal with such perpetrators?
It’s my opinion that SGM’s twisted teachings about sin and the role of the pastor – as well as SGM’s blurring of the lines between “the gospel” and “the SGM church organization” – are what have led to situations where these sorts of crimes seem to be minimized, and perpetrators quickly restored to good standing within congregations.
First of all, SGM holds to the (in my opinion essentially correct and biblical) belief that all problems faced by humanity can be traced back to sin. I say I think it’s an “essentially correct and biblical belief” because if we dig through all the layers of human suffering and misery and downright evil, we are left with almost no other choice but to conclude that humanity is messy because humanity is fallen and sinful.
However, where I would part ways with SGM’s assumption is where SGM’s essentially correct belief about sin morphs into what SGM believes is the remedy for sin.
In SGM’s teachings – and if I wanted to take more time to develop this, I could go back and dig up plenty of quotes from books like Why Small Groups and sermons like CJ’s Happiest Place On Earth, as well as plenty of other resources that are available for the whole world to read and hear – the problem of sin is seen as being addressed by not just the work of Jesus on the cross and His continued presence with us through the Holy Spirit. SGM would say that Jesus’ work on the cross is now being “finished” or “completed” by how Christians relate to a “local” church and how Christians are affected by the work of the pastors in their lives.
In the book Why Small Groups? (available as a free download here) a case is laid out like this:
1. Yes, salvation is through Christ alone, through his atoning sacrifice.
2. Salvation, however, is separate from sanctification.
4. Although, sanctification WILL result anytime someone is “truly saved.”
5. Sanctification cannot happen apart from “biblical fellowship.” I actually am going to go and dig up a quote to back this one up. From Chapter 1 of Why Small Groups? comes this:
Although one’s personal responsibility for sanctification remains paramount, sanctification cannot be accomplished in isolation from the local church. Scripture clearly teaches that sanctification is intended to take place in the local church—and small groups contribute invaluably to this process.
You can read the whole chapter to get an even better feel for how thoroughly CJ and his cohorts view participation in “biblical fellowship” a completely essential element of a person’s sanctification.
6. A key componant of “biblical fellowship” is interacting with people in a way where they freely confront you about your sin and where you humbly submit to others’ assessment of your sin. I would strongly urge people to read Why Small Groups? if they have not already done so, and examine how narrowly and explicitly “biblical fellowship” is defined, and how it almost cannot take place anywhere but in a small group set up and run the way SGM runs small groups.
(By the way – this principle is FOUNDATIONAL if anyone wants to understand the driving force behind Brent Detwiler’s seeming obsession with confronting CJ in his sins. In the SGM mindset, a lack of willingness to submit to others’ assessment of your sin and to acknowledge your sins when confronted with them is almost a sign that you are out of fellowship with God. If we can grasp this, we can understand why in Brent’s mind, CJ’s unwillingness to be confronted was so utterly grievous and dismaying. And why Brent continued his pursuit so doggedly…even as he talked about “grace,” which most Christians understand as letting someone off the hook. In SGM thinking, true “grace” must involve sticking with the confrontation no matter what, because unwillingness to acknowledge one’s sins when confronted would be a sign that the person is not being sanctified…which is a sign that the person could maybe not even be saved!)
7. Also, SGM believes that another essential part of “biblical fellowship” is a person’s continued oversight from his pastor, who also bears the responsibility to continue to confront the person on his sin. SGMers are taught that pastors, by virtue of their higher calling and “gifting,” possess special abilities to perceive a person’s sins more accurately than the person himself. You can read a transcript of C.J. Mahaney’s Happiest Place On Earth sermon here. C.J. has traveled around the country, delivering that sermon to many SGM churches over the years. While (once again) Dave Harvey would now apparently like people to think that SGM does not teach that pastors have special authority over people, that is simply not true.
8. Essential to the SGM understanding of the gospel is a demonstration that one remains keenly aware of one’s “worst sinner one knows” status. I realize that this comment is already excruciatingly long, but I really want to lay this all out in one place, so I’m going to quote from another post:
Deeply embedded in the SGM mindset are some assumptions:
1. All sins are just as vile in the eyes of God.
2. One of the clearest signs of “rebellion” is when a person sees himself as an injured party, because no injury that can be perpetrated against the person could ever surpass the horror that the person’s own sin is in the eyes of God.
3. The clearest sign of a “repentant” person is eager confession of wrongdoing.
Taking those three SGM assumptions, let’s examine Noel’s pastors’ response to her family’s situation. In light of these assumptions, I think we can more clearly understand a bit of what went through those pastors’ minds as they offered more sympathy and support to the perp rather than the victims. Even though the pastoral responses are basically incomprehensible to a normal person, they sort of start to make sense when you think of it in this way:
Because of SGM’s belief that each of us must always be “the worst sinner that we ourselves know,” we basically give up our rights to ANY victimhood, no matter how heinous the crime committed against us.
In other words, even though what happened to Noel’s family was absolutely horrific, SGM’s foundational teachings would say that Noel’s only legitimate “biblical” response would be to examine her own sinfulness and see herself as “the worst sinner” she knows. Her pastors would see it as their duty to direct Noel’s attention first of all to her own indwelling sin, her own wretchedness in God’s eyes. I believe they sincerely think that this is “bringing the Gospel into” everything they do. For them, “the Gospel” is firstly and foremostly about our own sin.
But instinctively, we know that something is jacked up in this view. God’s own Word would tell us that He does see some sins as having broader and more lasting consequences than other sins. Yes, all sin is an abomination in God’s eyes…theoretically. But we all know the REALITY, that if I go out and kill someone, there are far more ramifications all the way around than if I lie by calling in sick to work one day when I’m not actually sick and just want to go shopping with my friends. Both the murder and the lie are sins in God’s eyes and both are wretched, but if you lie to me, I’m probably going to be less upset than if you kill someone near and dear to me.
In SGMville, though, this normal human reaction – one that the even the Bible would seem to support, if you examine how God outlined so many very specific laws and guidelines governing behavior for Old Testament Israel – is circumvented. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been the victim of a liar or a murderer. In your SGM pastor’s mind, you’ve got NO RIGHT to see yourself as a victim, of any sort. In order to “bring the Gospel in,” they’re duty-bound to remind you of your own sinfulness, like it’s some sort of tonic for the normal grief that you might feel because of the ramifications of the sin that was perpetrated against you…like somehow, if I as the victim can just focus on my own badness, I’ll forget that someone molested my child.
So OK. In SGMville, all sins are created equal.
Now, enter the perp. Perp expresses sorrow and remorse for his sin. He truly IS the “worst sinner that he knows,” so such a mindset comes easily and naturally to him. In the eyes of his SGM pastors, he automatically then becomes the “more righteous” person, since his response is the only “truly biblical” repsonse that they can find acceptable.
It gets worse if the victim stands up for himself/herself in any fashion. SGM pastors immediately see this as unforgiveness, which of course is a sin, which then makes the victim even WORSE than the remorseful (and therefore righteous) perp.
Again, I did not think of this myself. Someone else initially posted these general thoughts. But I thought these were some brilliant observations that did far more to shed light on Noel’s pastors’ really twisted and bizarre behavior than just about anything else.
To me, this helps to make sense of why, in SGMville, the victims are minimized while the perps are protected. It’s because in SGMville, the only thing that is really righteous is seeing oneself as “the worst sinner one knows.” If one has had a crime – particularly a heinous crime like child abuse – perpetrated against one, there is NO HONEST WAY that one can authentically and enthusiastically embrace “worst sinner” status in one’s thinking. One instinctively knows that someone else’s sin (in this case, one’s perp’s sin) is greater than one’s own sin. So one naturally raises objections to embracing “worst sinner” status.
SGM pastors sense this and seem to hone in on it, interpreting standing up for oneself as a sign of pride and sin and unforgiveness.
Meanwhile, the perp is over in his corner crying his genuine tears of sorrow. Because he truly IS the “worst sinner he knows” at that moment, he is more righteous, and hence more worthy of protection.
9. We have to factor in SGM’s longstanding distrust of and total disdain for the mental health profession. SGM has long taught that “secular psychology” has absolutely nothing to offer the believer in terms of solving problems. (You can see what was taught to SGM pastors fairly recently – in 2009 – about the “counseling process” by viewing a transcript of that talk. Access Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.)
Anyway, to connect the dots of all this to the situations where SGM pastors were aware of sex abuse and seem to do nothing to address the problem legally…
If all problems are sin issues, and if the only solution to all sin issues (sanctification) must involve continued “biblical fellowship,” which – most importantly – includes continued confrontation from a pastor about one’s sins…
And if “secular psychology” presents no way for this to continue, but a pastor’s counsel does…
And if a perpetrator has acknowledged his sin to his pastor…
And if it is un-Christian (“sinful”) to ever feel like one has the right to be a total victim, with no corresponding need to focus on one’s own sin…
Then it makes total sense for the SGM pastor to:
1. Appear to side with the perpetrator.
2. Believe that his pastoral counsel is all that is needed.
3. Believe that he is actually better serving the victim through his position, because he is making it more difficult for the victim to pursue what would be sin – i.e. being a victim and “demonstrating unforgiveness” by pursuing justice through the legal system.
4. Consequently believe that through all of this, he is “protecting the gospel” or some such, because the SGM gospel is all about confronting and rooting out sin, never having the right to be a victim, and demonstrating one’s salvation status by the sanctification process of confessing one’s sins – which a perpetrator has already done, therefore making the perpetrator “more sanctified” than someone who is trying to get justice as a victim.
I largely agree, Kris. I think a couple ok ke of other key factors are:
1. Their failure to recognize that not every response is a sinful response and that as Believers we should expect there to be times when we have a godly response.
2. Failure to acknowledge our God given mandate to pursue justice.
3. Their absolute hatred of the word, “victim”.
“The quote about how SGM churches are independent and so a church would have to call for an investigation, SGM can’t do it (or SGC as they are now)…is that true? Have they dispensed with the authority of the SGC oversight over local churches? Or is that spin?”
I was almost stunned that they had the nerve to hide behind their polity. Almost. They have the legal cover to day that, yet, the influence has not changed.
SGM response: no investigation but we will get an outside group to tell pastors what to do.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10155707722814514&id=64270624513
Thanks for posting this Jenn.
MP lied to my family’s face too (Not deception but lying) So, ME TOO!!
The SGC response to Christianity Today says, “We were disappointed when they didn’t include our entire statement in their article…” Maybe it was added after the SGC posted their disappointment, but in addition to quotes and links to the earlier statements SGC made in reply to Rachael Denhollader, the article does provide a link to the full SGC February 13 detailed reply, as well as a link to the SGC’s full response to the article. (Given that their statement to CT was 6 paragraphs long, did they really, reasonably expect a full printing?)
I wonder if SGC read the artilce in full? There’s a whole section on “Important Qualifications” which includes a very sympathetic paragraph speculating on the difficulties the leadership would have legitimately encountered regarding how to handle such matters, and the article cautions about “harshly criticizing pastors” who were “confused or ignorant about the best way forward…” at the time.
By the way, has SGM/SGC officially referred to itself before now as a “denomination”? I thought it was a “family” of churches…
The entire garbage about their lack of authority is so weak, it isn’t funny. 1.) Everyone can plainly see that the polity was designed to provide them the legal loophole that he claims now. 2.) Mark, himself, has been accused of being part of the cover-up, so he has a vested interest in not pursuing an investigation. 3.) There is nothing about requesting an investigation that violates the polity. 4.) If he was so concerned about violating the polity, a council of elders could be held via video or phone in an emergency session.
I am very disappointed to continue to watch someone who I once saw as a friend continue down this path.
I think their whole statement just testifies to the extent of emotional control that CJ has over the people under him – mixed in with their idolatry of him.
When I read this statement:
“Clearly any specific allegations of child sexual abuse should be reported to criminal and child protection authorities, regardless of the passage of time”…I thought to myself, that is what it will take. A new allegation that starts with filing a police report and then taking it to the media. Not the first time I’ve thought that recently.
Rachael D. waited to come forward until she thought she would be believed about Larry Nassar. She went to the media and the police.
I believe the Holy Spirit continues to set more survivors free from being silenced by the emotional control of SGC as more people step forward in the media and speak truth and publicly call SGC to accountability. Even though SGC thinks it has found a way once again to talk their way out of submitting themselves to anyone but CJ, all that is needed is for one survivor who has, until now, remained a silenced voice to come forward and press “new” charges and go to the media.
Pray for that person’s freedom and voice because it will cost them a lot to go public, as Rachael found. But on the other side of their fear, they will find a new “church” family who will believe them, love them, and support them as Rachael has also found. And they will be able to finally rest in knowing that they were used by King Jesus to bring an end to an abusive system that has a culture that has made possible such appalling abuse of children who are precious to the heart of our Father in Heaven. Pray.
Kris- my husband said that your post is probably the best analysis of SGM thinking that he ever read.
Jenn- does the new polity not allow degiftings any more?
The fact that CLC has left SGM does not change the fact that all of this stuff happened while CLC was part of SGM under CJ’s leadership. It’s classic evasion of responsibility, not unlike what they accuse victims of sex abuse of doing with regard to their sin. (another observation from hubby)
How can they say that? We watched as they replaced seasoned pastor after seasoned pastor with newly minted Pastors College grads. They didn’t seem to lack any authority then.
I agree with Jenn that this is garbage and a total smoke screen.
I was once best friends with the present leader of SGC. In fact, I was the person who led him to CFC several years ago. The leader’s wife at the time was very hesitant in attending the church because she suspected that it may be a cult. (Good discernment) I work ed very closely with the leader at a large Pharma company and was his boss at the beginning of our friendship. he followed me to our home office and actually betrayed me twice to get ahead at the company and to become a leader in SGM. I forgave him and eventually went with him to Pittsburgh to plant His church in the rich suburbs. His vision before his elevation was to minister to the poor, addicted, homeless, etc. Opps, not many of those in Upper St. Clair.We eventually left the church because it was not a good place for non home schooled children to attend and the mystery surrounding LT’s departure.
He “loved” the church plant until the upward call came from CLC to be one of their pastors in Chads Ford, PA.(Another area steeped in poverty. NOT!) They made room for him by degifting one of their own. His rise to the top of SGC is history.
MP was trained to deal with crisis management and negotiation by the best in the business. That coupled by his humble, caring and nice demeanor certainly makes him well qualified to be the Mahaney and SGC front man. MP makes a great #2 man who can be manipulated by others in his ambitious pursuit of upward mobility. I personally am appalled by what I have heard and read about concerning his protectionist tactics over the years. I have tried to reach out to him by calling his office (his admin daughter would not let me through, emails and via his twitter account. No response.
Jenn Grover is absolutely correct in what she posts here and elsewhere. She and her brother were once very loyal to MP and his church plant. The SGC system is a “pastoral cult” that is in large part Roman Catholic in polity (unofficially of course) and contains many beliefs of the horrendous “Shepherding Movement” which LT and CJ explored. (I witnessed it in person). From my past, it is amazing that people believe the pastoral covering crap and will protect the movement without reason or discernment. I was there in the 80s, ready to follow my pastor to Mobile, AL. Thank God that I had a wife with discernment. I believe the abuse cover up stories but the spiritual authority abuse is by far the bigger issue and problem that has ruined many lives. It continues today.
Dave,
Thanks for your comment. Welcome.
You said,
This right here is why the sex abuse stuff caused me to go on hiatus from this site. SGM’s/SGC’s issues are so much bigger, but the abuse stories are what get the headlines.
And that’s actually a dangerous thing, because as awful as the abuse situations were/are, and as possibly widespread as the problem may have been within Sovereign Grace churches, it’s merely a symptom of a subtly twisted yet highly destructive system that is arguably still in place because many of the pastors raised up to leadership in the system are still at Sovereign Grace churches. As far as I know, to this day, Sovereign Grace’s current leadership has never formally repudiated much of their faulty beliefs and practices.
This is why I could never recommend a Sovereign Grace church. It’s also why I cringe inside every time my own church whips out the Sovereign Grace worship music. The lyrics are always theologically correct, of course, and some of the tunes are definitely catchy earworms (lookin’ at you, Glorious Christ). But to me, Sovereign Grace worship songs are the bait that’s been used to lure unsuspecting believers into thinking the whole organization must be kosher because the music is kosher. The music is like a gateway drug.
Also…
I know people don’t necessarily care whether or not I’d recommend Sovereign Grace churches, but I still feel the need to add a semi-disclaimer.
Sovereign Grace churches are (here’s another simile for you guys today) a little bit like opioid pain meds. A lot of people – I daresay the majority of people? – can take these pain meds appropriately and go off of them with little trouble. They aren’t destructive for all people, or even most people.
Sovereign Grace churches are like that, too. They’re not destructive for everyone. Many many people, particularly those who fit the mold of the Happy SG Person (or Couple, or Family), will be able to skate along, enjoy the good, and never bump up against the bad.
It’s just that, beneath the seemingly healthy innocuous surface, a lot of the old dysfunction has never even been recognized or rejected by Sovereign Grace’s leaders and pastors. They’re not even aware of what shaped the organization into what it is today, or what went wrong, or why “angry bitter Brent” is still going after “nice sweet happy funny CJ Mahaney.” They do not see that the forces that set the stage for Sovereign Grace’s coverup of abuse and all the rest of the dysfunction are the same forces that caused many of them to rise up to leadership.
This is what’s scary.
So…. in fairness to SGM/SGC, if all I do is read their doctrinal statement, I pretty much agree. I also do not have a problem with submitting to wise pastors to a point (key word is wise). Church is like a job to some extent, you can leave if you don’t like it.
What I saw at SGM many years ago….. Perhaps early on they had good intentions, but I think over time SGM just became an employment machine for friends and family. Perhaps CJ really did become a Calvinist, or he realized the power of differentiation and came up with the “reformed charismatic” monicker. As it grew, they needed to ensure that all the churches were in line which meant ensuring that “company men” were put in charge. Planting churches was like opening up a new Starbucks and the pastors’ college was “management training”. To echo what Kris wrote, their doctrine produced horrible results because many of the pastors were simply not cut out to pastor. They were trained to employ cookie-cutter approaches to complex problems. Pastors with wisdom and a heart for people realize that every situation is different and there are not always easy answers from the handbook. You can sure see this with the abuse cases. But, in a more general sense, that “cult like” vibe a lot of people reported was due to the franchise mindset.
One more thing…. let’s just say that none of the coverup allegations are true. Then read through some of those email exchanges that Brent published in his documents. Then ask yourself if those men should be leaders of a denomination.
One more “also” –
5years,
Thanks for the affirmation. Because I would go literally months without doing anything with this site, I’d forgotten a lot of the stuff I’d written years ago. I spent some time over the weekend rereading old posts, and when I came across the one above (from 2011), it hit me that it’d be helpful for anyone new to the Sovereign Grace story, particularly those who are thinking the sex abuse coverups are SG’s basic problem.
Obviously, I’m glad the abuse cases are getting the attention they deserve, but in a weird way, all that type of focus – first the lawsuits a few years ago, then this new coverage – have given SG’s defenders an easy out.
We can see this at work with the statements Sovereign Grace has made. They are quick to point out the lawsuit was dismissed (albeit on a technicality, not because the charges were deemed to be without merit). They point to the fact that Sovereign Grace churches weren’t the only churches where this type of thing happened. They express their sorrow over the pain experienced by victims.
And thus they are able to truncate any deeper discussion of the underlying dysfunction over why the coverups happened in the first place. By putting the focus on a dozen or so specific (albeit terrible) situations, they can cause most people to assume the problems have been contained and addressed. Most people with a passing curiosity are not going to take the time (or even have the theological wherewithal) to see the subtleties of how Sovereign Grace churches differ from other conservative Bible-preaching churches with a Reformed bent.
“Sick With Worry” –
Totally agree with you that Sovereign Grace’s doctrinal statements are perfectly fine. That’s a huge part of why so many other legitimate ministries without issues continue to partner with them and refuse to call them out for their problems. It’s because it’s so hard to discern that there even ARE problems. At present, the abuse coverup scandal is drawing attention, but I think SG’s hope is that it will all die down just as it did before…and their core defenders will carry on just as they’ve always done.
Kris, I whole heartedly agree about the abuse cases revealing what’s at the heart of the cover-up.
Dave knows MP, perhaps like no other. And I know Dave well enough to be confident that like me, we wish nothing more than to see MP restored to God and set free from the deceit that is the byproduct of his ambition. It brings me no joy to see him in this scandal.
The statements and tactics broadcast a loud message: nothing has changed in SGM. You can dress them up in a new polity, but the behavior is the same. They saw nothing wrong with the old behavior, so why would they change?
Letmypeople-
Meant to comment sooner. Yes, supposedly there are a great many people who never joined the lawsuit or came out publicly with their stories. But they exist. Maybe they have gone on with their lives, or maybe they don’t want to name their child.
“Taylor”‘s story is a good example of the craziness Kris described. I don’t think she joined the lawsuit. A couple snips:
You wonder how many there are out there we never heard about. The SGM moral equivalency of making perps and wives and kid victims equal sinners is disgraceful. Jesus spoke of greater and lesser sins, and greater and lesser punishments in the next life. I would think sexually abusing a child is one of the greatest sins of all, if not the greatest. You never, ever, tell a child, or the wife of a pedophile, that they are to blame for what happened.
My husband thinks that SGM got hold of CCEF/Powlison materials in the 90s about being responsible for our sins, and we are all sinners. Perfectly good stuff. The charismatic movement had a lot of blaming the devil and binding the devil, and praying for inner healing, and seeing ourselves as victims of the devil attacking or our bad childhood, etc. We had to face up to our own fallen nature and bad responses and stop being victims. We had to grow up and be responsible.
But SGM took a truth and (as “Sopwith” said a few threads back) weaponized the doctrine of indwelling sin. That doctrine didn’t become a path to the grace of forgiveness, but it became something to beat people with. It wasn’t secondary to the fact that we are born again with a new nature and new heart and new spirit, it became primary and twisted and central.
Reformed theology uses the term “heresy of emphasis”. Something can be true, or mostly true, but get an emphasis that scripture and God never intended. It isn’t heretical in the doctrinal statement sense, more in the application, and strong overemphasis.
Anyway, maybe more folks will come forward, maybe not. I honestly can’t picture SGM agreeing to an investigation. Will be interesting to watch what happens with the big dogs. This is their chance to repent and redeem themselves from the past, or to join in the spin.
Jenn said,
One thing I don’t understand is why so many people believe these leaders are completely truthful and trustworthy. They had obvious motivation for smoothing things over and maintaining as much of the status quo as they could.
The only thing that I might add is that SGM pastors did this exact thing w each other (frequently “de-gifting” godly pastors who weren’t “humble” enough) but C.J. and the rest of the “apostolic” team weren’t subject to it and anyone who called them out or called for justice was proud and rebellious.
Thanks 5years – for your response to my comments. I have been helped many times by your thoughts. They often put to words much of what I have experienced.
There certainly was/is a double standard. You basically couldn’t question or point out issues with anyone that was “above” you in the SGM food chain. Of course with this Mahaney being on the top couldn’t be questioned or issues with his character pointed out. After all Mahaney was the group’s “pope” whether leadership wanted to admit he was or not.
From Warren Throckmorton’s article/comments:
“Today, Christianity Today editor-in-chief Mark Galli wrote an op-ed calling on Sovereign Grace Churches to submit to an independent investigation of allegations of covering up past child abuse at associated churches.” [ Galli wants to investigate allegations of child abuse cover-up ]
“A former ministry partner of Mahaney turned critic, Brent Detwiler, has been chronicling the controversy for many years and claims that 100 pastors, 300 small group leaders, 40 churches (including his own), and 12,000 members have left SGC churches largely over what they claim has been abusive and deceitful leadership.” [which is what he wants to investigate ]
And commenter Mirelle wants to just investigate C.J. Mahaney
Drew, your point isn’t clear to me. Care to elaborate?
Jenn, My point? It doesn’t get sticky; it’s been sticky for years. I’ve never thought this SGM issue was very simple.
5 years always suggested there were two different items [ at least ].
Maybe she will clarify. It appears CT and Rachael just want to investigate if there was a coverup about the sexual abuse. I think 5 years was more concerned about leadership
I don’t think Brent gives a care about the abuse issue. I think Brent only cares about C.J.
WAS BRENT De-Gifted? That would explain a lot.
Drew, having personally interacted with Brent about this I can tell you that he does care, very much. Perhaps there is a drive for vindication there, but that really doesnt seem to be his primary motive. I am not too worried about whether or not his message is without sin, because by and large, Brent has been factually correct and his posts can be fairly easily corroborated. Secondly, even if that is his motive, it would not invalidate the truth he brings about the abuse. SGM was notorious for dismissing a charge by turning the tables on the person bringing the charge and basically deeming their charge invalid because of some perceived sin. An SGM pastor (current) just tried the same crap with me, recently, when I asked an honest, authentic question. I don’t care to try to figure out what Brent’s motive may or may not be.
I think a point that is often missed is that Brent appears to be the only SGM leader who was trying (imperfectly, like the rest of us) to live out what was taught. He actually believed it and believed it applied to him, as well. Brent has acknowledged errors in the ways he did certain things. Most of us who have left still regularly become newly aware of convicted about the way we perceived things, or the way we did things in SGM. I trust Brent is in the same boat.
I don’t think you can separate the issue of conspiracy to cover up sexual abuse with SGM’s abusive practices. They created a culture for predators to find a home, a culture where people did not question authority, and a culture that punished those who did not do as the leaders instructed (see ex CLCer’s story.) The abuse and patterns are also clearly on display in their communication since he scandal broke in 2011 and still obvious, today.
Drew, I think part of the issue I have with you is that you jump in here to defend SGM, with no, “horse in the race”, but do not seem to have bothered to educate yourself about SGM history or behavior patterns. A lot of us know, first hand. I was a part of 3 different SGM churches over almost 20 years, part of a church plant, and my brother was a Pastor’s College graduate. I experienced SGM leaders lying, directly, experienced their heavy handed leadership. I also experience what godly leadership looks like, thanks to Mark Altrogge.
Drew, I am not sure why you come her, but it might help if you wouldn’t mind to explain. Is it to try to help us? Is it to stir the pot, is it to try to present an alternate perspective? Is it a little of all of the above?
Seriously, Drew, you sound like the SGM leaders. Forget about truth or facts or revelation or whatever – all that matters is the messanger, and whether s/he is acceptable.
Was Brent de-gifted?
Drew, I am going to assume you missed my last question and are not dodging it…
Drew, I am not sure why you come here, but it might help if you wouldn’t mind to explain. Is it to try to help us? Is it to stir the pot, is it to try to present an alternate perspective? Is it a little of all of the above
Jenn G and OutThere,
Note Drews comment/question, above.
Distraction, hijacking and in a sense, toying. A child or a deflector.
Why do you ask? What does it matter, given the context in which you ask?
Sorry, my question was for Drew, and 2 other comments popped up while I was writing.
alternate perspective.
Was Brent degifted?
I think I can speak for many others here when I say I can’t think of an “alternative perspective” that involves removing Brent’s commentary from the equation and thereby discrediting the documents he has made available for all of us to read and evaluate on our own, plus the various testimonies that are available on this site.
For that reason, we view your question as a diversion into a bottomless rabbit hole. If you can explain why the answer to your question matters, we are willing to move forward in this discussion.
Larry Nassar’s boss at MSU was arrested today for allegations of sexual assault and child pornography. So not surprising: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/03/26/william-strampel-arrest-larry-nassar-msu/33310095/
Rachael Dennhollander also has a comment about his arrest on her Facebook page that I thought many here would find interesting to read: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialDenhollander/
So, nobody is willing to say whether or not Brent was de-gifted. I do know he was removed as pastor of an SGM church, that no longer exists.
______
Of greater interest to me is; just how charismatic were the SGM churches back in the day? Other than a grand total of two services, I’ve never been a part of a charismatic “gifts” church. I heard about “holy laughter” from Rodney Brown and I was aware of the “Toronto Blessing” where them moved from Holy Laughter to animal sounds until the late John Wimber, as I recall, renounced the practice. I also know about Brownsville and currently in Northern California there is a church and school that appears to be following in that direction.
So, if you attended a PDI/SGM church before say 2010, – were the “gifts of the spirit” a regular part of a service? Did people get up and speak in tongues in the middle of a service or break out in holy laughter?
Just how charismatic were the churches?
[ Part of my perspective, I’ve never been charismatic ]
Rachaels’s comments about the arrest are a few posts down on her Facebook page. It’s the one that in which she starts out talking about her daughters :) She’s posted a few updates today that pushed the one I was referencing further down on her page. Bird of a feather certainly always flock together.
Here’s Rachael’s link again https://www.facebook.com/OfficialDenhollander/
Sorry that this is a repeat link, but I didn’t want it to get lost in the shuffle…
Drew, personally, I am just tired of your games.
Jenn: Are you all for transparency? Everybody is for transparency if it involves the other party.
Speaking of transparency? Was Brent de-gifted? or is this a secret that must not be shared with the hoi poloi?
_______
So a lot of people are upset with SGM leadership for their lack of transparency. Yet here we are, nobody will answer whether or not Brent was de-gifted.
Drew said earlier, “I don’t think Brent gives a care about the abuse issue. I think Brent only cares about C.J.
WAS BRENT De-Gifted? That would explain a lot.”
When you explain what the above statement means, then maybe we will trust you. Until then, we view any attempt by you to discuss whether or not Brent was “de-gifted” as an attempt to draw some kind of false connection betweeen the validity of an argument discrediting SGM and Brent’s possible attitude toward them.
The transparency ball is actually in your court.
Why is it that no ever bring up that People of Destiny consciously and intentionally followed Watchman Nee in his view about the continuity of apostleship and authority in the church? Watchman Nee clearly states that the church is not subject to any authority except God. According to Nee, the church did have to hold itself accountable to governmental law. This is a clear explanation for the culture of SGM.
5years in PDI
Revisiting some of “Taylor’s Story” is still as sickening as ever —and ever so revealing of the inner workings of leaderships manipulative, twisted ‘counsel’ and perverse strutting of authority
TrueBlue states the core alarming issue:
“I believe the abuse cover up stories, ** but the spiritual authority abuse is by far the bigger issue that has ruined many lives.** It continues today.”
—Because of twisted polity and leadership structure—abuse can only continue,and be protected. As Kris stated “The old dysfunction has never been recognized or rejected by Sovereign Grace leaders.” Leadership and polity structure is able to chug along thanks to the many congregants who are content and seemingly unaffected by dysfunctional pollution.
However, as our family member says “It all tasted really good going down until we knew it was poison.” We have talked with many many former congregants, who even after leaving SGM up to 10 years ago or more, continue to “see” the steals and wounds from spiritual abuse from SGM. We who were a part of SGM know, we never ever expected (or even knew about) “spiritual abuse”. The deep sadness, grief, hurt, shock,rejection…by those who were our pastors and leaders.This is a category of its own in “binding up the broken-hearted.”
Accountability for perpetrators of spiritual abuse? How does this come about? — Declaring what is true; prayer that Holy Spirit continues to reveal all that is hidden…Love loves truth.
Perhaps because R Dehollander is gifted in intellect as an attorney—a desire to get to the root of issues and how and why it all works…I pray the Lord will move through her to see and give voice to the reality of SGM’s twisted leadership polity and control…which leaves the door wide open for spiritual, sexual, mental, and emotional abuse.
Do I think that if it turned out Brent had been de-gifted it would affect his attitude towards C.J. Of course? It would have affected mine.
Now it’s your turn – was Brent de-gifted or is that info still to be hidden behind non-transparent walls. [ Irony of ironies ]
I think most of us are familiar with the concept of trolls: people who exist in discussions, whose only purpose is to cause trouble. I’ve found the best way to deal with someone who refuses to answer questions, is dishonest, and exists to distract me from the truth (given that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, I consider trying to distract people from truth to be evil), is to ignore them. If they are doing God’s work, (and I’m wrong about them), then may they be blessed and prosper.
While there are moments to interact, for the most part, I find it’s best not to feed trolls. They want attention and don’t care about the damage they do to truth. Eventually, if they get zero attention, they go away.
In general, I’m going to do my best to not feed the trolls.
Stunned, I second that motion :)
Waters, it’s so nice to “see” you. I always appreciate the wisdom that God, and the hard knocks of life have given you.
Waters said, “Distraction, hijacking and in a sense, toying. A child or a deflector.”
There you go with that wisdom, again.
As far as I know, “de-gifting” is not an official term. We (well, I) use it in a snarky fashion to refer to pastors who suddenly were found to be not “gifted” enough to continue in their work – and from my perspective, it was used on people who rubbed CJ the wrong way, but otherwise with whom no serious fault could be found. But I could be wrong.
I don’t know if Brent was “de-gifted.” I was gone by that time, and I forget what he has said. But I think it’s obvious to anyone with any sense that Brent has an attitude toward CJ, though I also believe him when he says he cares deeply about CJ – but so what?
You have refused to explain why this matters – and don’t forget, keep it in the context of the mishandling of sex abuse cases, and other SGM/SGC leadership abuse issues for which there is an abundance of information and testimony from others. If you are just talking in general about Brent’s attitude toward CJ, you should join Brent on facebook and discuss it with him yourself. But when you discuss his attitude in general here, it screams “diversion.” And that is the problem…
Drew, we aren’t answering you because if you bothered to take the time to understand the issues, you would know. There are plenty of posts on this site that address that. There is no lack of transparency. Brent, himself, has a site that chronicles everything. I am not interested in catering to you. Outthere is exactly right. Your diversions are childish.
dtetheman – the whole issue of apostles has been discussed, ad nauseum. I recommend trying to use the search function before you cast stones.
Drew- fwiw—
https://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?14,113601,page=3
“Bridget asked what reason Brent gives for the failure of the Mooresville church plant. I gather from “Part 4 — the Untold Story (Incomplete)” and point #7 under “The Ethical Demise of Sovereign Grace Ministries (Part 2)” that he blames a number of people (CJ, Dave H, Bob K, Gene E), etc. for conspiring to remove him, which quickly brought about the demise of the church. I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen any other explanation from him.”
“I was a member of CrossWay at the time, and we were told a little bit, but not much about what was going on in Mooresville. We found out later from several individuals who were in the Mville church that they were really in the dark and had no idea what was going on. Can you say shell-shocked? So Brent was removed, and then the question was what to do. Bring in a new pastor from somewhere else or dissolve the church? There was discussion about whether to send both Jim Hawkins and Mike Seaver (CrossWay pastors at the time; later to plant the church in Summerville, SC) to take over as pastors. CrossWay decided that it would not be a good idea to send Hawkins and Seaver, so the church was shut down. The people in the Mooresville church apparently didn’t really have any say in the matter, which generated a lot of resentment, as you can imagine. A lot of really messed up people returned to CrossWay. Some did not. Some who went back to CrossWay left within a short time, and a few remain to this day.”
***************
So, he was forced out. Yes it is essentially a degifting, although a bit different than many of the other degiftings. Yes, he is obviously hurt and traumatized and bitter. Yes he has an attitude from it. However, I think his posts about criminal actions like the hush fund are accurate. I think of it like Vinny and Mario kicking Tony out of the gang, and Tony retaliates by telling the fed where the bodies are buried.
disclaimer- this is the internet. Any quotes about Brent could be right up there with “I saw Elvis on a UFO next to planet X”. Or they could be true. I don’t want him on here hollering that I am slandering him.