Yesterday, commenter “5yearsinPDI” posted a comment that was so amazing, I decided it deserves its own post. Here it is.
————————-
5yearsinPDI wrote:
Let us all suppose for right now that CJ/SGM is 100% totally correct about their interpretation of submission and obedience to leaders and what it looks like.
Let us then draw a parallel with submission in marriage. Let us suppose a husband is 100% correct in what he thinks about how his wife should submit to him and respect him.
Let me tell you something that is also 100% correct…the minute you open your mouth about what anybody owes you or what you have right to expect from others, you suddenly are 100% wrong. Not in Bible exegesis of the Greek word “submit,” but in attitude and focus.
The husband needs to focus on how he can sacrifcially lay down his life for his wife, and how he can live with her in an understanding way. He does NOT need to tell her she should be submitting.
The wife does not need to be nagging him to be more understanding and sacrifical. The wife (not the husband) needs to focus on how she can be more serving, respectful and submissive.
Likewise, pastors need to be focused on how they can guard the flock and feed the flock and lay down their life for the sheep. The pastors are not to stand up front and start telling the sheep to submit all the time. They are to be praying and fellowshiping in such a way that they grasp God’s heart for what the sheep need in sermons and counseling and so forth. They are to be with the sheep - with them, not aloof – right there in their lives caring about them. When that happens, people automatically want to submit and look to the pastor. Who doesn’t want a truly caring, sacrifical, godly pastor? I know what it is like to have a pastor like that, we’ve had a few. We loved and honored them with all our hearts, and they NEVER – not once – had to tell the church to submit. It happened automatically; people were cheerful in service.
This is like the most basic rule of counseling. You tell the person in front of you where they need to change, not where the other person needs to change. You tell the person where they need to serve and give, and not what they have right to expect from other people. You tell a husband to lay down his life, and tell the wife to submit. You don’t tell a husband that he sure has an independent stubborn wife and to set her straight, and you don’t tell the wife that she is married to a lazy wimp and needs to nag him to be a real man. You direct the person to their own need to change themself.
Even if SGM has the Bible exegesis of the word right (which I do not think they do), they still have the subject all wrong. The mere fact they have to keep focusing on this from the pulpit means they are wrong. CJ came to my church in the 1990s and literally berated people with these verses, almost yelling at the church. If things are so bad that you have to do that, try pointing the finger at yourself.
Early in our marriage my husband was whining to God about me not being submissive. God spoke to him to start putting me ahead of himself, and he vowed in that moment to lay down his life for me. He didn’t tell me anything for months, but he said I changed overnight, it was incredible. Somehow I may have sensed on some invisible intuitive level his change, or perhaps God broke through in me after he faced his own selfishness. I don’t know for sure, but I do know that if leaders have to keep telling people to submit, then the leaders have a problem. Adult believers are not little kids, and it is time they were treated as fellow heirs of God’s grace.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Kindred,
You say it quite well, my dear!
You’d better not leave us now.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Lawrence
Good to see you posting again.
I really can’t imagine Joey giving me much WORSE of an explanation than you did.
You didn’t do anything to support your justifying the apparent SGM contradictions. 
Maybe he will post a better explanation?
BTW, it wasn’t just the depravity of man or the heart being “sick” as SGM likes to quote. It was also how so many SGM defenders explain away alleged leaders’ abuses by saying these men are “imperfect” but then want someone to only charitably judge a leader. If these leaders are as “imperfect” as is said, shouldn’t their teaching and actions be scrutinized as being suspect more than you and your brother insist? Maybe you feel that the fact that the leaders are “imperfect” should only apply when one needs to explain away what they did and not when judging what they said?
I imagine if SGM really believed more of what they taught in this area there would be a whole lot more checks and balances within their group. This would include Mahaney not being in a position of control to where some call him the group’s “pope.” They might even have local elders that SGM leaders of each local church were accountable to.
If you see Joey you might tell him about my pointing out his apparent inconsistencies on the “Good Job, Jeff Purswell” thread. He judged my motives but thought it was wrong to not charitably judge an “apostle’s” wife motives. Another contradiction or example that showed how accountability only works one way within SGM.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:41 am
HI,
May i ask a question, have you been in with Sovereign Grace church? a pastor? a leader? or what…Thanx
November 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am
Lawrence,
Some day I will have a face to face conversation with you, you are that close, although I don’t think it will be anytime soon. For now…..you said in your post that the bible says….”our hearts are wicked, (left to themselves), then you went on to whitewash how aweful our hearts are by being thankful for what God has done…
Lawrence, after leaving Sovereign Grace Ministry, because of a serious situation that was mishandled by the leadership with out integrity….I began reading my bible. What I found is really and truely how much God really loved me. It wasn’t a theme I had to counter act with the idea of how extreme my sin was, it was obvious. Over and over God as my Father affirming that I BELONG to HIM. A daughter, a joint-heir, precious, adopted. For the purpose of your last drive by, doctrinal post, lets take the word adopted.
I have some friends that adopted, actually twice. Both mother and father are in their 50’s and have LLLLLLOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGEEEED for children. Their angels are now a reality. They talk of laying in bed with their “family” and enjoying the chatter of their little ones. Just the mention of their names brings such joy and happiness to this mother and father. The little one who is a son, is constantly held by his father even in his old age, because he is adored.
Now Lawrence, I don’t see these parents wanting to balance out with the children the real hard facts that they were once “orphans”, neglected and abused, unwanted and unloved. You see now they belong. They have a name, a home, parents, a brother and a sister. When they get older they will have to understand where they came from, but for now they are loved, and they belong.
That is my after conversion position with Christ. The saints at Sovereign Grace Ministries in my neck of the woods and certainly the children CANNOT tell you that..only that they are sinners. The ones who have seen the distruction in the “local” church, (this is the catagory I put you in, because Lawrence you are trying to understand) will mix the two. Yes you are a sinner, retched at that, and thank God for the Cross.
What you wrote in you last comment is a perfect illistration of a young man who has been indoctrinated. As a Father, I think God wants us to know who we are in HIM and how GREAT HE IS. Not so much of how we screwed up in life. a
November 1st, 2009 at 8:42 am
That was a beautiful illustration of love, a.
It does seem as though most SGM’ers want to keep reminding folks of the “orphanage,” rather than encouraging them to enjoy their “new home.”
We will sacrifice much for those we love, and Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice. I hope that my children will always be grateful for the sacrifices their father and I have made for them, and I can see that they are in fact grateful by their love and actions towards us. Can you imagine how confused they would be if their father and I began to CONSTANTLY remind them of the sacrifices we’ve made for them. They would begin to feel that their loving responses weren’t enough to demonstrate their gratitude.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
a,
Your illustration of an “orphan” is so wonderful.
I very close ties to many who were once “orphans” and I can say that the mentality of “looking back” would be very unhealthy. It would not just damage, but ruin a person.
I am so grateful that my faith is no longer that of “looking back” to who I was or what I deserved.
I am so grateful that I can now look at my life now, as an adopted person, fully “in” the family. Fully part of it. Never gonna be sent back to the “orphanage” and secure in my position in the family.
Praise God1
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
It was the COVERING part that disillusioned me from Sovereign Grace Ministries. After all, nobody is perfect in counsel, character, or care. The men over the SR Pastor could see no evil, speak no evil or hear no evil, and the ones under are so starved for leadership reconition that they were not bold enough to say…NO THIS IS WRONG. So WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT HAPPENED IN MY SOVEREIGN GRACE CHURCH was so skillfully hid under the authority and leadership of the church.
I’ll be right back, I have to GO FIGURE…
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
A,
I would love to meet with you. Whenever you want to, just ask Kris for my email address.
As for your post, I’m a little bit confused by your confusion :-). Obviously I agree with everything you said about how much God loves us. In fact, He loves us SOOOOO much that sent His beloved Son to die so that we might, as adopted heirs, share in His inheritance. Which is what makes your comments about adoption so powerful, and so true. As someone who has an adopted little sister, I can absolutely attest to that. When I think of how much I love her, and how that pales in comparison to how much God loves me…yeah it’s crazy.
I’m not sure what that has to do with an acknowledgement of what God’s word has to say about the depravity of man’s nature? Other than the fact that God shows His love by, as Colossians says, “nailing it to the cross.”
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Steve,
Haha sorry that I’m such a terrible explainer. I try my best ;).
and I’m sorry that you think that I believe that only leaders should be charitably judged. I don’t think that’s what the Bible says at all. It applies where it applies. And yes, the leader’s teachings should be scrutinized. I don’t know how many times Joey and me, especially Joey, has talked about the need to “be Bereans”. Our pastor is consistently reminding our church about that passage.
By the way, imperfection is not an excuse for abuse. Neither me or Joey have said that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Lawrence
If you are being a Berean about things then one would think you could support what you say using Scripture. Sadly you didn’t.
Hopefully if you pastor is reminding you to be “Bereans” they are also open to your criticism and questions. Maybe it is easier for your questions to be accepted when your father is one of the leaders?
I am curious as to what level of abuse would have to occur before either of you feel that there is no room for a charitable judgment. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I am sure at least some leaders that abuse feel that they have good intentions. When the abuse gets so egregious then it is hard to believe one should have a charitable judgment for them.
What I pointed out that Joey did was show the dual standard. He felt it was OK for him to judge my motives but previously insisted one have a charitable judgment for leaders. This included a case where and “apostle’s” wife appeared to be quite abusive towards another member.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Stevey,
Can’t back up what I say about what? Judging charitably? Man being depraved? Jesus redeeming us? Adoption? What I think about Hebrews 13:17?
Or are you wanting scriptural support in reference to your comment “what level of abuse would have to occur before either of you feel that there is no room for charitable judgment.” I’m not sure what you want. Abuse is wrong. Any level of abuse is wrong. Do you really want scriptural support for that?
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Lawrence
To answer your question to my question, previously you said:
“And I also think the Bible’s pretty clear we should judge charitably. I think we can agree on that. So that’s how I maintain both. I can see how that seems logically inconsistent, but I really don’t think it is.”
I would like to see what scriptures you use to support judging “charitably” as you indicated should be done even with what this “apostle’s” wife did.
I don’t think you are understanding what I mean about there would be no room for a “charitable” judgment. You and your brother seemed to think that a “charitable” judgment should apply to almost any actions of a person, especially a leader’s. You both seemed to think it should apply even when the person’s actions were so egregious that there really was no way to justify what she did.
My thought is that when what someone’s actions are so egregious, like this “apostle’s” wife, how is it possible to have “charitable” judgment. She may in her own mind thought she was doing the right thing or even came up with reasons to justify what she did to others, still it was really inexcusable.
For example, if someone did something much more subjective, like picking one person over another for something, it might be easier to say one should have “charitable” judgment. Unless the facts were real obvious, it would be hard to say the person selecting showed unfair favoritism. In the case we are discussing, I don’t see really any room for being subjective. This “apostle’s” wife clearly did something she shouldn’t have due to a number of reasons and that is why I speculate what her true motivation was.
Would you insist on a “charitable” judgment for a man hitting his wife? What about a man who abuses his children? When does the need for “charitable” judgment end? Would you insist on a “charitable” judgment if someone untrained operated on someone in your family and made them worse?
Neither of you seem to be questioning that this “treatment” occurred but insist one have a “charitable” judgment of this “apostle” wife’s actions. I don’t see how there could possibly be any room for a “charitable” judgment in this situation.
Maybe it would help if you define what you mean by “charitable judgment.”
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hey Lawrence, Sometimes think the reason I understand what steve is trying to say, is because I have been part of an engregious situation at my Sovereign Grace Church directly related to the Sr Pastor and his staff, covering for him. Lawrence, when you have responded to a post of mine, I want to say nicely,…It is that kind of response the hurt the body of Christ. It is hard to explain, because it is done “with scripture”, just with out personal care and consideration, respect and in my situation without integrity. It is like truth for the sake of being right at the expense of others. I am not blaming you Lawrence, you were not one of the key players in my situation, but some could have cared and all they did was spew scripture. I’m not one for watering down the truth, but Jesus became a man, to be aquainted with us, but the Sovereign Grace Pastor, well, he was just plain to good for that. You are my brother in Christ, but I also have brother that reminds me of you, that why, I will keep trying to explain.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Steve,
Sup man. Thanks for your response. And since we agree theoretically on the need for charitable judgments in situations when someone hasn’t clearly screwed up, I guess I’ll just respond specifically to the situation you’re mentioning.
I don’t necessarily think everything you said was poppycock (how’s that for charitable ;)?) I believe my initial reaction was when you said something to the effect of “maybe the “apostle’s wife” was jealous that “whatever nickname the ‘anorexic’ lady gave herself” regained her pre-childbearing body whereas the “apostle’s wife” didn’t.” I said something like that, while that opinion would be awesome if this was the Christian, grown up version of One Tree Hill or something, it is impossible to know. Maybe we should judge charitably.
Maybe I’m being unfair to Anorexic Lady. But here’s my point. We don’t really know the situation. We don’t know either lady all that much (actually I know both of them pretty well, and love them both, but that’s beside the point.) We’ve heard one perspective on a situation from a severed relationship. Under any circumstances, that’s not a good foundation to make judgments (good or bad.) Maybe Anorexic Lady’s perspective is 100% accurate, and 100% true. Maybe Apostle Wife said exactly what Anorexic Lady said, and maybe Anorexic Lady’s perspective on why it was said, and the motives behind them, are true. (I’m not just saying that hypothetically, that really is an option.) And maybe your conclusions are accurate. My point is, there’s no way we can know, on any of those counts. We weren’t there, we don’t know what was said, what was communicated, or why it was communicated. So what’s the point of us analyzing the situation, either way?
In other words, if I came out and said (and I wouldn’t) “you know what, there is clearly a case of Anorexic Lady trying to dig up reasons to make Apostle Wife look bad and jealous to hide the fact that she’s actually just mad that Apostle wouldn’t let her family do X.” Why would I say that? What would give me the right to state that opinion? I don’t know that that’s true, and I would have very little good reasons to believe that. What would make me think that this situation is one in which I could make my analysis known. I have no idea what motivated who in that situation, because I wasn’t involved!
That’s just for what it’s worth. Maybe it helps you see the way I think (as scary as it is
) And let me just reiterate that I do not actually believe what I wrote about the situation. That was totally and completely hypothetical.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
A,
I’m very stupid. Now I’m confused as to what we’re talking about. Just to be clear, are you saying that one of my responses to your posts hurt the body of Christ? If so, I really actually want to know what I’ve said. I know I need to work on my communication.
Also, you seem to know me. Do I know you?
November 4th, 2009 at 6:04 am
On judging charitably: I don’t think we can fault Lawrence for not wanting to believe that the apostle’s wife would do this; I think he’s just being human. On the other hand, the report is very serious and should be looked into.
I am also puzzled by what Lawrence suggests a hypothetical here:
So, anorexic lady might be making up a story about control to cover up another story about control?
If the apostle is not letting her family move or take a child for help or take some other action the parents are agreed on, the apostle is overstepping — unless the family wants to hold a program at the church that’s inappropriate or can’t be worked out for some other reason. Lawrence, your example just illustrates how big this problem is, that you would think that it’s right for an apostle to be making these kinds of decisions.
On anorexia, apparently this lady was not actually anorexic; a simple BMI check ought to clarify that — and I understand it showed that she was not actually anorexic. To be fair to the apostle’s wife, she may have seen an anorexic who died and overreacted. Still, she should have known what she didn’t know; embarking on this controlling and unnecessary “treatment” without having any idea what she was doing was a huge mistake, even if the woman had been anorexic.
If you do have someone that is anorexic, this is something that is very serious; the woman (it’s usually a woman) may well have been abused and she needs help with that as well as physical support. Just making sure the woman eats and doesn’t exercise is not going to be enough. You need to address the underlying problems and I don’t mean her sins! 1 Thessalonians 5:14 says “And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” She’s not “idle” to be warned, but “weak” to be helped. Comfort her, love her, help her thru all this — and get her medical and psychiatric help. She probably needs to forgive an abuser but she needs to know what the abuser was wrong about before she can.
Abusers are manipulative and leave the abused person confused. You can’t forgive someone for something, if you think that something wasn’t wrong. The abuse itself is usually pretty obvious, but circumstances around the abuse can be confusing for the victim. She often believes lies the abuser tells about being partly to blame (eg a young girl blamed for “flirting”). The victim needs to sort out what was right and what was wrong — and forgive as she recognizes the wrong — as well as deal with anything she did which she now may recognize was wrong. But the focus needs to be on loving her! She doesn’t need lectures about her sin and what she “deserved”. She needs someone to listen to her and show her God’s love. God weeps when someone is abused.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:00 am
A funny, true story on pastors “watching over my soul”.
A while ago, pastor X was moving to a SG church a few hours away from my church. Our pastor invited him to one of our church’s events.
Less than a year later, I saw pastor X at a multichurch event. I am pretty sure he didn’t even remember meeting me. I greeted him, inquired about his family, and then made the mistake of saying that my husband had expressed an interest in moving to his city but I didn’t want to move.
(Necessary background that you need to know and that pastor X never inquired about:
We had in the past year moved from another state because God had told us that our current church is where he wanted us to be. It was actually a many-year process of waiting on God’s perfect timing to make the move. And the Lord did do amazing things for us when it was time to move. We were loving our new home and church family.
My husband’s job had recently (and temporarily, it turned out) required him to be in pastor X’s city several days a week, which is what led him to say that perhaps we should consider moving there. This wasn’t from the Lord-he was just not wanting to be away from the family so much.
OK-back to the story)
X immediately said that if my husband wanted to move and I said no, that I was not submitting to him and I was in sin. I can’t even remember the rest of the conversation, but it went something like this-whatever I said to further clarify was immediately met with more pointing out of my “sin”. This from a stranger who knew nothing of my situation.
Well, a few minutes later, he bid us adieu and walked off. My oldest child, who was over 20 years old, was with me and had stood there silently during this exchange. We watched out of the corner of our eyes until he turned the corner, then looked at each other and burst out laughing. She commented that “that was the weirdest conversation she had ever heard.”
As we talked it over, we both decided to charitably believe that he most likely actually though he was caring for us but was probably clueless to how inept he was.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Lawrence,
I hope you see beyond the issue of “charitable judgments” to the bizarre nature of the entire episode. I don’t think we need to know the “whole situation.” That it happened at all exemplifies just how far the Sovereign Grace control tentacles reach. Even if the “thin” woman asked for some sort of written accountability, the “apostle’s” wife could have prayed for the woman and steered her to a doctor. It’s the skewed environment of control and submission that allowed this sort of thing to happen in the first place.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I’ve remained somewhat on the sidelines of this discussion over the past couple of days, partly because I believe that it would make “SGM Casualty” (the supposed “anorexic” in this story) uncomfortable if she knew we were discussing her situation long after she’s directed her attention to other things.
But more than that, I’ve refrained from commenting because there is just so much more about said Apostle’s Wife (let’s just call her “AW” for our purposes) that has been shared with me, from far more folks than just “SGM Casualty.”
I have received probably more than a dozen stories from folks – OK, let’s be precise, women, actually – who have had highly similar dealings with AW. None of these stories was quite so outrageous as being “held accountable” for the “sin” of having an eating disorder…for YEARS. But let’s just say that AW would appear to have some serious issues.
Here’s the sticky part of this: she would appear to be HIGHLY selective about just who gets treated to this side of her. Her gimlet eye seems to hone in on either women who threaten her for whatever reason, or on women who “don’t know their place” in the SGM scheme of things – women who, for whatever reason, exhibit too much self-esteem (in AW’s eyes, anyway) in relation to their actual “status” in life. Like, one of the stories involved a woman who did not appear to have her life together, on the surface, at least. In syrupy sweet tones, AW would say things to this woman that were highly cutting and judgmental. The woman, to her credit, actually dared to confront AW on it. Of course AW denied that she ever meant any such thing, blah blah blah. But after that, AW seemed to especially hone in on this woman, digging in to her at every opportunity, especially in private.
I’m guessing that Lawrence, his family, and particularly his mom would NEVER be in the line of AW’s radar as people who “don’t measure up” in the SGM world.
And this is probably why Lawrence finds the whole thing impossible to believe.
But I don’t think my 10 or 12 or 14 (I’ve lost count over the years) correspondents could have all made up such different – and yet similar – stories just to trash-talk AW. I think AW really does have a big problem. The key is that it only manifests itself when she finds a suitable victim who (she thinks) will keep quiet.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Lawrence
Thanks for your response back.
I think there are two things to consider here.
1. Did this action of the “apostle’s” wife actually occur? Did she attempt to do this “diagnosis” and “treatment?” If so what were the details of this “treatment” and what were this “apostle’s” wife’s qualifications to treat her? Was she as unqualified as one hears? Did she attempt to do all of this on her own or did she seek other counsel?
2. If some form of “treatment” occurred and this wife was as unqualified to diagnose and treat as it appears, why did she allegedly do something that would be so egregious. As I have said before, if the wife was this unqualified there is no way one can justify this or use the argument “believe the best.”
I think that you and your brother’s insistence of “charitable judgment” referred to item 1. You do raise a good point. On this blog we have only heard the person who was “treated” share her story. Thus as you point out, there are two sides to something. Just because one person said something happened doesn’t mean that it is true. You do need to hear the other side.
I will say that from private emails that I have seen there doesn’t seem to be any question that this “diagnosis” and “treatment” occurred. Even you and your brother’s comments never seemed to question that this occurred; you were just questioning motives etc. Sure we don’t know all of the details and haven’t heard from both sides but still it appears that this wife “treated” this person and it appears she had no real qualifications to do so and it doesn’t even appear that a treatment was necessary.
One good question on item 1 was did this wife do most of this “diagnosis” and “treatment” in a vacuum? That is did she seek to get others involved especially those with more training etc. The more that one does something like this on their own vs. seeking the counsel of others would lead one to believe that she was either arrogant or have bad motives.
My coming up with reasons why this “apostle’s” wife would do this was with regard to item 2 above. As discussed before, the possible reasons could include jealousy of the treated woman’s figure and insecurity including using this as a form of control.
Lawrence it appears that we were confusing what we were discussing? As I have said before, something as egregious as this (if it actually occurred) IMO there is no way to have a charitable judgment. This wife’s actions was similar to someone performing a medical operation that they had no training in. I think when you referred to having a charitable judgment you were referring to item 1 as whether this action really occurred.
Hopefully this provides some clarification.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Just wanted to pop in because Steve brought it to my attention that he feels I judged him uncharitably, and then disappeared. I would never want to do that. So for any of you who saw my interaction with Steve earlier related to this whole situation I wanted to make it clear I was not thinking I had any insight into Steve’s heart.
I also want to say that you last post clarified your position to me, and I’m sure Lawrence. Very well said. If you would like to continue the discussion feel free to ask Kris for my email, but I would rather, for the same reason Kris mentioned, not continue it here.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Kris
I must have been typing my response when you posted.
That is sad the other reports you hear about AW. It sounds like a certain “apostle” isn’t doing a good job of managing his household.
You do bring up a good point about Lawrence and his brother’s situation within SGM. It is kind of similar to what you mentioned about the Mahaney girls and their distorted perspective. Since Lawrence’s dad is a pastor in the group, Lawrence and his brother have more of a protected status than regular members. I am sure that this could distort their perspective.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Steve,
To be fair to the “apostle” in question, the perception has been that he’s simply oblivious to what his wife does. Supposedly, she’s very subtle and, like I said, selective about who sees this side of her. Supposedly, a lot of what she does is communicated via body language and tone of voice, to where sometimes it’s not even WHAT was said, but HOW and WHEN it was said.
In other words – for the “apostle” to “manage” his wife in this area, there’d have to be more concrete proof of the stuff that she purportedly does. But proving anything is like nailing jello to the wall.
It never helps, either, that AW’s alleged victims are frequently women who might be more at the bottom of the SGM totem pole, so to speak…their lives may already have other “iffy” areas…
We can even see how people have come to AW’s defense by citing something in “SGM Casualty’s” life that might not have been all it should have been at that time…
Imagine if you’re one of these women who DOES have other issues. If AW can say, “Oh, but I didn’t actually MEAN it how you took it,” and then can also point out to her husband the person’s other issues, it’d be normal for her husband to shrug it off and take her at her word.
The most difficult bullies to deal with are the subtle chick bullies. Chicks can be brutal.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Kris
I am sure that the way this AW does most of actions makes them hard for her husband to see and thus correct. I am also sure there is an element of not wanting to see his wife’s actions. I am sure she “picked her prey” where it was the unconnected and thus lower on the totem pole with other issues that she went after.
It didn’t surprise me that if this AW wife had no qualms with wielding this kind of control over one member that she did similar actions to a number of other women.
Joey
I am glad that we have apparently figured out what we were both discussing. I am glad that you weren’t wanting a charitable judgment if this AW did in fact due what is alleged. My thinking you were wanting that was quite disconcerting. There are just some actions that are plain wrong that can’t be explained away. I am glad that neither of you were taking that position.
If you go to the “Good Job, Jeff Purswell” thread and look at comment 90, you will see what I point out. Here is what I posted. I just saw a contradiction or one standard you had for SGM pastors and one to apply to me:
joey said (about me):
“I have heard 50 times over the pastors humbly admit to mistakes, sins, being hard to follow, being surprised anyone would follow, etc etc.
That doesn’t even count how many times people in our church are singled out and thanked for serving behind the scenes, or for being pillars in the church in various ways. Now, either you won’t believe that, or you will ascribe to it false humility, because you couldn’t believe that they are sincere and still think the things you do about their abuses. But I’ve seen it.”
previously said (to all):
“As far as the motives discussion goes, one thing you guys left out in that discussion was the idea of charitable judgments. I would agree with the idea that ascribing motives is typically better than ascribing insanity…I would just don’t think that means we have to assume sinful motives.”
November 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Steve,
I would like to echo what Joey said. That was very well said. I think we probably still have our disagreements, but your perspective is much clearer to me now. Thanks broham.
I do find the notion that me and Joey are some sort of sheltered SGM royalty to be kind of ironic, however.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Lawrence
Thanks for your note. I am also sure that we still have differences but I am glad that we were able to figure out where the confusion was on this AW issue and why we were so far apart. I am glad that we are at least closer to agreement.
I don’t people have used the term “royalty” to describe your position. That would be more at the level of Mahaney and his girls (see the entry about the “Truman Show” written about them). ;-) Maybe one step below that is the proper term. ;-)
I do hope you appreciate that someone would be less likely to go after you or brother (like this AW allegedly has done) due to your father’s position. Your dad’s position would intimidate someone from bullying you or your brother that most other members don’t have that privilege.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Steve, and Lawrence…
I’ve actually referred to Lawrence and his siblings as being “something of SGM royalty.” And y’know, I stand behind that. I firmly believe that SGM is an entirely different experience for leaders – and their families – than it is for “common” members.
For one thing, SGM’s culture has always emphasized submitting to and following leaders. I’m thinking, Lawrence, that you probably never even gave this a thought, but do you KNOW how many people over the years have copied YOUR family’s lifestyle choices, just because of who your family is?
I know, I know – I’m pretty sure you’re gonna say that your parents never put any pressure on anyone to copy them, blah blah blah. And hey, that might even be the case.
But I know that your parents have been looked up to and deeply admired over the years. People speak especialy highly of your mom…I know for a FACT that lots of women wanted to be like her and consequently followed her in the choices she made…like homeschooling…
Use your imagination and put yourself in the shoes of one of the kids whose parents were copying your parents. Just for a moment, see if you can feel how different it’d be to be the follower, and not the leader.
That’s just one way that your SGM experience has been vastly different from that of “regular” SGM members.
There are other ways.
As Steve has pointed out, your status as the son of leaders has afforded you a level of consideration that “commoners” would never know. I think this affects leaders’ kids in a number of ways, ways you’ve probably never even thought about.
Here’s an analogy -
For awhile, I worked in the executive offices of a large international corporation. A group of us were in charge of putting together corporate board meetings. Our boss was second in line to the CEO. He’d been there for years and had grown pretty brazen about using the office staff to take care of a lot of things in his personal life.
So in addition to the real “meat” of our jobs, my coworkers and I got to do really goofy menial stuff like go down to the boss’s bank and get the exact amount of cash he needed for his kids’ allowance envelopes each Friday. We got to hunt down a specific kind of hoity-toity surfboard when one of the sons broke his. We got to do the boss’s Christmas shopping for him. Silly stuff like that.
We all took it in stride. It was an understood part of our job. No big deal.
But we frequently had to deal with the boss’s kids on the phone, in relation to all these menial chores. And let me tell you, if those kids had not been the children of the boss, I do NOT think they would have gotten the respectful responses they got from the office staff. Nobody would have been jumping through hoops to search for Junior’s surfboard, for instance. Nobody would have cared (much) when Cookie called to say that she needed a ride because the nanny had had a flat tire and hadn’t shown up.
But we were always super-careful to be polite to these kids…even when they weren’t always so polite to us…because of who their dad was. Their dad was our boss. He was our AUTHORITY.
Guess what. Your dad was (is) a LOT of people’s “authority” in the SGM world. You’re kidding yourself if you think you get no special consideration because of that. Sure, you may also have had to suffer through a lot of your parents’ sacrifices for the ministry. But in the SGM world, being a pastor carries with it a lot of clout and authority. Some of that clout and authority has benefitted you, in countless untold ways.
Like…I bet if you wanted to attend the PC, it wouldn’t be NEARLY the challenge to gain admittance as it is for some poor “unproven” schlepp who just joined SGM a year ago and has no family connections.
Think about it. You gotta admit this is true.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Steve,
You’re a good man. I do hope no one ever accuses me of anorexia, however thin I might be ;).
Kris,
I like this discussion, it’s an interesting discussion. I do know that there’s an across the board stereotype of “pastors kids”, SGM or not. I remember a boss of mine who found out I was a pastors kid being shocked, because I “didn’t fit the stereotpye.” His reference was about pastors kids generally, I’m not sure he even would have a stereotype of SGM pastors kids. I do know a couple things.
1) Some, a lot, of what you said is true. I’m uncomfortable discussing my family on this site, but keep in mind that SGM didn’t publish my mom’s most popular book. It was about parenting (homeschooling, if that’s what we decide the main issue is) generally, not connected with SGM. More power to her that some people agreed with her views on the issue :-).
2) It goes both ways. Some people do have a self-imposed restriction on how they decide to treat pastors kids (generally, and sure, maybe me specifically.) Some people also decide to watch pastors kids closer, and to put under a microscope anything that they do, good or bad. Sometimes especially bad. I don’t really concern myself either way. If people want to jump on me when I sin, microscope my faults, overly praise me on the rare occasion I actually get something right, or be afraid to critique/approach/correct me, that’s their prerogative (cue Britney Spears song).
3) I can only speak on my personal relationships. And the fact that I’m a pastors kid doesn’t have any bearing on my relationship with my friends. I wish that’s how it was with all pastors kids, all the time.
4) I can certainly see and understand your analogy to the corporate world, and I’m sure in some cases it probably has been applicable to me. My problem with the analogy is, your boss, knowingly or unknowingly, facilitated that attitude towards his kids. He made you buy Junior’s surfboard etc. So you were inclined to treat Junior like you wouldn’t anyone else.
I guess my point is, I’m sure pastors kids are treated and seen differently, in SGM and at all churches. There’s an undeniable stereotype out there. I’m sure it causes some people to treat them (us) like “royalty.” But they’re also more heavily scrutinized and judged. (trust me on that one.) So it goes both ways.
And if any of you are holding back from telling me what you really think b/c I’m a pastors kid, shame on you ;).
November 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Just now, I was thinking about “AW” (see comment #69), and how I’m sure I’ll get at least one nastygram from someone upset with me for mentioning other stories about her. And/or for speculating about AW’s issues.
But here’s the interesting thing. It struck me just now, as I was thinking about this, that AW herself knows precisely what I described. Unless she’s got Altzheimer’s or early-onset senile dimentia or some other memory problem, she’s GOT to remember the times when she did this stuff. She’s GOT to remember a couple of women in particular, because they actually had the moxie to confront her…to which she got all wide-eyed and, “But I didn’t MEAN it the way you took it!”
Interestingly enough, according to the timeline I’ve been able to piece together from all the random stories, AW then proceeded (AFTER these women tried to confront her) to go out and inflict MORE of the same catty stuff (all in the guise of being helpful, of discipleship) on new marks.
So…
Take me to task for talking about this, if you like. But at the same time, you’d be doing the whole SGM organization a favor if you took AW to task. And look beyond what she says in her own defense. She knows exactly what I’m talking about.
Unless she’s got medically documented memory issues or something.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Lawrence,
You’re right, in that my analogy of my experiences with my former boss’s kids wasn’t a perfect parallel of the response an SG pastor’s kid might get.
BUT, even if my boss hadn’t enabled his kids in their haughty behavior – even if they’d have been perfectly nice, respectful, and polite (as no doubt you and your siblings are
) – I know that my coworkers and I would still have treated them with special deference, simply because their dad was in authority over us…and we wanted his approval.
THAT is the dynamic I was trying to get at. (Although it was kinda fun, reminiscing about our frantic efforts to find this special kind of surfboard for Junior…who was a doofus, but QUITE full of himself anyway…
)
And I think you’re also correct to point out that pastors’ kids in general are subject to all sorts of scrutiny and pressure that “civilians” don’t have to experience.
But it seems like that just proves my point further – that your experiences with SGM are going to be quite different from those of the “regular” member…in both the privileges and responsibilities that you’ve had.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Kris,
Lol. “Doofus” is a good word, it should be used more often.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Steve,
Thanks for pointing out the section you were talking about, I figured that was probably it…I can see why you were confused by my thinking. and I completely agree that there are actions that are indefensible.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Kris said,
“The most difficult bullies to deal with are the subtle chick bullies. Chicks can be brutal.”
Hehe…and it’s chicks like us who defend their victims.
We’re watching you, “subtle chick bullies.” You can’t fool us, we can see right through you. Let’s just call it a gift.