Here is the second half of the transcript of C.J. Mahaney’s message, The Happiest Place On Earth, which he presented at Cornerstone Church of Knoxville this past August. You will find the first half here. You can access audio for this sermon here (click on “Media & Links,” then click on “Sermons,” then look for the message entitled, The Happiest Place On Earth). As has been the case in previous similar posts, my thoughts will be in blue.
—————————–
[Begin second half of transcript:]
And the eternal perspective is not only revealed with the writer’s intentional use of the word “soul.” The eternal perspective is also clearly revealed as he reminds the pastors that they will one day give an account. Yes they will. They’ll give an account to none other than the chief shepherd.
And, I can tell you, even this moment, their souls tremble. They’re perplexed. [Lowers voice to dramatic whisper] “Oh, why. Why did you delegate temporarily to me the souls of those for whom – which – you died? Doesn’t seem to be your wisest move.” But they’re aware of their weakness, their need for grace. They’re also aware of their responsibility. They’re aware – one day, it’s gonna be eye to eye with the one who did die for your sins, giving an account for how – how they did. And the questions are all here. Won’t be any surprise questions. You got all the questions for the final exam right here. “Did you watch over their souls? Did you prepare them for that final day? Did you?
Oh, there’s so much to be said, but we have so much more ground to cover. But the passage is deep, rich, with the eternal perspective, which really transforms – well, it transforms everything. I mean, once you’re informed about the eternal perspective, or reminded of the eternal perspective, then it, it makes the future – makes its way into the present, and then you live the present in the light of the future. So your awareness of the future transforms the present. And that’s what this passage does. It gives an eternal perspective. They watch over your souls, preparing you for that all-important day, and on that all-important day, they will give an account. That’s the role of pastors.
Number two, the responsibility of church members. The responsibility of church members. Verse 17. “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” I mean – I’ll read those words and I completely understand why any pastor would be reluctant to preach from this passage.
As I said earlier, it can appear self-serving. I also think there are many pastors who are aware that this is a most unappealing passage to the average American Evangelical. There are many Evangelicals who are uncomfortable with this language. “Obey” and “submitting to” leaders.
[Kris says: This is an interesting technique. Notice what C.J. does here. He says, "There are many Evangelicals who are uncomfortable with this language."
What's interesting about this statement is, most SGMers would NOT consider themselves primarily to be "Evangelical" in the manner in which that word has come to be defined. In fact, most folks who have landed at SGM have arrived at their SGM churches after journeying through other branches of Christianity, and they come to SGM expressly because they are looking for an antidote to the user-friendly, seeker-sensitive, soft-sell message of modern Evangelicalism, with its lack of emphasis on "sound doctrine."
SGMers will think of themselves rather proudly as "Reformed, with a distinctly Charismatic element," but most would not firstly define themselves as "Evangelical." After all, they came to SGM expressly to ESCAPE being one of those namby-pamby, easy-believe-ism Evangelicals! That's why they embrace such challenging and non-fun activities like joining a group where people are happy to confront you about your sin. That's why they sit around and talk about all their personal weaknesses and struggles. That's why they grit their teeth, tighten their bootstraps, and find SGM's "tough love" message bracing and invigorating.
SGM in its current form is a reaction to seeker-friendly "Evangelicalism!"
So, when C.J. points out that "many Evangelicals" are uncomfortable with talking about obedience and submission, he already knows that he's just now set up his audience to think the opposite of what these "many Evangelicals" think. He is well aware of their disdain for the wimpiness of typical "Evangelicalism" - he regularly capitalizes on it to boost SGM's standing in his people's minds.
So basically, when C.J. stands up and says that "many Evangelicals" think such-and-such, his audience already knows that they'd better think the opposite, or they run the risk of slipping back into being - horrors! - a mere "Evangelical"!
C.J. has now set up his audience so that even if they feel a nagging sense that something about this teaching is not quite right, they will immediately feel forced to accept it anyway. They will assume that their questions are coming from the part of them that is still attracted to "Evangelicalism."]
I think what we have to realize, though, is the scripture isn’t uncomfortable with this language. So if the scripture isn’t uncomfortable with this language, then…I shouldn’t be uncomfortable with this language, and…if I am uncomfortable with this language, then I need to find out, because it’s clear the scripture isn’t uncomfortable with this language. So you gotta ask yourself why, if you find yourself uncomfortable, if you find yourself doing this, saying, “Surely it doesn’t mean THAT. Surely in the original, the – I mean – it doesn’t mean – it doesn’t really mean OBEY. It doesn’t – NO WAY. And what’s up with the ‘submit’? That – no – no, I’m sure some intelligent individual who’s familiar with the original language could tell us why it – it – it – doesn’t mean THAT.”
And so if you’re anticipating me spending this – rest of this sermon telling you, “You know, it doesn’t really mean that,” or trying to soften it or alter it, you might as well start drawing a picture as well, ‘cause that’s not – that’s not what’s gonna be happening here today.
[Kris says: What's interesting is that there actually are plenty of resources around that DO call into question translation errors that have crept into our understanding of this particular verse.
But I don't think we even NEED to debate whether "obey" and "submit" are the right words to use here. I think we can easily assume that they are accurate enough to convey what God meant and yet STILL see major problems with the way C.J. has expounded upon them.
What I think IS so desperately necessary for this sermon is a much more detailed explanation of what this sort of obedience and submission translate into in real life situations.
We have definite instances spanning decades when SGM practices have converged with the harmful practices of authoritarian shepherding. We have recent accounts of members being counseled by their pastors to not move to a particular city, even after a family has decided that they feel led to move.
Are obedience and submission required in that sort of situation?
What of times when pastors simply miss the mark and get the sin-sniffing wrong? That's probably one of the areas where SGM has the most issues. Most instances of church discipline flow out of these types of situations, where a pastor makes an assessment about a member's sin in some area, and a member dares to disagree. Suddenly, the member is then "prideful." Further resistance, and the member is "in unrepentant sin" because he is not submitting to his pastor over the matter.
Does the obedience and submission discussed in Hebrews 13 mean that members are required to relinquish any and all ability or rights to disagree with a pastoral assessment of a sin or problem?
Or does obedience/submission now require members to agree with their pastors on all such matters?
It takes no imagination whatsoever to see why having only the vaguest idea of what is meant by "obey" and "submit" can create huge problems. C.J. needs to flesh out the scenarios where obedience and submission come into play.
For instance, what of a church's financial decisions? Are members always obligated to agree with everything pastors choose to do in this area? What if a member sees some crazy expenditures and disagrees? What if pastors pursue building projects that members believe to be imprudent risks?
Does the Bible require obedience and submission in these situations?]
Now, now look, it’s not as though I don’t identify with any uncomfortableness you might have with this…language. OK, so we gotta ask ourselves, “OK, why would we be uncomfortable?” Well, I mean, a – an obvious reason, a “duh” reason, would be SIN. I mean, it’s humbling. We arrive – we might not be aware of it – but, to differing degrees, we’re all arrogant. Self-sufficient. “Obey? Submit? OK, I can reconcile myself to that in relation to parents. In an age-appropriate obedience and submission in relation to parents. What’s up with this, though?” So it could be a sinful response.
[Kris says: Sure, there could be sin at work, making C.J.'s audience not want to submit to their pastors. But...what if these reactions sometimes happen because the Knoxville pastors are on occasion WRONG and THEMSELVES BEING SINFUL by wanting, for example, to institute some strangely negative membership covenant whose sole purpose seems to be protecting the church from lawsuits for pastoral misconduct during church discipline situations?
Must it always be sin at the root of this sort of reaction? Or, to rephrase that better - must it always be the member's sin that is at the root of worrying about obeying one's pastors?]
It could be, there might be some – I hope there are none – but there might be some, where you actually come from a context where a pastor or pastoral theme was authoritarian. And if that is true – and if that is true of you – [whispers intensely] I am SO SORRY. Because there is no excuse for that. And if any of us as pastors engage in that, may we be held accountable in this life. I’m sure we’ll be held accountable in the life to come.
And here’s what I can assure you of this morning: that will not be your experience in this church. That will not be your experience in this church.
[Kris says: How can C.J. assure his audience of such a thing? How can he do this?
First of all, he supposedly is "flying blind" in his presentation of this message. Supposedly, this has nothing to do with offering up correction to the Knoxville church.
So presumably (if we are to believe him), C.J. has no knowledge of Knoxville's current flap over the required signing of the new membership covenant.
If C.J. doesn't know about THAT, then how in heaven's name can he think he knows enough about ANYTHING to make such a claim? Why would he think he knows whether or not any Knoxville pastor has ever abused his authority?
Secondly, C.J. presented this teaching during his most recent vacation there, in August 2009, long after this blog and SGM Refuge were established. By now, C.J. is aware of the way that some pastors have abused their authority. He has even entered into discussions with a couple of injured parties. C.J. KNOWS ABOUT THE VERY REAL POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE. C.J. KNOWS THAT ABUSES HAVE OCCURRED. Therefore, brushing off concerns about pastoral abuse, rather than tackling them head on, seems really cowardly and further detracts from the credibility of this message.]
So, there – there are different reasons why we might be uncomfortable with this. Now, here’s what I’m gonna do, I’m gonna, just real quickly, I’m gonna make some qualifying statements. Because I think, given our uncomfortableness with this passage, these words, this topic, if I make a few qualifying statements, it might serve your soul. I hope it does serve your soul. I – I understand this can be misunderstood, this can be misapplied. Here’s – here’s my challenge. I’m supposed to teach this text to you. So I’m gonna give you some qualifying statements, but then we’re going right back to the text, because that’s my, that’s my role and responsibility this morning, that’s the best way I can serve you. So I hope these qualifying statements don’t weaken the text. Actually, I hope they prepare you to actually look with new eyes at the text. And if anything, if possible, I hope they strengthen the text in…your…soul.
So, so, there’s no misunderstanding as relates to the delegated authority of a pastoral theme and the exercise of authority by a pastoral team in the context of the local church, understand the following. Number one. The passion of your pastoral team. Their passion and purpose is that you know, love, and obey – that you know, love, obey, and serve – the chief Shepherd, the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s – that’s their passion. That’s their purpose. Your pastors didn’t die for your sins. But it is their passion to draw your attention to the One who did die for your sins. And that’s what motivates them as they serve you and care for you and watch over your souls.
[Kris says: This passage would seem to indicate that C.J. is aware that he has thus far in the message placed pastors on too high a pedestal - an inappropriate, unscriptural pedestal. Otherwise, why would he need, even in jest, to make such a weird disclaimer like, "Your pastors didn't die for your sins"?
And otherwise, why would he be anticipating that his audience needs to be reminded that their pastors are only motivated to occupy this pedestal out of a desire to "draw attention to the One who did die for your sins"?
Strange, indeed.]
Number two, their authority is delegated authority, and it’s derived from scripture. Their authority is derived from scripture. Their authority should never be confused with the authority OF scripture. Your – your submission and obedience to scripture is absolute. Your submission to the pastoral team is not absolute. However, because of this clear command of scripture, “Obey your leaders and submit to them,” there is an appropriate obedience to leadership, an appropriate expression of your submission to scripture, that is by no means in contradiction to the authority and content of scripture. Uh, those are very important distinctions to be made about scripture, the authority of scripture, and the delegated authority to a pastor or pastoral team.
[Kris says: Again, even if we assume that "obey" and "submit" are the correctly translated words that should be used in this passage, I dearly wish that C.J. wouldn't just ramble on here about submission to scripture being absolute, while submission to pastors isn't absolute.
We desperately need some specific examples of when a pastor's authority is OK to ignore. When is obedience not a requirement? When is one off the hook for not submitting to his or her pastor?
I mean, C.J. has been very clear that the Bible requires us to obey and submit. So how can he say that pastoral authority - on the other hand - CAN be questioned in some circumstances?
He's really talking out of both sides of his mouth here.]
Three, their authority is defined by scripture. Their sphere of authority – their sphere of delegated authority – is defined by scripture. Their sphere of ministry involves teaching God’s Word, directing the affairs of the church, and watching over your souls. That’s – that is the – those are the spheres of their delegated authority from the chief shepherd. And your pastors understand the nature and the extent and the purpose of pastoral authority.
[Kris says: Do pastors REALLY understand "the nature and the extent and the purpose of pastoral authority"? Really?
SGM's theology focuses a lot of attention on the dangers of sin, and how our "remaining indwelling sin" can affect the eternal destiny of our souls. There is a lot of attention paid to sort of "proving" through one’s behavior that one is indeed among the elect.
In other words, in SGM's gospel, our sanctification (our righteous living) is absolutely necessary evidence of our justification (our right standing with God). And what is "righteous living," except for the day-to-day choices we make, the behaviors we engage in, the attitudes we display?
Therefore, in SGMville, if a pastor is concerned about our "eternal soul," his concern simply WILL extend to all the minutia of that member's daily life, since seeing "evidences of grace" in the member's daily life is part and parcel of the member's knowing whether or not he is saved.
See, either this "watch over your souls" business has ramifications for our salvation (“eternal consequences”), or it doesn't. C.J. seems to think that it does. He spent many minutes (and several paragraphs here in this transcript) hammering away at the eternal component of the word "soul." He whispered it at us dramatically. He almost wept over it - his voice nearly cracked.
Yet now he's acting like he's limiting a pastor's authority...sort of...and yet he keeps the mention of "watching over your souls." The truth is, there can be no limit to a pastor's authority if it has to do with our SOUL.]
Finally, number four. They serve you and lead you as a plurality of pastors. So when we read verse 17, “Obey your LEADERS,” plural, “and submit to THEM,” you are being served by a plurality. So, their authority is derived from scripture, their authority is defined by scripture, and their authority is exercised by a team of men. Authority in this church is not located in a single leader. So, major decisions about the direction and future of this church require unanimity, they’re a plurality of men who are called by God, qualified to lead and serve you through their proven character and gifting, with clearly defined spheres of authority, and their task is a temporary one, and they will one day they will give an account for this most important temporary task.
[Kris says: Again, I love how quickly he plows through this "plurality of leaders" thing. What does that actually mean? And is C.J. honestly saying that the Knoxville church has no one on the pastoral team who can finally say, "The buck stops here"?
Really?
The pastors at Knoxville all get together and answer to...no one and everyone? They don't really have a boss?
Really?
No one's in charge?
No one has any final say?
I don't think that's actually the case. I'm pretty sure that there is a senior pastor at Knoxville. And I'm pretty sure that if there's a major disagreement, he'd have the ultimate authority. Meanwhile, all the other guys on his "team" are still sort of like his employees. How forcefully will they feel inclined to argue against something the senior pastor wants to do, if they might actually be risking a pretty well-paying pastoral position to persist in the disagreement? Especially since, by not agreeing with their senior pastor, who is their own "authority" above them, they could be found in sin for their lack of submission?
Beyond that, the Knoxville church would answer to their area "apostle." Or overseer. (Or whatever other Reformed-Big-Dog-friendly term SGM is using these days for the men whom they used to call "apostles" not so very long ago.)
The truth is that in the SGM world, authority is concentrated in fewer and fewer men, the higher one moves up the leadership pyramid, till you reach C.J. Mahaney himself, all the way at the tippy-top of the pyramid.
So it is ludicrous for C.J. to assure his audience that they are ruled by a "plurality." They can bandy about the word "team" all they want, but the team ultimately does have a captain...who in turn has HIS captain...who in turn answers to HIS captain...and so on and so on and so on.]
Now, it’s important that I make this statement. It’s important that – I could make more, you’d be informed by these statements – but it’s equally important that these statements not weaken the text, because obey and submitting to godly pastors is a – is a divinely imposed privilege and responsibility ultimately for our good.
So, as a member of this church or any church, you are called and you are responsible before God and to God as church members to obey and submit to the leaders of the church as they teach God’s Word, as they direct the affairs of the church, and as they watch over your souls. It could not be clearer, “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” Again, don’t misunderstand, this bears no resemblance to the response of a subordinate in the military, this is not the obedience of a child to a parent, but, this is a very specific submission and obedience that is being commanded here. And so here is the appropriate biblical response to fallible human leadership. As defined in scripture.
[Kris says: HOW is this kind of obedience different from that of a child to a parent? HOW is it different than submission as we'd see it in the military?
Explaining that obedience and submission are required of us by God, but then telling us that they're "not" certain things that comprise a common person's understanding of obedience and submission is simply not very responsible preaching.
If C.J. is going to go around delivering this sermon, then he needs to do a better job of illustrating what this sort of obedience to pastors looks like, in real everyday life situations. And if he's going to tell us what it ISN'T like, then he needs to explain just HOW it is NOT like that thing.]
If you – these – again, individually, I cannot elaborate on them. But number one, here it is, a list of appropriate biblical responses to godly, fallible human leadership. There should, number one, be a joyful agreement with and responsiveness to their doctrine and teaching. There should be a joyful agreement with and responsiveness to their doctrine and teaching, which is why this church has what’s called a “Commitment Class,” a class where we can say to a guest, “Take a period of months to consider – let us introduce you to our doctrine, let us introduce you to our teaching (most important, let us introduce you to the gospel and our Savior), let us introduce you to our church life, we don’t want anybody making any commitment to this church after they’ve been moved in worship after the meeting this morning. We’re grateful that they were moved in worship after the meeting this morning. But it would be unwise to make a commitment merely because you were moved by worship or during communion this morning. You need to be educated about the doctrine and practice of this church so that your – you’ll – you can be in joyful agreement as you commit to this church.
[Kris says: So obedience and submission are demonstrated by joyfully accepting everything that one hears from the pulpit?
Yes, C.J. says something about "fallible" men here. But how does this work itself out in real life? Are there ever occasions when it's OK to question teachings? To reject something as unscriptural, since it's coming from a "fallible man"? If so, C.J. needs to explain this better.]
Secondly, there should be a joyful participation in the appropriate meetings of this church. There should be a joyful participation in the appropriate meetings of this church. Third, there should be a joyful service in this church for this church. Every member of this church should be consistently and meaningfully involved in some way depending on gifting and season of life. Ah, the only ones exempt for any period of time are mothers with small children who must always be held in the highest esteem and respect in the context of this church. OK? I know you do, but I – [laughs] – I mean, I, I’m thinking about – I wanna impress upon you the importance of pastors – their importance and the difficulty of their task in my experience is exceeded only by mothers of small children who must always hold, like, a separate category within Sovereign Grace. OK? I might return to that, to emphasize that. It needs to be emphasized. Every sermon that needs to have a reference to the gospel, and secondly, at some point, honor mothers of small children. OK? That’s how we want our sermons to be characterized here in Sovereign Grace. And I don’t wanna hear any men here whining about how hard you work. [Crowd laughs.] K? No whining about how hard you work, because – because in comparison to a mother of small children, you are lazy. [Crowd really laughs.] Every one of us. We’re lazy in relation to that. And if you doubt what I just said and you’re married and have small children, you take them. You take them alone, you take them exclusively, you won’t last 24 hours. Maybe 48. You’ll be more grateful to your wife than you ever have been previously. OK? So don’t – [laughs] – that’s the influence of my wife on my life right there. When we had small children, I said to her repeatedly, “You know, what you’re doing is so much more important than what I’m doing. And so much more difficult. What did I do today? I sat with the elders in the gate. Which for us is Starbucks. [Crowd laughs.] You know, I’m working with a – personally designed and chosen drink, I’m thinking, making decisions. You’re at home caring for our children. You have a much more challenging and difficult and unpredictable and exhausting…I’m reading books with pastors, making big and important decisions. And you’re doing the difficult work.”
None of this is previously prepared, so I hope somehow this makes its way – and this is a church that honors. Yeah. Maybe we’ll come back to this. [Crowd laughs.] Cuz you do. I just – I just wanna add my voice to what you do.
So, there should be joyful service, which relates to mothers of small children. I’m sure you understand that relationship. There should be joyful service in and for the church.
[Kris says: This is perhaps the oddest portion of the entire message. Maybe someone better versed in SGM's culture could enlighten me. This blather about affirming young mothers and exempting them from a supposedly "biblical" requirement for "biblical" obedience and submission is...just oddly disjointed and seems totally out of place here.
It's nice to affirm moms. But single people and childless wives are just as worthy in God's eyes of affirmation as moms of young children are.
And more importantly, if participating in church life is such an important part of "biblical" submission to one's pastors, why would ANYONE be exempt from it?]
And fourthly, and carefully, there should be a joyful disposition to trust and protect the pastoral team at this church. So any and all slanderous comments about a pastor or the pastoral team, ah, should be challenged. Followed up on. Resolved. In order to preserve the appropriate trust in the leadership and the unity of the church. That – don’t misunderstand – that does not mean that a pastor cannot be corrected. Oh, not true, your pastors welcome your correction as you are aware, they encourage your correction and observations. There’s a difference between slander and correction. Slander – slander produces suspicion. And suspicion over a period of time attacks trust. And without trust, no congregation or pastoral team will be able to work together and effectively advance the gospel, which is why every member of this church has to protect the pastoral team of this church and be particularly alert because of slander against a member of the pastoral team.
[Kris says: Ah, "slander." One of SGM's favorite redefined terms.
A non-SGM person would hear "slander" and understand it to mean what the usual definition means - false, malicious rumors spread around to defame or malign someone.
Using that normal definition, it would by all means be good to guard against the "slander" of one's pastors. Absolutely.
However...
SGM has expanded the definition of "slander" ("gossip," too) to include basically any discussion of anything that would cause a person to question or to disagree with his pastors.
I have no doubt that by interacting in the way I have with what is, after all, C.J.'s public teachings, made available to anyone with an internet connection via downloadable sound files, I will be accused of "slander."
But the Bible never tells us that we cannot examine - and deconstruct and debunk and even (gasp!) criticize - public teachings.
Disagreeing with C.J. (or any other pastor) is not the same as "slandering" him. Or even "gossiping" about him.
Yet in SGM's world, part of following the Bible's commands - to submit to and obey one's pastors - is now "protecting one's pastors from 'slander.'" In other words, although C.J. claims that the Knoxville pastors are eager and waiting to hear their members' correction of them, any dissenting discussion of what comes down from the pulpit is something to be guarded against. It's "slander."]
So those – those are all clear biblical – I could take you to passage after passage in relation to each one, and I’m sure they to some degree are obvious. A pastor cannot watch over your soul if – if – if you aren’t here, if you don’t participate, if you don’t obey and submit, if you don’t attend and participate and serve, how can a pastor watch over your soul? I can’t – they can’t – they can’t watch over somebody who’s not here. Can’t watch over somebody who’s not involved. Can’t watch over somebody if they don’t participate. So, this – this is your biblical responsibility, as I think clearly defined in this passage, and other passages. It – it is a description of your attitude toward the pastoral team, your involvement in this church.
Now, finally. Number three. The relationship between church members and the pastoral team. The relationship between church members and the pastoral team. So having made this distinction between the role of pastors and the responsibility of church members, here’s where I wanna conclude, I wanna conclude in impressing upon you really the inseparable nature of this relationship, because I said at the outset, as I said at the outset, the effectiveness of pastoral ministry is dependent upon a proper response TO pastoral ministry. So. If a congregation does not respond with the appropriate obedience and submission to their pastors, then the leadership of those pastors will not be fruitful, and those pastors will not experience joy in pastoral ministry. And here is what you as a member of this congregation are commanded by good and wise God. Look with me again at verse 17, where we read, “Let them” (your pastors) “do this” (watch over your souls) “with joy and not with groaning due to disobedient, uncommitted church members, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Let – let them do this with joy. Let them do this with joy.
[Kris says: I think it's interesting that this verse really could be read in a couple of different ways, even apart from how one would "really" translate words like "obey" and "submit."
Is the author of Hebrews commanding church members to "let their pastors watch over them with joy"? Or are the pastors themselves responsible for making sure that they do their task with a joyful heart?
Just who is responsible for a pastor's happiness?
C.J. has performed a really neat trick here. Basically, he says that church members are to obey and to submit to their pastors. They are to participate in church life (unless they're young moms...then C.J. would have them be exempt from this supposedly "biblical" command). They are to joyfully accept whatever teaching is given to them and apply it to their lives.
After all, "joyfully accepting" one's pastor's teachings does NOT really leave any room to question the teachings. Moreover, members are NOT to discuss their pastors. That would, of course, be "slander."
But - here's the rub. Even if a member does have a legitimate complaint against a pastor - even if a member has a real reason to be unhappy with his or her pastor in some way - the member actually has no place, using C.J.'s own teaching, to think like this.
After all, C.J. has already established that it is the church member's response that determines the successfulness of pastoral ministry.
In other words, the bottom line is that if you find yourself thinking that your pastor isn't actually very good at his job - GUESS WHAT? IT'S YOUR FAULT ANYWAY!
If you'd been responding to him the way you should be, he'd then be successful! He wouldn't HAVE problems with his job performance!
ANY PROBLEM YOUR PASTOR HAS - EVEN IF IT'S HIS OWN LACK OF HAPPINESS - IS ALL YOUR FAULT!]
God wants happy pastors. That’s what He wants. Wants happy pastors.
[Kris says: Really? This is what God wants? C.J., could we have chapter and verse, please?
I thought true Reformed theology focused little attention upon the happiness of humans. I thought it was all for God's glory, first of all.]
Because unhappy pastors misrepresent Him. Happy pastors accurately represent Him. Unhappy pastors misrepresent God. Misrepresent the gospel. Misrepresent the Savior, misrepresent the gospel of grace.
So, we all need to look at this passage, look up from this passage, and then ask ourselves, “Am I joy to pastor? Am I a joy to pastor?” And let me encourage you, don’t confine the evaluation of yourself to yourself. Because left to myself, normally I provide myself with a flattering evaluation of myself. Therefore I think I can safely assume, “Am I a joy to pastor? I am the ultimate joy to pastor! You obviously haven’t met me. I mean, if you knew me, you would know I am a joy to pastor. You would want me to be in your church.” So, I’m sure a number of you responded that way – “Am I a joy to pastor! Duh! Quite obviously. Yes!”
OK, here’s my response: I hope so. Maybe so. Probably so. But let’s be sure so. And in order to be sure so – hey – let me encourage you, why don’t you ask one of the pastors. Dare ya. Dare ya. For the good of your soul and the good of this church. You ask ‘em.
And if there is any resistance to doing that, let me just tell you, that is JUST YOUR SIN FIGHTING AGAINST IT. Saying, “Don’t do it! Don’t do it. You are. You know you are. You don’t need their confirmation. They’re thinking of you even as he’s preaching right now!”
[Crowd laughs heartily.]
No, just ask ‘em. Say to them – say to Mike after the meeting – “Am I a joy to pastor?” Don’t say, “Aren’t I a joy to pastor!” [Crowd laughs.] No, say, “Am I a joy to pastor?” And then follow it up with this: “And if not, why not? And I want – I want to make it a joy for you to be pastor.”
[Kris says: Does anyone else join me in thinking that this is all sort of gratuitous? Where is the reciprocal exhortation to pastors (whom I'm presuming are still in the audience listening to this), to go to their people and ask them if they feel OK about the job THEY are doing as pastors?
Where's the room for people to give pastors feedback?
Why does this type of humility only flow in one direction, which is UP, toward the pastors on their pedestals?]
Now, again, let me just insert here – you do. Man, the overwhelming majority of this church – huh – your pastors – they’re happy. That should be obvious to any guest here. Identify any of the pastors – you guys are happy. Here’s why they’re happy. Because this is a congregation made up of individuals who are serving. And obeying. And submitting. And supporting their leaders in the advance of the gospel. And therefore, happy pastors. And listen. That’s why, when I’m here, it’s so wonderful to feel the pleasure of God. I feel the pleasure of God because there are happy pastors here watching over the souls of those who are happy to be here and who are obeying and serving and submitting in ways that make it a joy to pastor here.
[Kris says: So C.J. isn't there because he's in town with his entire extended family for a vacation that was "made possible" by "the kindness" of the Knoxville congregation? I'm confused.]
But let us not assume that you are all a joy to pastor. Therefore, let us humbly go to our pastors and say, “Am I a joy to pastor? And if not, why not?” Listen, do this because – if – if – look at the end of this verse. “That would be of no advantage to you.” If they aren’t happy – if they’re groaning instead – if their pastoral ministry is characterized by groaning and complaining, that is of no advantage to you. It is of – listen – follow this – it is to your advantage for you to be a joy to pastor, through your appropriately biblically defined and described obedience and submission to the pastors of this church. It is to your advantage to be a joy to pastor. I mean – doesn’t it – when you read that, you – it seems like the writer is appealing to self-interest as a motivation. Actually, it’s just another illustration of the following: God’s commands are always for our good. His wise commands are for our good. This is what grace is like. Ultimately for His glory.
This – this – this – you show me an effective church, you show me a gospel-centered church – this is present in that church. You show me a church that’s fruitful, this is present. You show me a church where the gospel is advancing, this is present. Listen, whenever I encounter a fruitful church, I observe a demonstration of this particular verse. Which is why I thought it would be appropriate to bring this message to your attention.
[Kris says: Wow, so a church can't proclaim the gospel - the wonderful historical fact of Jesus' death and resurrection to pay the price for our sins and reconcile us with God for eternity - unless everyone is going around groveling in front of their pastors and begging to know if they're obeying and submitting enough so that their pastors are "happy"? What "gospel" is C.J. even talking about, then?]
And why I think it’s appropriate to now inform you of what Mrs. Fawcett said. Here’s what she said in that moment. This moment of separation. Sad congregation assembled around them. And around their wagons. As the sad members gathered around the wagons preparing to say goodbye to their pastor, Mrs. Fawcett said, to her husband John, “John, I cannot bear to leave. I know not how to go.” And John responded, “Nor can I.” He then gave the order to unpack the wagons. And John Fawcett stayed with this simple church until he died, on July 25, 1817. And in one of ensuing sermons, Fawcett shared the words to a hymn that he composed, that has been sung by and meaningful to the church for the past two centuries. Perhaps you’ll recognize these words and hear them with a new appreciation:
Blest be the tie that binds
Our hearts in Christian love.
The fellowship of kindred minds
Is like to that above.
When I, when I read this account, of John Fawcett and his relationship with his church, I think of you. I think of your pastoral team, and their relationship with this church. Now, please don’t misunderstand, in the days ahead, where there is a church planting, we can’t be having this happen. [Crowd laughs.] So, some at some point from your midst will have to go so that more churches like this can be built. But I can’t read this without thinking about this church. See, one day, John Fawcett is gonna give an account. He’s going to stand before the Chief Shepherd and give an account for his assembled congregation. Ha! I’m thinking that’s gonna be a pretty serious celebration. Can you imagine that congregation, assembled around John Fawcett, standing before the Savior, as the Savior – [CJ chuckles] – asks John Fawcett to give an account? It’s not difficult for me to imagine one member of that church after another giving an account for John Fawcett and communicating to the Savior their gratefulness for John Fawcett. It’s gonna be a wild, mad celebration, and all because of the Savior and His wounds that will appear afresh to all. Wild celebration. On that day, when you hear the name Joh – John Fawcett called out – ha! Pay attention. Gonna be a wild celebration on that day.
How about when your church is called? How about when your pastors are called? It’s gonna happen. Big day of evaluation. Day of examination. Edwards, after being dismissed from Northampton, in his final sermon officially to them, prepared them for that day. He said to his church, was the church he had served for some 27 years, “We will rehearse together all that has taken place among us on that future day.” That was sad then. I’m thinking yours is gonna be a happy day. I’m thinking from what I know of the history of this church, yours is gonna be a happy day. Here’s how to make it a happy day. Obey your leaders. And submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls as those who have to give an account. Let them do this with joy. Not with groaning. For that would be of no advantage to you.
[End of teaching.]
I never got the "meeting" thing, either. 
October 1st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Wings -
Nevah. You are nevah evah the boss. That’s just the way it is.
Seriously, folks. In SGMville, it’s always the member’s fault. Even if you have a legitimate complaint about a pastor/leader, in the end, YOU are responsible for his poor showing in whatever area, because if you’d only been doing your part to “make his job a joy,” then he’d be happy and successful at what he does. His job performance is only as good as YOUR performance.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Why do SGMers buy this stuff?
You have all those sanctuaries full of smart educated people who tend to be plenty successful in all the other facets of their lives. Why do they suspend their logic when they walk through the doors of their SGM churches and listen without complaint to CJ telling them that it’s their duty to “make their pastors’ job a joy”?
October 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Hehe…
Because that’s the effect cults have on people.
Yep – I said it – the “cult” word.
Yes, SGM’s “legit” when it comes to some of the stuff that qualifies as “church”, but the way they twist scripture, brainwash, control, and manipulate definitely qualifies them as a cult.
Based on pure observation over the past 30 years, there’s no way they can deny it. They can laugh and poopoo such accusations all they want.
They’re a cult!
October 1st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Kindred!
October 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Guy’s tweeting!
“I’m sitting on the porch”
October 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Jim – how did I know you would be the one to say something like that?
October 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Kindred – I agree with you 100%. What is the old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck?
October 1st, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Kris @ 147 – I get what you are saying. And people think CJ doesn’t know what goes on…he knows and manages the whole thing. He did take this passage and put all the weight on members. Ugh.
The Heb 13:17 I could see where it would be a mutual thing. If people were disrespectful of course their job would be harder. But, I see this alot like marriage. Submitting to a servant leader is easy…submitting to a tryant is not. And a good example includes both parties fullfilling the roles God gave them in the manner he gave it. Like with leadership it should not be lorded over but more of a servant. But I think the problem for me is the Lording over of leadership as exampled in this message that at SGM all the weight for behavior is on the little people. Then there is the extreme degree of obedience SGM expects. I think of the relationship with my non sgm pastor. I respect him and I strongly consider what he has to say because of that respect. I don’t even need to consider “am I obeying”. My respect and consideration flow from the honorable pastor he is – it comes natural to respect him. But, at SGM the obedience goes beyond bible teaching and extends to many areas such as small group attendence is required, membership contracts are required, obeying a pastor’s advice is required so thier expected level of obedience is higher than what scripture asks for.
I do think if people were rude, disrespectful, and argued with everything the pastor says of course his job would not be very joyful! But at SGM it would still be a good sized paycheck to be joyful about!(just kidding)…but I don’t think it is my responsibility to ask..am I a joy to you. Trust me, if you weren’t are joy to SGM they will come to you to let you know to ship up! I think they want you to ask to drive home the point of who is in charge around SGM and they are needing an even greater test of your submission. This message is so barfy to me. The one in charge should be our mutual Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the bible should be the only standard of our behavior – and not what they stretch it out to say….Trust me the day CJ gives an account will not be as joyful of a day for him as he thinks.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I really dislike how there are different rules for SGM leadership than there is for the people. I can’t tell you how many times at CLC we were taught that YOU and YOU alone are responsible for your own behavior. If you are abused you are still supposed to respond with godliness. If you are yelled at, mistreated, wronged – nothing about your situation gives any weight to your response except your sin nature….
so why is their joy dependant on us.. Joy is a fruit of the Spirit…not a fruit of my behavior….
October 1st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“God wants happy pastors. That’s what He wants. Wants happy pastors.”
This is such a bad intrepretation of Heb 13:17 That I am not lying or stretching the facts when I say reading this literally makes me sick to my stomach. At most the passage says so thier job will be a joy AND the verse does not state that their job being a joy is for thier sake BUT FOR OURS. …”for that would be of no advantage to you”. Of course a miserable pastor would not be to my advantage. Leadership is about us and Jesus…not them…the goal should not be themselves or thier own happiness. “God wants happy pastors”…I guess God doesn’t want happy children…just pastors….
God wants happy pastors is a more exaggerated translation that the amplified and message and living bible put together…come on CJ!
October 1st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Butterfly said,
Amen!!
That’s exactly what I was trying to get at.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am
I have an idea…
Think of how many books we could sell if we took CJ’s “happy pastors” message and applied it to parenting – you know – “happy parents,” God wants “happy parents.”
Man, wouldn’t that make parenting EASY!!
Folks, we could make millions!!
We could title it, “The Happiest Family on Earth.”
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 am
Man, the father of the “prodigal son” sure could have benefited from such a book.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 am
In Diciplined For Life (p.14) CJ tells us, (In regard to sanctification), that the goal is not happiness, not success, it is Godliness.
In the PDI/SGM series Suffering and Soverignty, CJ tels us repeatedly that God is not concerned with, nor does he ever promise us happiness, the goal for us is Godliness.
Seems that God has a diffferent goal for the Pastors than he does for the sheep.
So if you are feeling blah or out of sorts as an SGM sheeple, that is Gods plan for you.
If you are prone to bouts of Joy and Happiness, that is Gods plan for you the SGM Pastor.
Remember that the SGM Pastor is part of the SGM church
(that God so loves and intentionaly protectes) in a way that you may never be. (Well for one he has a voice that is listened to)
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Unassimilated, you’re back!
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Good points, Unassimilated!
I’ll say it again, that gravatar is perfect!
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
CJ wants HPPPY PASTORS and RICH PASTORS…
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Ck out this teaching by Piper on the same passage:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper97/10-5-97.htm
“So the aim of spiritual leadership in the church is mainly the salvation of the soul. And that salvation is not seen in the book of Hebrews as a one-time event of decision, but a life-long battle against temptation and unbelief. The job of the elders of this church primarily is to help you persevere in faith and be saved. In other words, since perseverance is at stake day after day, the aim of leadership is not simply to get decisions for Jesus at the front end of Christian life, but to so teach and so live and so admonish that professing Christians in the church “not shrink back to destruction, but . . . have faith to the preserving of the soul” (10:39).
This is one thing that makes the ministry so serious to me. I believe what Jesus said in Mark 13:13, “The one who endures to the end will be saved.” This is the message of Hebrews. And it means that all messages and all meetings are salvation meetings. Not because they only aim at the first decision for Christ, but because our final salvation comes to us through persevering faith, not just a one-time decision. Salvation of the soul is the ongoing work of God month after month to preserve us safe in Jesus by preserving our faith. And that happens through the teaching and modeling and admonishing and correcting by faithful leaders in the church.”
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 am
Sorry I am late to the party but this comment by Kris caught my eye early. There IS a reason why CJ’s teachings are accepted by these men. Folks will not believe it but it is true: Because CJ is successful and is reformed. Becoming ‘reformed’ was a master stroke for CJ. It propelled him to heights you cannot imagine because he became accepted by the big up and comers like Mohler, Piper, McArthur, etc. Reformed is the big thing in American Christendom. And they view themselves as us against the Arminians. (They just don’t talk about it in public)
We tend to put these folks on pedestals and think they are so holy. But these are men who understand and celebrate success. Mohler did not become president of SBTS at 33 because he was so humble. Same for the others and their success. And they are willing to overlook much when they speak at each others conferences (for big money) and blurb each others books. There is an income stream in these relationships that is very important to them.
We need to stop looking at these folks as a different class of Christian with something special. They aren’t. There is no such thing as a Great man of God. If you read scripture you know that God works more like this:
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
CJ can talk the humble talk all day long but lets see him give up all the celebrity and nice income and lifestyle. And when it comes down to it, they are no more ‘holy’ than the celebrity Arminians out there.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 am
LM Malone – Amen!
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey, LM Malone,
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
This struck me -
Just the other day, in correspondence with a reader, I was trying to explain why I think some of these Reformed Big Dogs continue to turn a blind eye to SGM’s issues. I mean, it’s not like the RBDs are all still blissfully unaware that SGM has some problems. Lots of folks have contacted them over the past 2 years. Yet it’s like pretty much all efforts to get the RBDs’ attention have been met with deafening silence…while the cozy stage-sharing relationships continue.
The one response I did receive was from someone at MacArthur’s organization, who wrote and explained that oftentimes the face presented at conferences and such is not the same as what goes on in an organization on a daily basis…and that frequently, these celebrity pastors only know the most basic surface information about their associates. I had a lot of respect for that honest answer. And I think that’s a pretty good explanation for why CJ was so eagerly embraced. SGM presents itself quite well…
I mean, think about it – it’s difficult to articulate the subtleties of what SGM does, and it’s also true that not even everyone with an insider’s knowledge of SGM will recognize what goes on. So it’s no big surprise that the Reformed Big Dogs are oblivious. They experience a mesmerizing public speaker and share laughs with him. They like his teachings. And from everything they can SEE, on the surface, SGM churches look pretty good.
So that’s part of the explanation for the RBDs’ continued associations with SGM.
But the other part, I’m afraid, is – as LM Malone says – about money. Money, and a desire for greater numbers of people on the “Reformed” side of the debate. Power. Money and power.
These relationships among RBDs – and the conferences they put on and the organizations (like CBMW) they run – garner more attention for all of them, as a collective group. Their message gets out there, and reaches more people. Although SGM is a relatively small
denominationfamily of churches, people like SGM’s music, and adding an entiredenominationfamily of churches to the Reformed Big Dogs’ cause IS significant.So the RBDs get at least as much out of their relationships with SGM as SGM gets from the RBDs.
It’s way too easy to want to look the other way when concerns arise. It’s much simpler to just minimalize the concerns and accept SGM’s explanations (or maybe not even bring the subject up at all) than it would be to jeopardize the relationship.
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
I would just like to know how will you justify this to the Lord on the day you stand before him? I am not a member of Sovereign Grace Ministries but my wife does! And this is one of the most disturbing websites I have ever stumbled upon. So what! You disagree with their teachings? You have problems with their pastors? With people in their congregations? Thats fine, but that should be between you, them and the Lord! This website is just a venue for you to spout off about people who have done nothing that the Lord will not forgive, however you thinking your better then Him, have taken it upon yourselves to not forgive! Please all of you who read this check your hearts! Pray before the Lord! I know that even though you don’t like “SGM” that you still call yourselves Christian’s, well this website in its existence is against the things taught in scripture! What happened to forgive as you have been forgiven! The Bible teaches that bitterness rots the soul! I only pray that it is not too late for you all to see the bitterness in your own hearts! Please go to the people you are offended with at SGM ask for their forgiveness for harboring this bitterness! If you don’t want to do that then I suggest you get on your knees and pray to the Lord for forgiveness for He holds nothing against no one! So if he sent his Son to die for all sins and now forgives you for everything you have done, then why should you not forgive are you better then Christ? – A Concerned Brother
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
On p. 100-101 of his 2007 book, A Beautiful Fight, evangelical author Gary Thomas writes about the role of the Church in the individual believer’s discernment of God’s voice. I want to share it because it is relevant to the discussion about leadership in neo-Reformed churches. Sorry about the length! I want to err on the side of inclusion, so as not to misrepresent Thomas’ complete argument.
Thomas writes:
“We need to heed the warning of the Reformers that when anyone can claim divine inspiration, the end of the church is in sight. We listen to God humbly, as daughters and sons of God’s church. At moments in our history, some elements of the church have clearly been in error, but there still remains a collective wisdom that calls for our respect. None of us should delight in swimming against the current; we must do so only when we are convinced that Scripture insists on it.
On the other hand, I’m not willing to go as far as some of the Reformers did when they openly questioned God’s tendency to specifically guide us and speak to us. John Calvin was so suspicious of direct listening to God that at times he even seemed to question private Bible study. I know, I know – who am I to question John Calvin? While he has undeniably been a great teacher to me, he’s still not my God, and in this instance, by virtually limiting God’s speaking to trained preachers, he may have inadvertently helped create the personality-centered church that has existed for so long, a one-man show that can undercut the priesthood of believers. In this case, there must exist a happy middle, where we base our understanding on God’s Word, appropriately studied and applied, while occasionally receiving personal instruction, comfort, and advice that must be tested before it is received; and even then these things are always held secondarily, perhaps somewhat suspiciously, as possible applications of God’s written Word.”
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 am
Hey, “Concerned Brother” -
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
So, OK -
You’re not a member of SGM, but your wife does? Does what? Is an SGM member?
Hmm.
First of all, why don’t you go to church with your wife? I’d really love to know the answer to that one.
Secondly, I was just thinking this morning how interesting it is that people sometimes have been unable to understand or accept that this site is NOT motivated by “unforgiveness” or “bitterness.” It’s motivated, instead, by CONCERN.
I don’t “just” have a problem with SGM’s teachings. I am alarmed for all the people out there – people like your wife – who haplessly join in without understanding what has happened to so many others who have gone on before them.
I’m surprised, actually, that you’re showing more “concern” for the commenters here than you’re showing for your wife. If you’re really a believer, and yet you’ve nonetheless decided to neglect uniting with your wife and being part of the same church with her, then there’s got to be a good reason why. There must be something about SGM that you yourself don’t care for, something that rubs you the wrong way.
Now you supposedly stumble on this site, read the stories, and come away with…the notion that WE have problems?
Your first response ISN’T to think of your wife and wonder if SHE’S in danger by being part of an organization that you yourself don’t like well enough to join?
Really?
I gotta say, that’s mighty strange.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
P.S. An aside unrelated to my previous comment: I’m personally bothered by the repeated “income stream” references on various threads here. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the notion that any of the neo-Reformed leaders are materialistic men oriented towards building financial empires.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Just a few questions that are provacative for many who have been in very authoritarian situations but are very important to consider when looking at CJ’s message:
1. Why does Hebrews 13:17 seem to contradict other ‘servant’ passages in the NT? Why is there not another ‘authority’, ‘obey’ passage in the NT for so called leaders? An important command is always repeated for our protection. (See Phil)
Kris, you said you did not want to discuss the translation of this passage but I cannot find where you can have a serious discussion about CJ’s message if you do not ask some serious questions about the translation. if one is in a false teaching situation they could find themselves drinking kool aid in Guyana. With all the false teaching, wolves and hirling warnings in the NT, it makes no sense for the author of Hebrews to give an blanket order to obey whatever ‘leader’ happens to be there. Are they assuming there are no wolves (see Acts 20 where Paul says they will even be among the elders!).
2. Why is the word ‘obey’ used? (the word is peitho and is not one of submission to authority; it is one of listening to someone out of respect and taking their advice. A better translation of peitho in verse 17 is “Listen to,” not “Obey them.”)
Peitho is sometimes translated “trust” in the King James Version of the New Testament and would have been an ideal translation in verse 17: ‘Trust them….’ in this passage.
3. Why do the translators use “Have the rule over you” (KJV) as the meaning of hegeomai? It is used 28 times in the New Testament and translated variously as “count,” “think,” “esteem,” “be governor,” and other miscellaneous words such as “chief’ and “leader.”
4. Where do you see the word ‘elder’ or pastor in that passage?
5. Name the pastors and/or elders of the Corinthian, Phillipian, Galatian and all other churches. You might get some right from the personal letters. But why don’t we know all of them if obeying leaders is a command for all believers?
6. How come all the letters were not written to the ‘leaders’ but instead most were written to the entire church. Would that mean the instructions were to the entire church? An example would be practicing church discipline in 1 Corin 5. The advice was to the entire church not a select group of leaders.
7. How many times is pastor mentioned in the NT? (Once as a spiritual gift given by the Holy Spirit. Not ones chosen by men) It is not clear that a ‘pastor’ teaches the whole Body. There could be many pastors. Some pastors might shepherd one person. There is no set rule in the NT.
8. How come the other spiritual gifts are not paid positions within the Body but pastor is?
9. Where do we see ‘authority’ over others attached to any function in the Body? (Why do we automatically assume this? We always assume it when we see submission, too. But submission is voluntary. Authority over others is a worldly construct. It is a sin trap and snare for those wanting authority. No matter how humble they act. In the NT, they sought to serve others. That is why CJ uses ‘serve’ so much but preaches cognative dissonance of authority. He is trying to align servant with authority.)
The authority is Jesus Christ. Elders are simply the spiritual mature who guard as overseers. They do not have special authority over adults but are the lowly humble loving servants to the Body. A true elder would NOT want authority over others and would not seek it. A true elder would look more like Matt 5 than a Pharisee with power and authority.
Adults are not children. Why does the goal of so many pastors seem to be to keep the other member of the body as spiritual children obeying daddy? Don’t they want them to become spiriutally mature?
10. If Paul had authority why do we see him (not only making tents so as not to be a burden) but spending so much time persuading and pleading with folks in letters. Why not just order them since he is their authority?
11. Where do we see Paul in word or action expecting the members of the Body to have a responsibility for his happiness?
I have been around these guys long enough to realize that anyone who questions their teaching or a translation is automatically labeled a liberal or rebellious. I know, I lived in that world, too, in the SBC. So, I expect to hear a bit of there here because I dared to question mere men and took it to the Lord instead to teach me.
Why are so many preaching/teaching what benefits them? IT only makes sense to be a Berean. The Word is inerrant. Translators are not inerrant and the Holy Spirit is the BEST teacher who gives us a hunger and thirst to test everything for pure truth.
We are so blessed to live in a time with free resources at our fingertips. WE can even teach ourselves Greek! We have no excuses. I often wonder about most of the population who were illiterate during the Dark Ages and HAD only the priests to interpret the Word for them. That is why we had a reformation!
Why do we act like those who are illiterate and not test everything including translations. Why are there so many translations and denominations? Why do we not seek the Holy Spirit to teach us? Why do we depend on mere men? This is NOT what our Lord expects from us. We are to be ‘walking’ with HIM. Yoked to HIM. Not to some humans who claim special knowledge or leadership.
Why would we simply accept the translation of something like Hebrews 13:17 that contradicts all the lowly servant, first will be last and last will be first, do not lord it over and all the one another passages? Not to mention Pauls exhortation about members of the Body in 1 Corinthians. Could it be a translation that fits the church state mentality of another age of ruler/Monarches? Where the magistrates showed up at your door if you were not at church?
Has anyone noticed that in comments many have gone to Piper to see how he teaches Hebrews 13:17? I beg you friends, go to the Holy Spirit. Study and ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate truth to you and you will soon find that our precious Lord has no special class of Christian with some special anointing you cannot have (see 1 John). If we are saved, we are all in the Priesthood.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Kris,
I appreciate your concern, “does” was a typo. I meant to say “is”. Anyways, I cannot attend church with my wife because I work on Sunday mornings unfortunately. I do however attend the small group meetings during the week which in no way seem “cultish” to me. I feel personally attacked by you though with that last comment. I do feel great love concern for my wife and that is my business, You have no right to question my love for her! I love the Lord with all my heart and if it weren’t necessary for me to work on Sundays then I would attend church with her, I didn’t appreciate that thank you! Back to my point, I am concerned for all of you! Because the Lord does not care about what others have done to offend you! He cares about YOUR heart! I understand that you all are upset with SGM, but their must be a better vehicle to get that out! Kris, please don’t take me as someone trying to destroy this little world you’ve created, but I will not be posting here again after the way I was treated by you. Please, everyone take to heart what I’ve said. Repent. – Concerned Brother
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
“I mean, think about it – it’s difficult to articulate the subtleties of what SGM does, and it’s also true that not even everyone with an insider’s knowledge of SGM will recognize what goes on. So it’s no big surprise that the Reformed Big Dogs are oblivious. ”
I happen to know Mohler knows about the stories of the handling of sexual perversion at some SGM churches. But you must realize that he most likely commiserates with CJ instead of rebuking him. He would believe CJ over some peon church member nobody.
Poor Mohler has had some problems, too. He had to apologize to faculty and staff a few years back for his childish temper tantrums he throws all the time. They are scary. I had a friend get a transfer away from him because of them. But then, some started commenting about it in comment streams of various blogs. And over time, it became something he could no longer deny because they were constant. So, he did the PR thing and apologized. Is he still arroagant and condescending to his underlings? You bet. but they consider him so brilliant and Holy they think God overlooks this with Mohler because he is so special.
If it were announced onCNN and Fox that CJ Mahaney was presiding over a denomination that excused sexual perversion, you know how the RBD would respond? ‘We know CJ and he is a wonderful man who loves the Lord and has dealt with this situation in a biblical manner. Our prayers are with him as he goes through this tragic experience’…… Case closed. Never mind the victims. Who cares about them? This is business!
Do not forget. They have blurbed each others books, sold each others books at their MANY conferences. Spoke on each others conference stages and at each others churches and seminaries. Do you really think they are going to admit they had no spiritual wisdom or discernment? There are future books to write and future stages to grace.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
“Concerned” Brother -
[I'm replying to you because with human nature being what it is, I know you're still reading here, even if you won't further participate in the conversation.]
Look, I wasn’t questioning your love for your wife. I was pointing out how odd it is that you’d stumble upon a site discussing your wife’s church, and detailing that church’s abuses of people, and your first concern would be for the commenters and site moderator, and NOT for your wife?
If my husband attended some church alone, without me, and I happened upon a blog that described how his church organization teaches all sorts of weird garbage about (for instance) how pastors are a separate class of people whom God wants to be “happy”…and how members must obey those pastors…which is what this post is about…
And if I read further and realized that my husband’s church had abused a bunch of people…
My first concern would be for my husband! I’d be really worried that he was part of something that could harm him.
Why are you more concerned about the commenters here than you are about the fact that your wife is part of an organization that could hurt her?
Also, I think you’ve set up a false dilemma for God. Of course He cares about how people respond to insults and injuries. Of course God doesn’t want us to end up bitter. (That people here are “bitter,” as you’ve so judged, is debatable, anyway.)
But God is also concerned about the people who are doing the injuring!
And I’m pretty sure God would also be concerned about stopping abusive behavior. Not to mention the twisting of His truth.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Seeker,
A person can make his career/reputation/organization a big priority without necessarily being materialistic. When people mention “money” in connection with the Reformed Big Dogs, they’re NOT necessarily implying that the RBDs are in ministry to satisfy their fleshly desires for material goods. I’m not getting the sense that anyone is saying that the RBDs want to drive fancy cars, reside in mansions, or otherwise live the “high life.” I, for one, do NOT believe that the RBDs could ever be described as “materialistic.”
Being concerned about preserving one’s career opportunities does connect with money, but not necessarily in a way that is about indulging oneself personally.
Rather, it’s about influence.
And it’s not necessarily wrong to want so badly to influence people in a certain direction (in this case, being “Reformed”). But I think sometimes leaders can become so singularly focused on advancing their cause that they willfully ignore the stuff that might distract (or detract) from their cause.
And money IS involved in that. Not necessarily money as in Jim-and-Tammy-Faye-Bakker gold faucets and air conditioned dog houses. But money as it is necessary for continued influence and celebrity.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
“Because the Lord does not care about what others have done to offend you!”
Yes, He does.
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!…” (Matthew 18:6,7 NKJV)
Never, never think He doesn’t care.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Welcome to the site LMMalone.
Great posting! You are dead on! You said…
“Reformed is the big thing in American Christendom. And they view themselves as us against the Arminians.(They just don’t talk about it in public)”
I’m not looking for a debate on Calvinism vs. Arminianism – we’ve went round and round with “that one” numerous times on ALL the blogs – but there’s no denying that there’s an intense battle going in Christendom right now between these two camps. You’re right, Malone, there’s no way the RBD’s are going to do ANYTHING that would hurt the “reformed camp’s” PR. What they don’t realize is that it would actually gain them alot of respect to call SGM out.
One of the top complaints the reformed bunch have to deal with is the accusation of arrogance and pride. Everyone knows that when you struggle with arrogance and pride it’s hard to ever admit you’re wrong. They could certainly win points for the reformed side by addressing SGM’s issues and persuading CJ to publicly repent and ask for forgiveness.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
Luna,
That the Lord is the defender of the weak and the champion of the downtrodden – well, that is a theme throughout all of Scripture.
And, frequently, PEOPLE are the instruments God chooses to use in order to mete out justice and stand up for the injured.
See, I know that when we say things like, “God is the defender of the weak,” immediately someone will want to argue that therefore, since God will defend, that means that we must sit back and do nothing.
But that’s ridiculous.
Throughout history, God typically has not rescued the weak by sending angels to do His bidding, or by flashing lightning bolts from the sky. Typically, God works out His justice through PEOPLE – people who don’t remain silent but who are willing to do something when things aren’t right.
No blog is gonna be perfect. No moderator will ever get everything right. But I can say that as God is my witness, I’m not sitting here typing these words (and interacting with SGM defenders) out of some twisted desire to be a “famous blogger” or otherwise gain something out of the deal. (And how can I even be famous when I’ve never made my name or identity part of the equation, anyway?) I’m also not motivated out of bitterness or anger, or even because I was personally hurt by SGM. (I wasn’t hurt by SGM. As I’ve explained over and over again, Guy and I did not have a particularly negative SGM experience. It just wasn’t for us.)
This site is here because people need to know what SGM has done. Plain and simple.
At least then they can make an informed decision.
Like, if “Concerned Brother’s” wife wants to keep on attending her SGM church, great. But at least “Concerned Brother” now knows what to look out for, should his wife ever find herself in the strange position of being unjustly accused of some random sin like “pride.” “Concerned Brother” might even now have a better handle on why his wife may someday be treated like a second-class citizen because she’s a “Sunday widow” and doesn’t bring all the glories of a “Biblical marriage” to the SGM table.
At least the other side of SGM is being talked about. At least people can’t say they were never warned.
That’s why I’m here.
Cuz really, I have a whole full life of good stuff to enjoy. Eric Somebody-Or-Other was wrong, at least in my case, when he described bloggers as losers still living with their mothers and hanging around in their pajamas while blogging in their (mothers’) basements.
I’m not looking to “create some little world” (as “Concerned Brother” so uncharitably declared). Coming on two years ago, I threw out a couple of random posts about my ambivalence about SGM, and basically, a “little world” was then created by those whom SGM had hurt.
NOBODY could ever engineer something like this.
Thanks for the compliment, “Concerned Brother,” but really – I’m just not that smart or creative to have made this SGM garbage up.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Kris #183…
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Dear Concerned Brother in Christ,
I would just like to know how SGM leaders will justify this to the Lord on the day they stand before him? I am not a member of Sovereign Grace Ministries but I used to be! And it is one of the most disturbing churches I have ever stumbled upon. I disagree with some of their teachings. I have problems with some of their pastors. I have fully forgiven them and the leaders in their congregation that wronged me.
It should have been between me and them and the Lord but they chose to attempt to expose my sins to as many people as they could with no concern that they might be wrong or any concern for my reputation. They refused to have any conversation with me about the things they did that clearly violated scripture. This website is a place where I can process all that happened and maybe help someone else. The Lord will forgive those at SGM and I have prayed for Him to do just that. I do not think I am better than them and I have taken it upon myself to forgive in spite of the fact they they had no concern for the harm they had done and violated many biblical principles in the process; and continue to do so by not leaving their gift at the altar and seeking first to reconcile with me.
Please all of you who are quick to assume that we are bitter, angry, unforgving, unholy, sinners – check your own hearts! Pray before the Lord! I know that even though you don’t like “SGM Survivors” that you still call yourselves Christians. Well, SGM’s lack of concern for those on this website is against the things taught in scripture! What happened to accepting and loving others as God has accepted you? The Bible teaches that if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you…and if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you?
What good has SGM done for those that are on this site? and what about the charge to first take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck form your brother’s eye? What has SGM leadership done to remove the plank from their eyes so they can help with the specks here?
I only pray that it is not too late for you all to see the judgmental spirit in your own hearts! Please go to the leaders of SGM and ask them why they have not left their gifts at the altar of God and sought to reconicle with those they have offended instead of harboring judgmental attitudes! If you don’t want to do that, then I suggest you get on your knees and pray to the Lord for forgiveness for He holds nothing against no one! So if he sent his Son to die for all sins and now forgives you for everything you have done, then why should a church like SGM think they have the God given authority to declare people that disagree with them as not forgiven by God for their sins and kick people out of the church for minor disagreements and not for clearly evident serious sins – are they better than Christ?
– A Concerned Godly sister.
(You do remember that I am God’s daughter too right? Maybe you should get on your knees and ask God about the tone you jumped in here with, my brother.)
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
PS. My post # 185 is in direct response to post #172
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Some bits and pieces of comments from my dear Concerned Brother:
From post 177
This is almost laughable. Look at this language and this brother feels personally attacked? How dare you Kris! My concerned brother – you sure do live on the SGM manly planet. Because this is so typical. You come on this site barrelling your strong message of repent you angry dirty sinners…and then cry that you were personally attacked? Yep, SGM through and through. You must not have read any of CJs books on humility.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Seeker Wrote:
P.S. An aside unrelated to my previous comment: I’m personally bothered by the repeated “income stream” references on various threads here. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the notion that any of the neo-Reformed leaders are materialistic men oriented towards building financial empires.
Me: Why is this a concern? CJ has gain financially greatly from SGM, from the books that are pushed to the members, from the “relationships” with rest of the non-reformed “rock stars”. All of these men enjoy a life style that most of America doesn’t. They may not be “materialistic” as making ungodly amounts of money like Tiger Woods or Warren Buffet, but they are living the life style that many high ranking executives in corporations enjoy. They are not living the life style of average (NON-SGM) pastor in America. I have no problem with someone getting ahead in the USA, that is what we are 0 if you want to eat, you work., If you want to get ahead and make more money, you work. That is the way America works. My issue is that CJ et all are doing in the name of God and acting like God himself appeared to them as a burning bush. Yes, they are living their life style off of the name of God.
Concerned Brother – you should be concerned, about SGM. DO you honestly think that this site is full of liars? DO you honestly think that these things that happened are just one off situations? Just because you didn’t see these things personally, doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Also, I do question if you really are someone whose wife is a member and you are not. Per the membership “covenants” that the SGM churches themselves have posted, you can;t attend care group unless you are a member. But, hey maybe your sgm church and experience is different. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I do question whether or not you are just a defended coming to stir up trouble among people who have been damaged emotionally AND spiritual by sgm.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Butterfly,
Heh. I never even noticed the irony.
But yeah, it’s kinda funny. “Concerned Brother” goes on the attack in his very first comment…and then gets all “poor pitiful me” on us because he misread my response back to him and thought I was insinuating that he didn’t love his wife.
Oy.
I always get a little bit suspicious, anyway, when a defender claims that he isn’t part of SGM. I mean, if I’m not PART of an organization, then I typically won’t have such a vested interest in what is being said about the organization. I’d be more like, “Hmm, interesting stuff, I’ll take it under advisement and keep my eyes open.”
That’s all I was trying to say to “Concerned Brother” when he claimed I questioned his love for his wife – just that I found it puzzling that he’s more worried about random strangers on a blog than he is about his wife and her involvement in an organization like SGM. That’s not really a normal response to this site…at least, not from a “non-SGMer.”
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I’m not looking for a debate on Calvinism vs. Arminianism – we’ve went round and round with “that one” numerous times on ALL the blogs – but there’s no denying that there’s an intense battle going in Christendom right now between these two camps. You’re right, Malone, there’s no way the RBD’s are going to do ANYTHING that would hurt the “reformed camp’s” PR. What they don’t realize is that it would actually gain them alot of respect to call SGM out.”
I am not looking for a debate on Calvinism, either. I lean toward reformed but I live in the heart of the reformed/arminian controversy and I am well aware of the covert actions of both camps for preeminance in the SBC right now.
So when I am asked, I reply that I am a Jesusists. I do not follow men. Neither Calvin or Arminius. There is not one single human I listen to teach that I do not test it. There is too much at stake to just believe anyone because of their exhalted positions and titles.
Someone mentioned, either in this thread or another, that this focus on reformed is a backlash to the seeker watered down church growth movement. That is correct. EXCEPT, that both movements are big into authority over others. The seekers are just have a softer approach. You still sign a membership covenant at Saddleback(and other seeker megas) that includes something about not critisizing the church or leadership. Sounds good but it is used to squash any questioning or dissent at all. You either go along or get out.
The reformers are dogmatic about their authority over others. Everything is focused on the Greek chain of being. A very worldly approach to authority and something Jesus Christ warned us about. Even down to their promotion of ESS (Eternal subordination of the Son) an Arian heresy revived to try and prove inherent authorties in the Body. That is why anyone who disagrees with them is automatically labeled as liberal or heretic as someone else mentioned in this thread. It works. Who wants to be a liberal? I don’t.
When men focus on their perceived authority, no matter how it is presented, it is a red flag we must all recognize. All believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit if they are saved. They do not want authority over others. They know that leadership is really being a servant, taking the persecution, being poor, humiliated and stomped on. It is not an exhalted position that lives comfortably off the offerings of other believers in the Body. (Do a deeper study on double honor and not muzzling the ox. And look at examples in the NT of how offerings were really used)
The pardox of the Gospel is that we are both free and bondservants in Christ at the same time.
If more would seek the Kingdom first, not following men, they would not be taken in by this message of CJ’s.
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“P.S. An aside unrelated to my previous comment: I’m personally bothered by the repeated “income stream” references on various threads here. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the notion that any of the neo-Reformed leaders are materialistic men oriented towards building financial empires.”
Well, you have not worked in Christian marketing.
And you won’t see public evidence of building big financial empires. I will give you ONE example of what you will NOT see: One well known up and coming reformer now makes around 130,000 salary (It might be more now) at a seminary. He also makes quite a bit from constant speaking engagements and books. Keeping the royalties even though written on the job. When he was about to adopt some children from a foreign country a fat cat donor walked into his office and handed him a check for 10,000 to help fray the cost.
That is what life is like for them and that is ONE example. Never mind the free and very nice vacations in Hawaii, Aspen, etc., rides on corporate jets, company cars etc. Never mind the book writing and speaking engagements WHILE they are being paid a salary to do something else.
In my Christian marketing days, it was not unusual to pay a well known speaker 5000 for one day plus travel expenses and put up in a nice hotel. A lessor known might get 1000.
These are not stupid men. They don’t buy jags and live in Mansions. But they are well heeled and never have to worry about making the mortgage or sending the kids to college, thanks to guys like you. And that is ok. For me, I would rather give my money to help the single mom in the Body who needs braces for her kid but cannot afford them. Or maybe her car needs a new engine.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Dear Concerned Brother…
I wonder…are you mine? Although your name is “concerned” your tone and sin pointing was “condemning”.
Ok, OK,,,yes I am bitter. It comes and goes. I have good bitter days, and bad bitter days, but you asked…how will I justify myself before the LORD on that final day…????
Condemning Brother, aren’t I justified by the blood of Jesus, or must I have perfect responses to a body of christ that lacks integrity, where the leadership has been neglectful and abusive, and where the young and inmature lead blindly continuing the misinturpretation of Gods Word.
Luna Moth, thank you for the scripture and the reminder.
Hi Kris…
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
@ Kris – Yep, that was a classic drive-by attack if I have ever seen one. Too funny really. I later thought to myself, Wow, nice to meet you brother.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
LMMalone…I like you.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
That’s okay, Butterfly.
If “drive-by attacks” inspire you to make comments like your #185, let ‘em keep on coming.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
LMMALONE’s comment income stream is closer than many of us may want to admit.
Some of these men do live quite well and some, at times, have been questioned for things like buying $80,000 cars on the ministry expense and putting their wife on payroll while she’s really at home raising their kids…. (this example is from a Reformed ministry, not a name it claim it type)
I really don’t want to get into naming names or how my experience with some of the trade shows for these authors was quite enlightening to these uncomfortable facts….but if you really need to know, the facts are out there on the charitable/ Non-profit ranking sites.
All this to say-money is still a temptation-even to Reformed Big Dogs.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
You’re welcome, little a…
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Concerned Brother-
Your thought that the Lord does not care what others have done to offend you is just so wrong….you are serving some other angry God.
My God is a god of love and Justice….Justice is ALL about caring how one person has treated another…how dare you say such untrue things about the Lord. The Lord cares for our hearts and for Justice-divorcing the two is a serious doctrinal error.
I am concerned for anyone who would believe such falsehoods.
MM
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
My sister and I were talking a minute ago…
And as we talked, something occurred to me.
“Concerned Brother,” if you’re still reading, I have a good challenge for you. (I can give you a challenge, can’t I? I mean, you challenged us to repent, so I guess turn-about is fair play.
)
Here’s the challenge:
Go to your wife’s SGM pastors and sniff around and just see for yourself what they actually think of a man who would let his wife attend church alone most Sundays because he “has to work.”
See for yourself.
Truth is, you may call yourself a “Concerned Brother,” but I can basically guarantee you that SGM pastors would believe that you are an inferior Christian because you’re not making involvement (and membership) in a “local” church more of a priority. Moreover, you’re neglecting your duties to “lead your wife” because you are placing a higher premium on your job than you are church.
Just ask.
All that acceptance and “Things are A-OK” that you’re experiencing right now when you manage to attend your wife’s small group with her – well, I hate to break it to you, but I am confident that your wife’s small group regards their kindness to you more along the lines of evangelism and outreach to an unsaved (or at least unenlightened) guy…NOT as warm fuzzies extended to a “brother” (equal) in Christ.
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I don’t disagree that lucrative speaking and writing opportunities both further a ministry and create temptations to sin. All of us are presented with various temptations of one sort or another, all the time.
What I’m saying is that I see a HUGE difference between reasoned analyses of Mahaney’s actual spoken words (and implied policis) like those Kris offered in her post versus innuendos and idle speculation about how neo-Reformed leaders respond to financial/power incentives surrounding the growth in their ministries.