During this site’s existence, the subject of Sovereign Grace Ministries’ “Pastors College” has come up from time to time.
Because of how much authority SGM pastors are given – how they expect to be obeyed, for instance, and how they are frequently their people’s primary source of counsel - readers have expressed their concern over how little professional training most SGM pastors receive. “Pastors College” is a relatively brief 9-month course. Moreover, as far as anyone can tell, admission into the PC is, for all practical purposes, available “by invitation only” – there are no standardized official admission procedures or policies published anywhere. Information about what these SGM pastoral candidates actually do study is extremely vague, compared to the course descriptions at actual seminaries, like Southern Baptist Theological Seminary or Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, for instance.
While some men do attend SGM’s “Pastors College” after obtaining college and seminary degrees, many SGM pastors have received no other training besides what they got at the PC.
Therefore, it was with great interest that I checked out Jeff Purswell’s post over at C.J. Mahaney’s blog, where he has been invited to explain what the ”Pastors College” is all about. Apparently, he will be writing a series of articles about the PC.
Since no discussion is permitted on C.J.’s blog, I thought it might be interesting to interact with Mr. Purswell’s first article here. Below is his introductory post, in which he purports to give us an overview about what goes on at the PC. My thoughts will appear in blue.
—————————
CORE CONVICTIONS BEHIND THEOLOGICAL TRAINING
by Jeff Purswell
A couple of months ago C.J. invited me to begin contributing posts to the Sovereign Grace blog, of which this is the first. Those who don’t know me will surely wonder why; [Kris says: I'm pretty sure that this is just one of those Sovereign Grace cultural things, but does anyone else join me in finding statements like these sort of strange? I mean, what's with the "humble" joking put-downs of oneself? Just about every SGM teaching I've ever listened to will start, rather predictably, with the pastor/speaker poking fun of himself and touting his supposed lack of qualifications. After awhile, because it's so formulaic, it starts to feel like one gigantic act. I don't really believe that Mr. Purswell thinks he's such an odd choice to blog about SGM's "Pastors College," or that he REALLY thinks the readers who don't know him will "surely" wonder why he's been invited to contribute to C.J.'s blog. I mean, if his readers don't know him, they won't think about him at all, right? Again, I realize this is cultural. But it's one of those little things that makes SGM seem...odd...to an outsider like me.] those who do know me will no doubt grasp the irony, given my blustering tirades against the general blog phenomenon (which I’ll spare you, since including them here would be self-defeating). [Kris says: On the other hand, I have no trouble at all believing that Mr. Purswell doesn't approve of blogging - well, at least certain types of blogging. 
] In any event, let me stress the privilege it is to share this space with C.J. and, as of next week, Dave Harvey, and provide a bit of background for future posts.
My main responsibility in Sovereign Grace is overseeing the Pastors College, which is the primary mechanism by which we train pastors for ministry in our family of churches. Many components go into this training. We teach our students Greek so that they might have access to the original text of the New Testament. [Kris says: Really? The "Pastors College" teaches its students Greek? In how many weeks? While juggling how many other topics? What do they use, Rosetta Stone Greek For Pastors?] We ground our students in the text of Scripture in both its specifics and scope. We endeavor to provide our students a solid theological framework for grasping God’s revelation in its various parts and proportions. [Kris says: Again, this is a HUGE undertaking. How can this be done in a mere 9 months?] We provide pastoral care and structures for personal growth to encourage and support our students’ progress in godliness and the process of sanctification. [Kris says: This sounds perfectly good and acceptable. But I'd be very interested in hearing more specifics about just how this is done.
You see, awhile back, someone who once attended the PC wrote me an email in which he described just what this "encouragement and support for students' progress in godliness and the process of sanctification" is like.
According to my correspondent, PC students and their wives are each assigned SGM "disciplers" who meet extensively with them over the course of their study. They have weekly get-togethers in which the PC students (and wives) are probed relentlessly. Every sin - real or imagined - is laid out on the table. No infraction is too small. By the time the candidate and his wife are finished with the program, they will have, at least according to this particular individual, been completely torn down and then built back up in the SGM way.
So yes, the idea of this sort of "encouragement and support" sounds good and right. But the reality would appear to be something different, something quite harsh and grim, an experience the purpose of which seems to be the complete obliteration of the individual man (and his spouse) and the adoption of SGM group-think.] We teach ministry skills such as preaching and biblical counseling to help them bring God’s Word to bear upon the lives of the people they will one day serve. [Kris says: Yet again - HOW can this be done in only 9 months, especially since these guys are also being so rigorously "discipled" while simultaneously mastering the Greek language? Professional Christian counselors - whom SGM pastors are subtly taught to disparage and look down upon as being "less biblical" - study their discipline for years, while SGM pastors maybe get a week here or there with Dr. David Powlison. As great as Dr. Powlison may be, I think it's pretty safe to say that these SGM pastors need more training before they are unleashed upon their churches to do "biblical" counseling.] And we do all of this in the context of a particular local church—Covenant Life Church—which provides the students both a church home and a functioning model for the material they are learning in the classroom. [Kris says: I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again - WHY, oh why, do SGMers use the phrase, "local church"? WHY?
First of all, "local" does not necessarily refer to geographical location. In our own SGM experience, we knew of several families who traveled from points far and wide to attend our particular SGM church, frequently driving a half hour or more, during which I know they passed dozens of decent Bible-believing, gospel-proclaiming churches that would have been far more "local" to them than our SGM church was. Apparently, commuting to church is not that uncommon in the rest of the SGM world, either. The families we knew were not rarities. This leads me to think that when SGMers use the phrase, "local church," what they REALLY mean is, "local SGM church."
And if "local" has nothing to do with geogrpahical location, then what DOES it mean?
After all, are there "correspondence" churches?
Or, are there really that many Christians out there who honestly would say that they are part of a "distant" church?
I don't think so.
So why do they say "local church" like that? What's the point?]
Underlying these facets are certain core convictions we have concerning theological training—convictions derived from Scripture’s profile of a pastor and the local church which he’s called to serve.
For example, with the exception of the gift of teaching, the biblical requirements for eldership (e.g., 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1) all speak to a pastor’s character; there’s nothing about personality types, educational levels, or social standing. [Kris says: I think we're seeing a false dilemma here. The Bible never sets up "character" as being in some sort of zero-sum equation with a man's education. Sure, there weren't seminaries and professional training for ministry in Bible times, when the Christian faith was young. But there was also nothing in Scripture about church building programs, music ministries, or training for counseling. There is NOTHING about pastoral training - extensive seminary training - that means a pastoral candidate would then begin to neglect his godly character. Education and character are not in opposition to one another. They are not mutually exclusive.
It's almost as though SGM wants it both ways. They tout the "Pastors College" as doing all this educating - teaching these guys Greek, training them in counseling, "grounding" them in Scripture - and yet at the same time seem to be defending the brevity of the PC by emphasizing SGM's focus on pastoral character. (Which - they seem to think - makes SGM's training unusual compared to other seminaries?)] Transcending all other considerations, a pastor is to be an illustration of the transforming effects of the gospel he proclaims, and an example of sound Christian living to those he serves. We therefore give much attention to, and invest resources toward, encouraging and cultivating progress in our students’ spiritual lives. [Kris says: Again, I am looking forward to Mr. Purswell's future installments in this series, in which I hope he does get around to explaining just how they go about "cultivating progress" in their students' spiritual lives.
Forgive me if I sound dumb or naïve, but I was always under the impression that this sort of "progress" was more the work of the Holy Spirit. It will be interesting to hear how SGM "cultivates" it in pastoral candidates.] In our training, we never want to neglect the very characteristics that qualify a man for ministry in the first place.
The local church [Kris says: Again with the "local church" thing! What is WITH this? Isn't it sort of a given that if you are able to participate regularly in a particular church, then it must be your "local" - local enough - church?] context also plays an important role in the Pastors College. Since we are training pastors called to “shepherd the flock of God,” we want to expose them to an actual “shepherding” context—a model of ministry where God’s people are being taught, cared for, and nourished. Therefore, we never want the training of our students to be disconnected from the context for which they are being trained—the local church. [Hmm. Did Mr. Purswell just go on the record as saying that SGM is a "shepherding" ministry? 
Seriously, though - I do understand (I think) what Mr. Purswell is trying to get at, and I'm sure he'd deny that Sovereign Grace Ministries dabbled in the "Shepherding Movement" back in the day. But if that's the case - if he doesn't actually mean "shepherding" as it occurred in the "Shepherding Movement," then I find it interesting that he is acting like SGM's approach to pastoral training is somehow distinctive from that of other denominations when he says that the PC candidates are being exposed to "a model of ministry where God's people are being taught, cared for, and nourished."
After all, this statement pretty much summarizes what just about every normal Bible-believing Christian church seeks to do these days. The vast majority of churches desire to "teach, care for, and nourish" their members. The majority of our more conservative seminaries expect their students to be active participants in church. Why is this being touted like it's something unique to SGM and their "Pastors College"?]
In addition to character and context, there’s the substance of our training. When asked to describe the nature of our training, I frequently use this description: we’re training men to do theological ministry—ministry with a self-consciously theological rationale, where every methodology employed flows from and is informed by theological conviction and appropriate biblical warrant. Far from being innovative, this is simply a reflection of the radically Word-centered nature of the pastor’s call that pervades the New Testament. [Kris says: I totally agree with Mr. Purswell, here, in that this is "far from being innovative." I think it's a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of seminary students who are training to be pastors would say that their methods flow from their theological convictions and biblical warrants. Which then begs the question, why does SGM then even NEED the PC, its own little abbreviated version of seminary? I can understand, perhaps, SGM's desire to have its own denominational family-of-churches training grounds, but perhaps instead of trying to reinvent the wheel from the ground up, maybe they could just offer their 9-month program to guys who have already graduated from college and completed real seminary elsewhere?] From the apostles’ disciplined devotion “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4) to Paul’s insistent pleas that Timothy devote himself to the proclamation of Scripture and its teaching (1 Timothy 4:6, 13, 16; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2, 15; 4:1-2, et al), God’s Word places a claim on both the content and methodology of pastoral ministry: Scripture and its teaching must be the standard and substance of the pastor’s ministry.
Now, that’s easier said than done, for at least two reasons.
First, perhaps more than ever before, pastors are vulnerable to competing visions for ministry, to measuring ministry “success” by business metrics rather than faithfulness to Scripture, to grasping for some heretofore undiscovered insight that will make the decisive difference in their church. Even for the most earnest pastor, the promise of immediate success is a powerful enticement to pragmatic measures.
[Kris says: I find this paragraph rather breathtakingly audacious, considering how much of SGM's own ministry model clearly parallels models used by the business (franchise) world. One of the books that has greatly influenced C.J. and Company is the business tome, From Good To Great. (Hardly a "biblical warrant" there, right?) SGM's approach to planting churches involves some very pragmatic considerations of demographics and income levels. SGM knows that its particular approach to ministry will work best when a community's average education and median income meet certain benchmarks. Yet the students at SGM's "Pastors College" are being led to believe that all the methods they will use flow out of their theology and a "biblical warrant"?]
Second, it’s a challenge because Scripture doesn’t speak specifically to every facet of church life and ministry. It requires an ever-deepening understanding of the Bible, a grasp of its details and overarching unity, a sensitivity to the “pattern” (2 Timothy 1:13) and proportionality of its truth. More than anything, it requires a firm grasp of the gospel and its entailments for the Christian life individually, and for the church’s life corporately. [Kris says: I have been a Christian for almost my entire life. In other words, I have had, for a LONG time, a clear understanding of what Jesus did to save me. I know what "the gospel" is.
But there's something about SGM's use of the phrase "the gospel," especially when it gets tossed around with wordy statements like "...and its entailments for the Christian life individually," that makes little sense. What is Mr. Purswell actually saying here? Seriously? What does this gobbledygook mean?] Of course, faithful pastoral ministry will look different in different contexts, and no one will execute theological ministry perfectly. Our perception is never perfect, our motives unclouded, or our actions flawless. It is, however, something to which Scripture calls us to aspire.
Well, that’s a glimpse of what we’re endeavoring to instill into our students in the Pastors College, and that’s what I’ll be thinking out loud about in upcoming posts: theological and biblical reflection, particularly as it impinges upon the glorious work of pastoral ministry—proclaiming the gospel, expounding God’s truth, and caring for those for whom our Savior died. The thought of that privilege is staggering. [Kris says: So's this post. It's staggering, and about as clear as mud. But I am looking forward to learning more from Mr. Purswell's future articles. How about you?]
October 21st, 2009 at 6:43 am
So –
Yo, Luther!
I’m surprised that you’re bringing up the whole anonymous blogging thing.
After all, unless I’m missing something, and you’re actually one of those real famous types who goes by just one name, you’re not exactly out of the closet yourself here.
I mean…
You know those celebrities – Cher, Madonna, Elvis, Prince. Those types, who somehow managed to make themselves so famous that we don’t even care about their last names, we just know who they are…
I don’t seem to remember a “Luther” on that list…
Which begs the question, WHY?
Why, Luther? If “anonymous blogging” is such a terrible thing, such a distraction from credibility, then why do you come here and post comments under what I’m pretty sure is less than your full name?
Actually, you don’t even need to answer that question. I can answer it for you.
You blog anonymously, just like a lot of the rest of us, because you feel that what you have to say can be said and have the same impact without anyone needing to know who you are.
Moreover, if you’re honest with yourself, you’d admit that you’re also scared. As an SGMer, you’re scared of what the consequences would be if you were found out for even reading this site, let alone commenting.
Ah…the ironies are rich, aren’t they?
October 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Isn’t Luther one of the guys who escaped from prison in “Oh Brother Where Art Thou”?
October 21st, 2009 at 10:56 am
Naw…Looother makes his rounds. John Immel even dedicated a post to him. For all the argument about anonymity being so bad, he certainly makes a practice of it.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Since he brought it up… (Luther, above)
How sad that the SGM position on anonymous blogging sets up a barrier for reconciliation. Wouldn’t a reasonable person want to do everything in their power to correspond with someone they’d wronged, in order to set things straight and facilitate forgiveness? A reasonable person might even HOPE to protect someone’s privacy by not bothering with whether or not they publish their actual name. Instea there’s kind of a “no negotiion” policy, as if they were dealing with kidnappers or international terrorists. Rules against dialogue with fellow Christians. So sad.
Even more telling are the situations described elsewhere on this site and Refuge where folks were not anonymous, yet never received any kind of answer to their heartfelt, time-consuming queries.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hey, Luther,
I wrote my letter to CJ. With my real name. I have over 25 years of history with SGM.
I got a “modified form letter” in return. In fact, if you read my letter to him and immediately read his response to me, you will shake your head and say “what?” because if he read my letter, there is no way he could have made the assumptions he made in his response.
I haven’t responded to his “modified form letter response” because, frankly, I have no idea even what to say.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Kris
October 21st, 2009 at 6:43 am Luther, Moreover, if you’re honest with yourself, you’d admit that you’re also scared. As an SGMer, you’re scared of what the consequences would be if you were found out for even reading this site, let alone commenting.
No- I’ve seen with my own eyes how anyone that puts their real name on any of these blogs is not attacked by SGM but rather their names are destroyed by the “blogmasters”
(How wise you are Guy)
Unlike the ex-Church of Christ members desiring change, you cower behind fake names and throw stones. Unless you have been physically threatened by SGM Mafia, why the fear in putting your real names? It’s because fake names bring power.
I appealed without sarcasm or harshness and was met with derision and scorn.
So much for appealing. “Bitterness.” Not listed anywhere as a Fruit of the Spirit.
Jim, SGMRefuge, asked for you to write non anonymous letters with your complaints. That is Biblical, and will produce results. This only breeds anger, and the root of bitterness grows even deeper. How much time do you spend in scripture compared to the time you spend reading about others comments about how awful it is to be in SGM?
October 21st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Square Peg,
I truly do not get the obsession that some people (especially some SGM defenders) have with “anonymous” blogging.
I think it shows a lot of silliness, on a lot of levels.
First of all, there’s something really naive about people who assume that it’s perfectly safe for your average non-celebrity, unknown person to publish his full name online for anyone to pull up, even years from now, just by using a simple Google search. It’s NOT always wise to put one’s first and last names in cyberspace, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the stalker factor. There are lots of weirdos out there, people who get obsessed over the strangest things. Do you really want them to be able to read your comments, and – armed with your full real identity – be able to use some other simple online tools to locate your street address and pop by for a visit?
Hmm. I know that I personally don’t.
Secondly, safety factors aside, the way that some SGM defenders have obsessed over the “anonymous” aspect is really nothing but a red herring, anyway. Unless someone is interested in renewing his relationships with his SGM leaders and/or other people who wronged him during his time in SGM, there is simply NO REASON for Sovereign Grace as an organization to need to know which person is telling which story.
The ONLY thing SGM leaders need to concern themselves with is this: Do these things have the potential to happen in our churches? And, have they, in fact, happened?
Lots of SGM churches – especially the larger ones like CLC – maintain meticulous files on their members. The pastors at CLC don’t need to know specific identities. All they need to do is crack open one of their old file cabinets and do a little reading.
It’s really that simple.
What I find especially amusing is that SGM’s obsession with people’s identities actually PROVES just how widespread the problems are. If the kinds of abuse that the survivors have described in their anonymous stories were so unusual, such aberrations from SGM’s norm, and so out of the realm of possibility, then SGM’s leaders would know immediately who was sharing their stories. SGM’s not that big of an organization. If abuse was so rare, and so unthinkable, then it should be EASY for these guys to figure out who is posting here.
No, SGM doesn’t need to know my full name, or Guy’s, or anyone else’s, if the “anyone else” does not want to be known. All they need to do is ask themselves the hard questions. All they need to do is address the things that need to change.
The fact that they instead try to deflect the bad publicity onto the “anonymous” factor is really a sad statement about SGM’s leaders and their unwillingness to open their eyes and be real about the organization that has (I think) become something of an idol to them.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Wow, Luther! You and I were writing at the same time, it seems! I was telling you BEFORE you asked what my personal experience was with the “letters to CJ” via SGMRefuge blog.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
So, Luther -
Why do YOU post anonymously here, then? If it’s so bad?
Come to think of it, why do you even read here?
And…even more interesting…why the obsession with correcting the posters here and on the other sites? Why not direct some of that energy to addressing the issues in your own church, since you seem to dislike us all so much anyway?
Why hang out and waste your time on the “bitter” folks here, especially when you get all pouty and wound-licky and “poor pitiful me” every time someone smacks down your illogic?
October 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Something I’ve always said is, the best advertisement for staying AWAY from SGM has got to be the way that SGM defenders come across in their comments here.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Loooother said:
Is a modified form letter response Biblical? If you say “yes”, then how ’bout the response not matching the original “Biblical letter” showing that the respondent didn’t read the aforementioned “Biblical letter”? Isn’t that fraudulent? Kinda like lying? I remember seeing that described as a sin…actually IN THE BIBLE.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Hey Luther,
Here is a question, how did the Gospel advance and survive prior to SGM. What do you think will happen to the gospel after SGM is nothing more than a footnote in christian history? Will Gods people enjoy the the same level of care and felowship once SGM is long gone? What would happen to your walk and relationship with God without SGM? Would you still be safe without your Pastoral covering. Would you still grow without the involvement of your local SGM church. If so, how would you do it?
What would a typical week look like for you if SGM were to dissapear?
October 21st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
This comment is not in response to any one particular post but to a recurring theme around here: bitterness.
I think there is a problem with focusing too much on bitterness instead of focusing on the underlying problem that might have influenced the bitterness to take root. Bitterness MUST be dealt with, but I think it is simply wrong for church leaders to deflect from the root problem, expecting people to come to them with already perfect hearts before their real issues can be addressed. It’s like saying, “You must deal with all of your sin before we can address mine. Even though I am your church leader and am supposed to be your example. I can keep on with the status quo while pointing the finger at you. But at the same time, when you want to address any other issue, I can accuse you of deflecting away from YOUR own sin.” Why do we have to set it up this way? Why don’t we just deal with all of the issues, understanding that there are problems on every side of a conflict or problem, and while some might need to be dealt with before others, there should be a clear roadmap detailing all of the issues that will be discussed and dealt with?
Just dismissing people’s legitimate concerns because they are “bitter” is also very arbitrary. Who can know the heart of man but God? I am sure that many people are bitter who are accused of it. But I also know that a lot of people are simply fed up with the horrific way they have been treated. Those “negative” feelings are not necessarily bitterness – Jesus got angry at unjust things too. I tend to see these accusations of bitterness (founded or unfounded) as just excuses to not listen to what people have to say. And if you are supposed to be caring for people, in Christ, you should do just that – listen to them and care for them – all of them, including their imperfections and sin and bitterness, because you know that all men have sinned & fall short of the glory of God, and that includes you.
Even if there is bitterness involved, that is simply not an excuse for not addressing serious issues. You can never make everyone happy, but you can at least show them Christ’s love.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
….when Jim was gathering them for the “Reformed Big Dog”, with my real name and my concerns. (And I was very positive about the genuine good things that were part of our experience.)
I never got a reply. I didn’t ask for one and I am not holding a grudge, and we said the negatives we had to say to leadership before we left anyway, and expressed gratitude for the rest. But if there were going to be “results”, don’t you think they would at least acknowledge a letter with concerns, even if only to disagree?
The only thing in my opinion that will get results is a serious, strong, rebuking intervention on the part of prominent men, like Paul confronting Cephas/Peter in Galatia.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Andthechicken,
EXCELLENT comment! EXCELLENT!
October 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
First, andthechicken – you are right on the money, my friend. Jesus never used sins as a reason to justify not paying attention to someone! (please, if I’m wrong, someone show me where!) I keep thinking of stories like the woman who grabbed his robe – Jesus didn’t say “Uuuh SCUSE? Your impatient demand for healing has cursed you, woman!” He didn’t let Peter drown when he plunged down into the water. He didn’t ignore the women because they were selfishly mourning for Lazarus and not trusting god’s plan. Saying ZOMG U ARE ALL BITTERZ is a complete red herring and unbiblical to boot.
Also, I wanted to share on the anonymous thing… It’s really, really funny to me. See, I started posting here under my real name, first and last, linked to my blog which was linked to my Facebook. I had about ten minutes of internet fame around this time for some work I was doing with eating disorder recovery and it wasn’t that uncommon for people to google me to find more information… It didn’t occur to me that my parents might do so and might find my post here.
They did! Now the truly funny part? Without me posting here with my real name, they might never have found this site and might never have started asking questions. I don’t know their story all the way, maybe they already were feeling uncomfortable in SGM and finding this site was a breath of fresh air that soothed their hurts and reassured them that they weren’t crazy for questioning the problems they saw. I really just don’t know.
But, I DO know that this site, along with I’m sure many factors I don’t know about, helped give them the courage to finally leave after over a dozen years at CLC and ties with many members that went back to high school.
So I guess in that sense, anonymity might be a bad thing… Because members desperate to leave may never know who has left before them and might not gain incentive to leave from that knowledge… Lol. But in any case? It simply doesn’t matter. This is an argument that has been posed by seriously like every defender, EVER. Come on guys, at least hit us with something original…
October 21st, 2009 at 11:46 pm
#164 — I WROTE A LETTER TO CJ said, “I never got a reply. I didn’t ask for one and I am not holding a grudge..”
Common courtesy — the flesh-and-blood demonstration of “do unto others” — would EXPECT at least a written acknowledgement and thanks from the addressee (not an underling) that someone took the time and made the effort to write a letter — even if said addressee doesn’t wish to answer the concerns.
Extending some good manners and a little common courtesy would be a great first step in changing the way people are treated — maybe even a move toward reform, reconciliation, and/or restoration. What a demonstration of the Gospel that would be!
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 am
Dear I wrote a letter to CJ
So did I…he was just like my SR Pastor at Sovereign Grace Minsistries, didn’t really care. But, but, but it says on the website…we are “cared for by Sovereign Grace Ministries”
Ola….
Dear Luther, you are not my brother…a
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 am
“I wrote a letter to CJ”,
I agree with you about Paul confronting Cephas at Galatia. People usually need to be addressed by their colleagues in order for something to happen. Well said.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:11 am
I wrote a letter to CJ, he responded, but I seriously doubt he ever actually read my letter or took anything contained therein seriously.
It would have been better to have been ignored.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 am
DB,
Did you get the same modified form letter from CJ that Acme and I got? Email me at justadogluvr at aol dot com if you want to compare notes.
Sidney
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 am
Platy,
{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}
It’s good to see you. When you pop in, I know you are OK. ;)
Sid
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 am
Siddy hi!
Yep, all is well in my neck of the very snowy woods.I’m still around, just for the most part feel that I don’t have anything new or insightful to add to the discussions these days so I leave it to you guys. XD
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Wow there are a lot comments here saying lots of things. But I just wanted to mention that I absolutely love kool-aid. John Immel should leave it out of all this.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Joey,
The metaphorical kool-aid is actually not that bad, as long as it is used in moderation, filtered well, and taken with a grain of salt.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
My penny’s worth: I am grateful that the symptom (Pastor’s College) of the wider malaise in SGM is the very thing that stops this movement growing more rapidly.
Food for thought:
What lasting impression will this movement have on the Christian body?
How many great thinkers are ever going to be produced at Clone College?
Is homeschooling ever going to protect teenagers from the human heart?
For a movement that upholds the depravity of man, why have all the power self-regulated at the top?
If God is sovereign and the Holy Spirit is alive and kicking, why excercise so much control?
If someone has good character, why the need for so many endorsements?
Is bringing the SGM way to a financially solvent area really bringing the gospel to unreached people groups?
Is humility so public?
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Staggered,
October 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“I truly do not get the obsession that some people (especially some SGM defenders) have with “anonymous” blogging.”
They are terrified about it. they are freaking out. Not just SGM but many parachurch organizations and mega churches. It is topic number one in many elder meetings and with senior staffers.
Negative blogging (negative truths) could ruin the gravy train and they know it.
See, in the past, they could target troublemakers and marginalize them before any real problems spread. But now they cannot do that. All they can do is villify blogging. Call it sin and/or gossip. Misuse Matt 18 as if it applied..which it does not for public teaching and behavior.
Have you noticed how many have started blogs but allow no comments. Some do but they are so heavily moderated it is ridiculous. Only comments from admirers. (On many blogs these are made by staffers who report to them!)
Some are even throwing about the L word. (Libel) As if they are lawyers and understand it. Which they don’t.
Seriously, they recognize this form of media as something they cannot control and they are very concerned. To not blog anonymously is to invite ruin not only for you but your whole family. These folks are not going to get off the gravy train anytime soon. They would rather seen you ruined first.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I suppose those anonymous Federalist Papers were sinful?