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.]
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
At the Sovereign Grace Ministry Church I left, if you had to work on Sunday your name would be in the church directory in parenthesis…
Concerned Wife, Sonney boy
JR, Sweetie Pie (Concerned Brother).
It was to make everyone aware you were not conforming to the RULES.
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Yep, at CLC working on Sundays would be a big NO. Missing meetings for any reason was cause for being questioned. Plus, even for those of us that are free from SGM oversight – I love going to church on Sundays and wouldn’t work a job where I couldn’t attend my church. It is a highlight of my week and I always look forward to it. But that is just me.
I also love this argument that people say to just forgive – as if forgiving means keeping your mouth shut when people are being treated wrong. May I introduce my brother to Gal 2. “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong….I said to Peter in front of them all….” This was a very public confrontation – not a I will just forgive you and keep my mouth shut way of dealing with error that was harming fellow Christians.
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“a,”
Hi to you, too!
Are you kidding or serious about the names-in-parentheses thing?
That’s hysterical, either way. But if it’s the literal truth, it’s quite sad for people like (Concerned Brother) who are “believing the best” about SGM and thinking that they’re being extended full love and acceptance as actual “brothers” in Christ when in reality their SGM friends are marginalizing them as only (at best) semi-believers.
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Kris,
Not sure if the () is literal but the concept at CLC sure was. For years everyone wondered why I wasn’t helping lead a care group. I found out years later it was because of a sin that I confessed and repented of years prior…it marked me as no longer eligible to them no matter what my current walk with the Lord was. My name from the day of my willing confession without any prompting or confrontation by anyone…that my name was permanently marked in ( ). So, concerned brother knows nothing of how CLC views forgiveness. There is no sea of forgetfulness at CLC but only ( ). Of course, I was marked such until I got married and was cleansed by my husbands holiness and allowed to help him as he lead a group. All of this is almost laughable now because I see such irony. Sunday after Sunday they tell you what a depraved horrible sinner you and Christ is constantly crucified for your sin…yet they mark those that do sin….should sin be a surprise if you think we are totally depraved and teach that we should look at everything with the view of how our sin plays a part? Focus constantly on your sin…because you are a sinner…but don’t ever sin…makes my head spin.
Also, if I missed one Sunday or Celebration my CGL was quick to ask for my reason. It was also preached from the platform that you shouldn’t work on Sunday mornings, if you weren’t 10 minutes early you were late, and you should turn down any promotions that would take you away from CLC because that would not be making God your priority.
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
That’s no joke…..
in our directory the “unsaved” were in parentheses…..
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Cardinal,
That is really just sad.
It is sad that (CJ) would allow such a thing…haha…couldn’t resist!
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Please excuse my depraved sin nature that is showing itself in # 206. I haven’t thought about the cross long enough today. Or, it could be that my leadership is just not doing a good enough job saving me lately..
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
About the parentheses thing -
I don’t mean to make something out of nothing. I realize that with respect to a church directory, it’s possible that non-member names were put in parentheses just to indicate the fact that they aren’t members, and not to make any sort of statement about these non-members’ salvation status.
Just to clarify.
But I do believe that our “Concerned Brother” would be stunned to find out just how he is viewed by his wife’s fellow members. Because of what SGM teaches about husbands and their duty to “lead” their wives, I am absolutely convinced that “Concerned Brother” is looked down upon as someone who is not obeying God and is shirking his husbandly duties by not making participation in his “local” church a priority.
CJ and Co have made quite a few statements about how Christianity cannot be separated from our activities in the “local” church. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and see why SGMers wouldn’t view “Concerned Brother” as much of a “brother” (in Christ) at all.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Cardinal…are you SERIOUS?!?
Were the “parentheses people” okay with this? How did they list them? If there was a family and the mother was the only one they deemed “saved”, would it look somewhat like this:
(Mr. Joe Smith)
Mrs. Joe Smith
(Suzie Joe Smith)
(Billy Joe Smith)
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Kris – all joking aside you are correct. I would be that he is looked down on. It is the SGM way unless you are fully on board with their methods. This would be one of those situations for sure. And, they will keep that from him until ready to reveal their cards…that is also their way.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I have a confession to make… I actually like when people make objecting comments on this site because it means i get to read a whole lot of awesome responses to said person. I’m sitting here in my pajama pants (jk) laughing, clapping and saying amen to many of the responses. One of the things that I love about this site is that you always hit the nail on the head Kris. I have never been a very eloquent speaking person so it is nice to have someone who I mostly agree with be able to voice what I have been thinking but not able to put into words.
The comments from Concerened brother sounded a lot like SGM speak for someone who was not a member, he said “Repent”, that one made me laugh. I’m just sorry that he hasn’t responded again, you know that uncomfortable part of an argument where you realize that you are wrong?…
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Not Fit….that whole thing from concerned about being personally attacked and not posting anymore reminded me of my very into SGM husband. When we were discussing anything, if I disagreed he would declare the conversation to be over and I was no longer allowed to speak. “This discussion is closed”…..didn’t bring much resolution though…
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
For those who are concerned about what the RBDs are making, I would like to share what I know about Piper’s lifestyle. Last I heard, he lived in a pretty tough area of Minneapolis. A gang shooting happened right in front of his house. When I spoke with someone who visited his church they said it was very “simple”. When I saw him at a conference a few years ago he wore the same outfit all weekend.
He has a book out about “Not wasting Your Life” and not pursuing the American dream. Yes, he probably makes $ with his books and materials. But I would be more surprised to hear that he kept the profits than to hear that he had donated it missions.
I heard Rick Warren say all the profits from “the purpose driven life” went right back into ministry. He could have bought his own island with the profits from that book and didn’t keep any of it. ( i know Warren and Piper are in different camps)
Just saying -although the profit margin may look huge we don’t know where they are “reinvesting” it.
Thank you Kris for the wonderful analysis of this sermon. I wish I been sitting next to you when I first heard it. I probably would not have ended up wasting 6 1/2 years of my spiritual & physical life there. You are my Glenn Beck of the SGM analysis world.
(I mean that in a very nice way.)
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Singing Cook, None of us really know where all the money goes. I used to be part of a church where the pastor was selling alot of books. He lied and told the congregation that he was not living off any of the proceeds or off of a salary from the church but that he was trusting God for his expenses. In the meantime he lived in a huge mansion and drove an expensive car. But his congregation was sucked into his speeches so much that some gave all they had to the ministry. I am just saying even if they appear to live by humble means none of us truly know. It is interesting to hear that about Piper though. But, who is to say how much money is tucked away in bank accounts. I have just become less trusting after seeing the church I described above (to clarify that was a non-SGM church).
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I know I’m not explaining this very well, but when I talk about “money” or “streams or revenue” (as LM Malone mentioned), I really do NOT mean to imply in ANY way that the Reformed Big Dogs like Piper are in ministry for what they can get out of it.
In fact, some of ‘em – Piper in particular, actually – really do seem like they couldn’t care less about material goods.
But…
The reason that I still feel that “streams of revenue” is a valid topic for conversation here is because it could provide a piece of the puzzle as to why a lot of these guys won’t rock the boat. I know a lot of people have attempted to alert the RBDs about SGM’s issues. And it’s been so puzzling to me why they’d want to keep up their very public associations with (and apparent endorsements of) a ministry (SGM) that is still so riddled with problems like the very obvious “shepherding” overtones in CJ’s Happiest Place message.
Maybe instead of mentioning the “M” word (money), a better way to put it would be “self-preservation” or self-interest. Or “ministry-preservation.” Or even “message-preservation.”
See, I think that money comes into play only so far as it is necessary to these guys to maintain their influence and advance their views. Again, so many of them do not strike me as being motivated out of a desire to live well on the backs of their people.
But money is part of the overall picture nonetheless, not so much for the luxury living aspect, but because it is a vital componant of keeping their cause in the forefront.
And frankly, I think that it’s actually a lot more flattering to the RBDs – and would speak far more highly of them – to see their lack of concern about SGM’s ills as being the result of a drive to keep their (Reformdom’s) influence, rather than to believe that they don’t do anything about SGM because they just don’t care about the people whom SGM has hurt.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
not fit for membership–I liked your #211. That’s just how I feel sometimes…
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Rick Warren reverse tithes, I think, 90% of his income. To get a perspective on this, a few years back PDL was in some financial trouble and Rick loaned them 3 million out of his pocket. Not Saddlebacks but HIS pocket.
But again, Money is not a motivator for some of these guys. But even Piper is not hurting a bit. These guys have no debt and most of their expenses are paid for. And many employ their kids and even in some cases their wives in the business. (And it is a business)
To give you an example back when Swindoll was preaching, he made his nice income from the church. Then his 501c3 employed both his wife and daughter whose salaries totaled about 400,000 including his.
If they have a 501c3 in addition to their pastorate, you can find it on Navigator. Many are not doing that anymore because tax laws require 501c3′s to report officials salaries and now that it is accessible by the internet it is getting a bit uncomfortable for some. Churches are not required to do this so some, like John Haggee, run their millions through the church.
To give you another example I am quite familiar with a mega church pastor employed at 250,000 per year. His wife employed at 80,000 and his son at 100,000. He has a customized home office paid for by the church complete with the lastest of everything technical that is constantly updated and he can keep as personal. The books he wrote and his speaking engagements money on church time are his to keep. He is given a 3 month paid sabbatical every year. Cars are leased for him and his wife
paid for the by the church. He was guaranteed a retiremnt income of 200,000 per year starting at age 60.
However, he lives in a humble home and drives a toyota. Very few at the church know his portfolio or the perks or even about the royalites and speaking engagement amounts. Let us just say that he has no worries but he is very careful not to show any wealthy lifestyle.
This is CEO world, folks. So as the economy turns and they have to start taking cuts, don’t be impressed when they take a 10% cut. If they do.
At SBTS,(Mohler is prez) they laid off 35 people last Jan. I know several of them who are fathers and the sole wage earner of the family as SBTS teaches men to be. So, now these men have mortgages, kids, no health insur,etc. Their wives do not work and jobs are scarce in that city as even the big corps are laying off. Yet, these men have lots of education. Several of them ended up losing their homes.
YET…SBTS went ahead and spent 9 million on a campus face lift for their 150th Anniversary celebrations. They made the excuse that the face lift millions had already been budgeted for that purpose.
This is how ‘Christians’ think?
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“Not fit” and “wings” -
You know what’s weird? Last night, right before I went to sleep, I was thinking about the site and sort of half-praying – nothing in particular, but my thoughts were skimming along, flitting from one thing to another. You know.
And then I was hit by this thought that forgiveness and a lack of bitterness do NOT imply that a person must “shut up” about something. You can forgive someone…and not have anything against them personally…and yet still be concerned enough about what they’ve done to want to alert others to their behavioral trends, the ways they’ve acted in the past.
I was lying there last night thinking, “Gee, we haven’t had any real detractors for awhile, but if someone comes along again and says something about how we all just need to quit talking about this (so as to ‘forgive’), I should try to explain this idea to them.”
And then lo and behold, when I checked the site this morning, there was “Concerned Brother’s” comment.
It’s so funny how that seems to work out.
So…all of this is to say, I take no credit for my Glen Beck-ishness. (And…um…not sure I want to take on that mantle anyway…heh! Some people seem to think he’s almost like a Nazi!)
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“And then I was hit by this thought that forgiveness and a lack of bitterness do NOT imply that a person must “shut up” about something. You can forgive someone…and not have anything against them personally…and yet still be concerned enough about what they’ve done to want to alert others to their behavioral trends, the ways they’ve acted in the past.”
Just to clarify about the parentheses thing, Kris, I’m sure you are right that it was possibly an indication of who the actual members were. It still seemed odd to us at the time. Also, it was not CLC.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Kris and FOX News…
Hmmm…now that’s an idea!
October 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“it could provide a piece of the puzzle”
Yes, it possibly could, but then again it possibly could not. This is where you lose me, Kris. This is where the reasoned analysis that is so beneficial to all concerned stops, and the idle speculation begins.
How do you know that neo-Reformed leaders haven’t approached Mahaney? How do you know they’re not speaking out?
For example, at a conference not too long ago, John Piper made a point of publicly talking about what he saw to be the biggest problem in womens’ ministries at his church. He has a generation of young women who desperately want to be deeply grounded in the Word, but a shortage of older women qualified to train them.
Contrast that with Carolyn Mahaney’s teaching that women are to focus on teaching other women how to be housewives, because teaching theology isn’t on the Titus 2 list. Personally, I took John Piper’s strong statement to contain an implicit rebuke of teachings like the Mahaneys’.
We just don’t know what neo-Reformed leaders are or are not saying behind closed doors, Kris. I think you harm your cause when you speculate.
October 4th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Seeker,
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. That’s cool.
I don’t think it’s speculation when we can point to several continued associations among CJ and the Reformed Big Dogs. These guys all continue to share the stage at conferences. They continue to speak at each other’s churches. There is a strongly implied endorsement of someone’s ministry – a strongly implied stamp of approval – when an RBD brings a visiting minister in to preach in the pulpit he himself usually fills.
You’re right in that we can’t know what goes on behind closed doors. But does it really matter if they’re correcting and rebuking behind closed doors, as long as little within SGM changes and CJ continues to receive seemingly glowing endorsements from these RBDs?
How is it “speculation” to say that by all outward appearances, the RBDs continue to endorse SGM? I mean, they DO endorse SGM every time they present a unified front with CJ on a conference stage. People’s opinions of CJ and SGM continue to be influenced positively by these associations.
See, I feel kinda passionate about this – and am puzzled by the RBDs’ apparent lack of concern about SGM’s issues – because one of the main reasons Guy and I were attracted to SGM and bothered to visit our own SGM church was the reflected credibility CJ had due to his hobnobbing with the likes of MacArthur and Piper.
I guess I’m naive, as I just figured – like so many others have – that if THOSE guys liked SGM and approved, then it couldn’t have so much weirdness and so many issues. THOSE guys couldn’t be wrong.
It bothers me, and I’d dearly love to know why they publicly have done nothing. (And that’s not speculation, that’s the truth, as none of them have ever come out publicly and said or done ANYTHING to indicate they were concerned about SGM’s victims, despite being approached by numerous concerned people who asked them to do so.)
October 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Seeker…
You say “I think you harm your cause when you speculate” Well I know you are talking about Reformed Big Dogs, but
Kris
On line, over the internet, personally behind the scenes has heard me out more than my PASTOR that I served under for over 20 years. How can this be?
You said…her cause.?? I wonder if you consider my fragile walk with the LORD, made clear, defined, encouraged here…her cause????
In my lower case opinion she is not hurting “her cause” she is caring for it…But you are entitled to your opinion.
Seeker, keek seeking.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
One thing we have to realize about “Concerned Brother” is that he is operating from the premise that SGM Leaders are sincere when they say they are open to correction etc. when one goes to them in private. That is he really believes that when a member comes to an SGM Leader about an issue or something that was done to the member,the SGM Leaders will honestly consider it and the leader admit their faults when they have done wrong.
Sadly, so many people posting on this blog and other blogs have shown where this isn’t the case. SGM Leaders are quick to point out problems with regular members including members bringing observations about what a leader has done but slow to admit when they have sinned. If anything the leaders blame a members bad attitude, sin, pride etc. if they try and confront a leader as many have reported.
Thus Concerned brother is operating as they say under a false premise.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“It bothers me, and I’d dearly love to know why they publicly – and that’s not speculation, that’s the truth, as none of them have ever come out publicly and said or done anything to indicate they were concerned about SGM’s victims – have done nothing.”
To get a feel for how this happens you can follow the relationship of Piper and Driscoll over the last years. Piper only spoke out when the heat became too hot. So then he says Mark repented and had him speaking at his conferences. But Mark gets worse and Piper maintains that Mark repented so all is well. But then Mark gets worse…even saying on the Desiring God conference stage that every word out of his mouth when he preaches is from the Holy Spirit. (vulgarity and all) Still Piper supports him. Why? We do they all support him (Except McArthur)? Because Mark is the hot property in Reformed. His church plants are growing. They are looking to the future and willing to overlook quite a bit. Everyone apologizes for Mark and keeps defending him except McArthur.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Hi All,
I just want to say that Ezekiel 34 is some good reading if you get a chance
October 4th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Any Christian should protest the lack of response by SGM to those on this site. Really, SGM has such a mentality of let the masses humbly approach us with their heads down and their tails tucked; you little people must come to the great ones and repent….but that is not biblical….”..if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” It is their “biblical” responsibility to address this site and to seek us out…but sadly reconcilation at SGM means you do as we say and admit you are the ones that are wrong or no reconciliation can take place at all and that is the only reason they ignore those here. It is not because they think we are making it up. They know it is true. They know what they are doing and have done. Any Christian that is aware of this site and others like it should at least consider “Has SGM met the biblical mandate to leave your gift at the altar and first go to your brother – by ignoring this site?” — nope…is there a wrong attitude at SGM about the power, authority, and methods of leadership —- yep….
October 4th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Concerned Brother,
Your SGM Care Group leader (how’d you get a “pass” on that rule?) should care for your soul. Your wife should care for your soul. Your wife’s pastor at her SGM church should care for your soul and your wife’s soul.
They should best “serve” you and your wife by telling you to FIND ANOTHER CHURCH!!!!!!!
If my husband could not attend church ever and couldn’t even be a member of a church because of his work schedule, we’d be finding ANOTHER church that has services on Saturday evening or Sunday evening or something.
If they cared for your soul or your wife’s soul, they would acknowledge that there are tons of great churches in this country…and even some of them have christians in them.
I don’t understand this.
I was EXPECTED and respected to disobey and dishonor my husband by FORCING us to stay in SGM when he desperately wanted to leave. WHY? My lack of submission and downright disobedience to God’s Word commanding me to respect and submit to my husband was encouraged by my SGM church.
Sounds like your wife is in the same boat, Concerned Brother. Really…what you outta do…is just find another church. Cuz you know what? You know what the SGM people are saying about you?
Yes, you’d be in (()) if you were on the roster.
Sorry. I’ve been around that block long enough to know that. Oh, if you ask, they won’t tell you. Cuz they’re also really good at lying to “save face.” Anything to preserve their image.
Sidney
October 5th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Question,
Sorry if off topic does anyone have any thoughts on Doug Wilsons teaching?
October 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Doug Wilson is a quasi-Theonomist and preaches the doctrine of Federal Headship of Adam. (These semantics will make one go barking mad). He is the Pasha of Moscow, Idaho patriarchy. He calls his kingdom the ‘Kirk’. A take off of his love for everything presbyterian and Scottish as in John Knox. (The Presbyterian preacher who collaborated on killing Queen Mary but ended up killing her husband and court favorite)
There used to be a blog devoted to his cult teachings from a former protege who cut loose yet still lived on the same street as Wilson. He wrote about Wilson’s bizarre cult that he got caught up in for many years but then moved away and moved on. He fashioned it as a take off of Winnie the Pooh and his Kirk.
And when Sproul, Jr. got kicked out of his church for fraud with tax numbers and for heavy handed shunning people who quesioned him, Doug Wilson took him into his denomination he started, CREC. Confederation of REformed something something. (They are a form of Presbyterian and love to drink and baptize babies)
Metzler went there in the early days and describes it here:
http://www.poohsthink.com/the-kirk/
Since then Wilson has become quite popular in the fringe reformed movement. I believe he is the leader of a cult.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Doug Wilson:
Doug Wilson has good material out for the most part on kids and marriage and home school help. The current controversy about him in Reformed circles has to do with the Federal Vision error/heresy. Wilson allegedly does not fall into the entire error, just partly.
This is the PCA General Assembly Committee Study on the Federal Vision Movement.
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf
If that PDF link does not load scroll down here to Federal Vision:
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/index.html
This is an EXCELLENT!! paper and well worth the time to read.
Federal Vision has various angles. One is that you recieve the HS at conversion ( yes) and are infused with the righteousness of God ( yes) and will do good works as the fruit of abiding in Christ ( yes). But they then go into a Roman Catholic error that the good works earn you merit before God, and your righteousness before God at the judgement is in part from that infused righteousness. NO! ONLY the passive (cross) and active (33 years of holy sinless living) obedience earn you any merit at all with God. It is ALL the work of Jesus.
Wilson is sort of into that but maybe not, it is controversial, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. But the FV like him and he speaks at their conferences.
What Wilsom is into is the FV error about paedo baptism conferring infused righteousness. It gets real tricky. The Reformed position is that there is an invisible church( truly elect, truly converted/born again) and a visible one ( the sunday gatherings with sacraments, preaching, etc) that may have unsaved people in it.
FV teaches that baptism makes you part of the invisible church. They don’t necessarily use the words baptismal regeneration, but that is what they mean. Adam is the federal head of the race, and a father is the federal (representative) head of the home, and when the parents baptize the baby, it is in the covenant of grace because of the parents faith, and therefore part of the covenant people. Baptism is the seal of belonging not just to the visible church but to the invisible elect true church.
This is basically rehashed Rome. There is plenty out there if you google the key words. For myself, I don’t see any need to hand out DW materials, there is better CCEF stuff on relationships, better Reformed stuff on Covenant theology, and he is off into heresy on the sacrament of baptism.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Here is a very detailed article about Doug Wilson, R C Sproul, FV etc. What a mess!
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=113
October 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“Doug Wilson has good material out for the most part on kids and marriage and home school help”
Tee hee. Some call them stepford wives in their frilly ruffled frocks and lawn parties. Can’t have them too smart, you know.
Actually Doug Wilson is known for demanding the name of your pastor and his phone number if you DARE disagree with him on this “blog and mablog”. You WILL be disciplined. He, and YOUR pastor will see to it. And if your pastor refuses, then he is not a REAL pastor.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Unreal.
It’s *rich*…how some will just do whatever they want…whenever they want.
True colors always show through, I guess. :/
October 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Doug Wilson?!?!?!?
Here are the titles of a few of his books…
“Her Hand in Marriage: Biblical Courtship in the Modern World”
“Federal Husband”
“The Fruit of Her Hands”
“Fidelity”
“Future Men”
“Standing on the Promises”
“Reforming Marriage”
“Praise Her in the Gates”
Go to Amazon.com and “look inside” at the table of contents or read some of the sample pages.
We’ve discussed Doug Wilson on this site before. Do a search on “Doug Wilson” on the sgmsurvivors.com site only.
Thanks for the additional info…Malone, 5years, Rich, and Liz.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I looked at the links, and I must admit I am out of touch! My hub liked Reforming Marriage back in the mid 90s and I had no idea DW had gone into such legalism. What he liked about RM is the focus on male headship and sacrifical love, instead of blaming unsubmissive women for problems. Well, sorry to see DW’s materials may not be so good.
That ministry watchman link was very sobering. Thanks.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Wow, Malone!
I would have loved to have had an opportunity to read Metzler’s original blog on Wilson from 2005-2008.
It’s a shame someone hacked into it and destroyed it. (Some of Wilson’s “defenders”, I’m sure.
)
I read where Metzler has access to his old blog posts from those years. I wonder if he will ever post them again and if he has the comments on those posts, as well.
Doug Wilson is one “sly” individual. “Brains” like his scare me. I’m especially concerned that he’s steadily infiltrating “Reformdom.” His rhetoric skills are amazing and serve him well.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I find it fascinating that so many of these guys are deeply rooted within the homeschool movement, and Christian schooling, as well.
Education is their means of “social engineering.”
It’s really alarming, and it’s been right under our noses for a couple of decades now. Christians were so desperate for an alternative to our failing public school system that they allowed these guys right in.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I know Doug Wilson’s books were still being promoted in SGM two years ago. I don’t know about now.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Kris writes:
“How is it ‘speculation’ to say that by all outward appearances, the RBDs continue to endorse SGM? I mean, they DO endorse SGM every time they present a unified front with CJ on a conference stage. People’s opinions of CJ and SGM continue to be influenced positively by these associations.”
Yes, there is an association among these men. That association would not be there without a common core of belief – a commitment to neo-Reformed theology. But, I think it’s an overstatement to argue that the association implies an endorsement by each, of every aspect of the others’ ministries.
So, in the statement I quoted, I think you went too far.
But, where you really lose me, is where you then speculate that because the association of these men with each other advances each of their individual ministries, these neo-Reformed leaders have an incentive to overlook problems at SGM. Further, you claim that not only does the incentive exist, but they are responding to the incentive by, in fact, overlooking problems at SGM. That’s where the evidence is missing, Kris.
Regardless, this is my last comment on this topic! I’m repeating myself, which usually leads to a “more heat than light” discussion!
October 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Seeker,
I think association does give endorsement when that association is leadership. See just two quotes from T4G below:
“Together for the Gospel has a vision for local church pastors establishing informal networks of friendship and support with other likeminded pastors in their area.” …it states likeminded without stating just what they are likeminded about.
The four long-time friends, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, C. J. Mahaney, and Albert Mohler, also asked their friends Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul to join them for these conferences, since each of these men has been contributing so valuably to the church today. (..it states that these men are contributing “valuably” to the church…I dont think CJs contribution in my life has been valuable.
Also, Kris was only offering her opinion. If you go back and read her post you will see words such as could and maybe. I didn’t see anywhere where Kris said association implies endorsement of every aspect of other’s ministries. But, this website and others like it are a public part of the impact SGM has had on the church-remember we are the church, that is the Body of Christ is the Church. When you say that someone has contributed valuably to the church knowing these websites are out there you are stating that inspite of what happened here their contribution is valuable.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“But, I think it’s an overstatement to argue that the association implies an endorsement by each, of every aspect of the others’ ministries.”
But lets look at it deeper. Each one of these reformed leaders have ‘followers’ who pretty much hang on their every word. If you invite another reformed speaker to speak, you are saying, I affirm this mans and his teaching. If they sell another reformers book at a conference, they are affirming him and his teaching.
I can remember some of the elders in my former mega lamenting in a private meeting about something Rob Bell said they disagreed with. So I asked why his book was selling in the church bookstore. They said they had no choice. (Actually, they would have to empty out the bookstore and forgo profits) So folks AT church saw the book in the CHURCH bookstore and it would be folly for us to think they did not stop to think that their leadership did NOT affirm Rob Bell. After all, if they thought Rob Bell taught some wrong doctrine, as overseers, they would GUARD them from such things, right? They would NOT allow the Body to profit from wrong teaching, would they? See what I mean?
This all goes back to one single serious problem in Western Christedom: Our need for celebrities. Because we elevate mere men and THEIR interpretation of scripture, we have these problems.
We should stop looking to man to interpret for us and seek the Holy Spirit to illuminate truth to us through the Word. Every human given authority, followed admired by many is in danger. It is a sin trap. Let’s stop this celebrity focus in Christendom. And we will save money on books! The HOLY SPIRIT WILL TEACH YOU! You should be testing everythign you are taught anyway.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I thought that Doug Wilson decided that homeschooling is not a good thing, particularly for adolescent boys (all day long, home with mommy and sisters) and was more a proponent of classical education these days… Could have him mixed up with someone else.
Also, there has been a lot of criticism of him over some point of doctrine that is over my head. God help us all.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Thanks, LMM! I originally posted the following over at the Refuge and just saw your post where you are saying the same thing that I posted over there.
“It is worse for a liar to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to tell a lie.”
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/hillary_bonhoeffer_and_the_mea.html
It’s an insightful article, concentrating on a certain PERSON in politics. I felt that it was applicable to this discussion because in one’s pursuit of the TRUTH, an awareness of the motives of those giving out “wisdom” should be considered. Just because something looks and sounds like it “truth” doesn’t mean it is, and those who would mislead will present *some truth* so as to make others think that all that they espouse is truth.
If a PERSON has a tendency to want their own way no matter what and in the course of time is continually deceptive on who they are, wisdom dictates to have nothing to do with them. People who pretend to be someone else to get what they want are manipulative and are usually found out sooner or later. And those who have believed them will feel duped.
Another quote from the article:
Develop your own relationship with the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth. We don’t have to have years of scholarship and be able to read Greek and Hebrew to know God’s Truth. ***I am not saying that scholarship and proficiency in Greek and Hebrew are not worthy to pursue.*** However, we must be able to discern the Voice of the HOLY SPIRIT among all the others.
He will speak to our hearts, He will not lead us astray if we diligently seek Him. His still small voice has been speaking to since our first inklings that something was wrong in pdi/sgm. He won’t stop now. He loves His own.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Seeker,
I know, I know, you are gone for good. When you boil it all down, I am the evidence you are looking for in Kris. I tried to tell you that. Seeker, it is in disallusioned saints, broken marriages, children who drink and cut themselves to desparately find love from their Christian religious parents, cant you see the hurt from self righteous, elite pastors in Sovereign Grace ministries that turn their back on abuse, lies and tithes misused? They stand behind twisted scriptures, with the authority of Moses or the pope while closing their ears to the cries in their own body of believers. Seeker, you to, be quiet, try to silence Kris, make her prove what I have wept over and the devistation I still continue to see.
Seeker, keep seeking.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Thanks Ellie. Bonhoeffer introduced me to concept of Cheap Grace which is modis operendi in seeker churches.
I love this:
It is worse for a liar to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to tell a lie.”
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
October 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am
My church is seeker friendly but does not preach cheap grace.They speak the truth in love, pray, encourage, and admonish when needed but always with love,never in anger, and trusting the Holy Spirit.They will say the harder things that people might not want to hear but never controlling like SGM.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“My church is seeker friendly but does not preach cheap grace.They speak the truth in love, pray, encourage, and admonish when needed but always with love,never in anger, and trusting the Holy Spirit.They will say the harder things that people might not want to hear but never controlling like SGM.”
That is good. Are they focused on church growth and use the tactics of the church growth movement? Is the salary of the senior staff a state secret?
October 9th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
LMMalone: They put alot of work into media and we have a rock band style worship. The messages are sure to be understandable to a new comer. At the same time there is a great core of very mature believers so I am actually learning alot at my church. If you were a member of my church and not growing closer to the Lord it would be your own fault. They do everything to serve and equip. I have never been under better leadership anywhere in my life (not church, family, work); yet, at the same time I am not dependant on them and have no fear of man like at SGM. I am free there. If the church folded tomorrow it would be a loss but I would still be intact and be perfectly fine. I have never been more confident or this strong. It is a servant leadership and I honestly feel like they are serving me and I am glad to have their leadership. I am seriously blessed. The salary of the pastor is at poverty level for the area I live. We have only about 100 members and he is not paid any where near enough. All money the pastor receives (even if he buys books with church money, or meals for meetings) is fully disclosed. The elders are non paid staff. They have teams involved in everything. The pastor leads instead of controls. He encourages open dialog, asks for feedback, leaves alot of room for ideas from others. It is a church that a “seeker” could walk into and be fine..and a church where someone that has been saved for 20 years can learn deeper things….it is the real deal.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Hi, I’m new here. I’ve been a memeber in an SGC for many years. While I’ve heard similar stories, I’ve never read this many. I’m very troubled and don’t quite know what to think. Since the first time I walked into an SGC I believed that God told me that this is where He was planting me.
Now I’m quite torn, since the leaders of SGM are abusive to dissenters, unreasonable & won’t listen to correction, use thier positions to maintain control/power, I can no longer in good concience be a member of this group of churches.
I live in the Cooa/Titusvile, FL area, where can I find a good local church that is reformed & charasmatic?
Sorry for the dump but this really bothers me.