Awhile back, I wrote a post entitled Dear SGM Defender. In that post - which was a sort of generic response to the folks who write me to tell me that the SGM survivors who post here don’t know what they’re talking about - I offered up some thoughts as to why one individual might be having a great time in his Sovereign Grace Ministries church, while another individual may have had a terrible time. Today I have another such topic to address.
Dear SGM Defender,
In your email, you said that I should “stop being a coward” and contact C.J. Mahaney or any of a number of other SGM leaders, so that I could hear what they have to say about what people have shared here on this site. You seem fairly confident that if I go to your leaders, they will have answers for the trail of people that have been hurt by SGM because of the organization’s authoritarian ways. They will have explanations. They will convey to me a higher understanding of what so many former members have described, and if I just “go to them” and listen to their explanations, then somehow, everything will be different.
Of all the things that mystify me about Sovereign Grace Ministries, I’d say that the cluster of assumptions behind your suggestion is at the top of my “Most Mind-Boggling” list.
I couldn’t even count how many times I’ve been asked (told) to contact SGM pastors/leaders when I either express disagreement with their teachings or permit readers to share their experiences with these men’s bad behavior. And what strikes me is that such a suggestion (“Just ask my SGM pastors/leaders to explain everything!”) presupposes a couple of things. One, of course, is that the pastor/leader is truly open to hearing stuff that could easily be construed as “negative.” Another is that the pastor/leader will be completely above-board and without guile in whatever he says.
And lastly, entering into a dialog with a particular SGM pastor/leader presupposes that the pastor/leader has some sort of authority over the situation or teaching. (Otherwise, why would we care what he has to say about it?)
I get the feeling that some SGMers simply don’t comprehend that those of us on the outside of SGM don’t believe in or trust SGM pastors/leaders the way that they do. For one thing, I don’t believe that many of these men are truly open to dissent or disagreement. Sure, they may SAY they are, and they may have recently been told to put on a “new openness” and now work a little harder to appear as though they’re actually listening to complaints. But the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and unless things change significantly to reflect that the area of concern has truly been addressed, then all that “new openness” is pretty meaningless.
Another thing: I don’t particularly believe that many SGM pastors/leaders will be completely open and without guile when dealing with their dissenters. For some of them, this is unintentional, merely the product of what they’ve been taught about how leaders behave. For some of them, though, to dissemble and deceive is quite deliberate. I’ve said this time and again, but I will repeat myself – I think it’s the height of naïveté to believe that you can count on the full and unvarnished truth from someone whom you suspect of dishonesty, simply because you ask him whether he’s telling the truth. I’m sorry, but such thinking is simply STUPID. If you have reason to believe that a person is being less than fully forthcoming with you, WHY would you think that the person is then going to turn around and be honest about his dishonesty?
Deceptive people aren’t gonna suddenly own up to their deceptiveness, just because one of their parishioners comes up and asks them about it! Duh! If you have reason to believe that someone is dishonest and/or manipulative, then chances are they will attempt to manipulate and deceive you when you confront them about it - ESPECIALLY when you confront them about it. Most of ‘em will not cave and fold like cheap lawn chairs and fully confess all, just because a member “brings an observation” to them. If anything, dishonest manipulators will merely ramp up their dishonesty and deception to another level. They will clean up the things that got you to suspect them – they will deal with the symptoms – but they will not actually address the real problems behind those symptoms.
And, like I said, some of these leaders/teachers don’t even fully grasp what they’re doing. They’ve been so indoctrinated and well-trained that they actually believe this is how ministry should be done – that THEY are “the authorities,” and it is their members’ duty to simply put up and shut up.
But yeah…
What I’m trying to get at is that I have no interest in anything that the leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries would want to communicate about the things I’ve observed or that others have shared. It’s not anything against these leaders personally. It’s just that what the SGM defenders don’t seem to understand is that especially to those of us on the outside of SGM, what the leaders have to say holds no special authority over us.
Moreover, the opinions of those in leadership are no more valid than the opinions that we ourselves form about an issue through our own observations, through what our own eyes and ears (and guts) tell us. To believe otherwise is to embrace certain presuppositions that I think would be false.
So no, I will NOT be ringing up Corporate Headquarters in Gaithersburg anytime soon. They’re free to read here and learn whatever they can from what people have shared. They’re CERTAINLY free to turn from their previous bad behavior and faulty teachings and treat their members with respect, as true brothers and sisters in the Lord. They can implement changes – they don’t need to dialog with me to do that!
And I don’t need to dialog with them to discern what my own eyes and ears and logic tell me.
You know what else? Neither do you. Stop this foolishness of looking to your leaders to tell you what to think. Start thinking for yourself.
Sincerely,
Kris
December 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Re: #42
Is this true?
December 7th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Someone who is on a vocabulary (word of the day) email list sent me this word and definition:
myrmidon \MUR-muh-don; -duhn\, noun:
1. (Capitalized) A member of a warlike Thessalian people who followed Achilles on the expedition against Troy.
2. A loyal follower, especially one who executes orders without question.
From all the discussion I have seen here, sadly it sure seems like SGM wants and has produced a number of myrmidons.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Wayfaring – #47 – What is this about? Is the recording available?
Were you there?
sigh…..haven’t most who need to reconcile been de-gifted, thus not attending leadership weekends?
I heard Shank tell KJacob to go and apologize to others for something and it never happened, while he (KJ) was on the payroll, so, uh, no, it’s not likely ever, lest God truly intervenes. Not something as big as true reconciliation.
Yet, if there are actual events of this happening among others I would LOVE to hear of it.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I agree Goodfellow, and that really isn’t an exaggeration either. Judgement begins in the house of the Lord and I don’t see Jesus coming back for his bride until things like SGM are swept out the door. The sooner the better!
December 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Yes Clarion, I agree.
I was in a discussion yesterday about how the Church in general is so “all over the map” and many are preaching “another gospel.” God needs to clean His house.
This fella I was in conversation with is a scientist and is remarking how the scientific community is moving away from atheism, but not necessarily to Christianity. Too much of the christian (small C) churches are not preaching the true gospel, and we are in danger of our nation becoming majority pagan.
SGM is in that camp, where they are not building the Kingdom of God, but rather the kingdom of SGM (or CJ.)
I’m telling people to start carrying a black Sharpie in their pocket. When “they” come to behead you for following Jesus, just pull the Sharpie, make a dotted line around your neck and say, “Please cut along the dotted line.”
Just my 2 cents…….
December 7th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
About #42…
This topic has come up before. Here are some old comments I tracked down in which the situation was discussed:
————
———
—————–
Over the past few months, since those comments were first posted, several people have written to share their thoughts.
One person wanted to point out that what CJ and the PDI folks might have classified as a “sexual transgression” might actually NOT have been considered such a thing by those in the “normal” church world. IF this thing happened, it happened at the height of PDI’s almost paranoid teachings against any physical contact whatsoever between the sexes. In that context, what would have been viewed as “inappropriate” could have been highly exaggerated.
And the bottom line is that we simply cannot know. Some have suggested approaching the families in question and flat-out asking them. I’m thinking that, once again, IF this thing actually did happen in this way – with PDI’s coming up with money to compensate a victim, and a pastor with a desire to protect his son above all (particularly if the pastor believed that the accusations against his son were either unfounded or unfair) – then this would be the very reason why said pastor has remained basically silent as to the specifics behind his departure. I don’t think “just asking” would do much to get to the truth.
But of all the stories swirling around the departure, this is one explanation that would clear up certain mysteries.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Kris said:
“The young man in question has gone on to clean up his act and graduate from an Ivy League university. He’s apparently highly successful today and has (I assume) stayed out of further trouble. So good for him.”
First of all, like you have said these are only allegations. There is no real proof that this actually happened but certainly would explain a lot of things. These are serious allegations.
I wouldn’t equate going to an Ivy League school to mean that pastor’s son has “cleaned up his act.” One could certainly attend and graduate from an Ivy League school and continue to do what this pastor’s son allegedly did. He could be a good student without morals or as some would say a womanizer.
For example a fairly recent president allegedly had a number of “affairs” with women (over the age 18) and had a law degree from an Ivy League school. Thus attending a an Ivy League doesn’t necessarily mean that this son stopped doing what he allegedly did. The two can be separate.
In contrast if one reads the Washington Times article on the one pastor leaving what was then called PDI, the pastor says “There was admittance as to wrongdoing as to the way he (pastor’s son) was treated, I and my wife wait for the same thing to be admitted to us.” That pastor who left PDI seems to be indicating that the group admitted treating the pastor’s son wrong and apologized, perhaps saying he didn’t what was some allege. This is quite a contradiction to the rumors one hears.
I am guessing we will never know the real truth this side of eternity. There certainly is a contradiction.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Kris, I appreciate learning through this website about what really happened with the Tomczak/Mahaney split. Of course, with so much emphasis on SGM leaders having to be perfect with perfect kids, something had to be done about the Tomczak situation. Who knows what could have been. Likely the Tomczak’s themselves contributed to the whole condition. One thing we can be sure of is that whatever all the details of the case are, PDI certainly wasn’t the kind of place where problems like that could be worked out honestly and with the help of outsiders. All they could do is address the issue as one of sin.
So, whats the worst sin? For a young person to fall into transgression and then not get the help and attention he needs? Or for the whole issue to be completely covered up and obscured so that no one in the entire congregation knows what really happened? And for the problem to be kept quiet to the point where other innocent people were victimized?
And now we see CJ pontificating about Tiger Woods and his sexual transgressions, instructing people how and how not to talk about the whole issue:
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Blog/post/Hunting-Tiger-Woods.aspx
December 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Steve and Claireon -
Just to be clear, there is no way to know the full truth. And yes, the story about the pastor’s son is merely that – a story.
The thing is, though, that long before “Set Free” emailed me her account of what happened to her (in which she alludes to her knowledge of the second situation with the pastor’s son), I’d heard similar things from a couple of other people who seem to have had insider knowledge of what went down. One person in particular wrote to me in such a way that what she said just seemed to explain everything.
And that’s why I bring it up here. I think Larry T’s departure has generated more emails and more discussion than any other topic, since the site’s earliest days. He apparently has a HUGE fan base, even still, even after a decade away from the PDI spotlight. He is very much loved.
From the beginning, a lot of people disillusioned with SGM have seemed to see Larry T as a mutual victim of the system, and of CJ’s quest to dominate and control the organization. People have seemed so convinced that Lary T was the total wronged party, the completely innocent victim.
There was chatter about why Larry had remained silent all these years…why he never fully spelled out what had happened to him and his family, why he never “dished the dirt” on PDI and CJ. Larry’s fans seemed so sure that there was dirt to be dished…that Larry was the casualty of CJ’s ambition and power-mongering. I can remember once when the idea was suggested that CJ/PDI had somehow “bought” Larry’s silence…that perhaps Larry had received something like a buy-out to leave quietly and not make trouble for PDI by starting his own competing ministry.
The picture of Larry as victim – and of Larry’s getting a buy-out – never really fit all the facts as we understood them, though. Here are those facts (again, as we understand them):
1. Larry was a co-founder of PDI.
2. Larry is no longer with the organization.
3. A full and complete explanation of Larry’s departure was never given to the general public.
4. There are several statements here and there from people who knew the T family (and I even think a statement that Larry himself made in his book) in which the T family was portrayed as suffering greatly financially after their departure…making it EXTREMELY unlikely that the T family received any sort of financial compensation from PDI during this time.
5. Larry never began a competing ministry and has, relatively speaking, “laid low” since his departure from PDI.
6. Larry has never spoken out about the full story of what happened to him, despite the huge amount of sympathy that he’s got to know would be there for him if he were a true victim of CJ and the system.
7. Larry was, until recently, written out of SGM’s history. Things were made to sound as though SGM had been founded by CJ alone. Although this could be inaccurate, I believe it was at CLC’s anniversary celebration a few years ago that Larry’s picture was actually cropped out of some photos of the very earliest days of TAG/Gathering Of Believers.
8. CJ Mahaney is a smart man.
9. CJ Mahaney is unlikely to be so blinded by ambition that he’d ever make a move that would jeopardize SGM’s standing in the broader Christian community. To me, it stands to reason that if Larry’s contributions as one of the co-founders of SGM are going to be downplayed or downright wiped out of SGM’s history, CJ has a VERY GOOD REASON for permitting such a thing to happen. In other words, whatever CJ believes Larry to have done to necessitate Larry’s departure, it had to be something pretty darn serious in CJ’s mind. Or CJ would NEVER take such a P.R. risk.
So…
What scenario would fit all these facts the best?
What would have been so horrible as to cause CJ to believe that Larry needed to be wiped out of SGM’s history…while at the same time leading Larry to maintain his relative silence on the specifics of the matter…while at the same time not leading to any financial gains for Larry?
This is one explanation that fits all those facts.
Is the explanation itself fact? No. As of now, it’s merely one theory, one set of allegations.
And there’s no way we’ll ever know for sure, unless a victim were to come forth and demonstrate somehow that her silence had been bought. Or unless someone who’d been privy to the details of such a transaction were to come forward and spill what they know. Or unless the parties themselves were to decide to share the details with the public.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Claireon,
I saw that post that CJ wrote about Tiger Woods.
I couldn’t believe my eyes.
(Well – actually – yes, I could believe my eyes. I mean, I know what *I* saw in CJ’s blog article, but I’m guessing few others picked up on it.)
Here you have this guy (CJ) pontificating about how we must refrain from allowing ourselves to have a prurient interest in Tiger’s transgressions…we are to refrain from using such celebrity gossip for our entertainment, for our own purposes.
For the record, by the way, I don’t disagree with CJ.
But I just think it’s EXTREMELY ironic that CJ would do essentially the very thing that he’s telling his audience NOT to do.
See, it seems to me that CJ Mahaney himself simply piggy-backed his blog post onto a story that he knew would garner attention for himself, would get people linking to his blog because it was so “current events.” CJ used the Tiger story – the automatic eye-catching aspect of having Tiger Woods’ name in the title of a blog post – for his own ends.
Maybe it wasn’t for entertainment. But it was prurient nonetheless.
Are there really that many people in CJ’s target audience who struggle with a weakness for celebrity gossip? I doubt it. So if CJ isn’t writing to address a REAL need, then he’s writing about Tiger Woods for his own purposes.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Kris, excellent points – both about the Tomczak/Mahaney split and CJ’s blog post about Tiger Woods.
The mind control is mind-boggling.
About the Tomczak case…the whole cover-up aspect made a lot of sense, especially in light of the charges. I was in PDI, at CLC, during the time it all went down. Rumor was there were charges of dishonesty on Tomczak’s part, an apparently unwillingness to come clean of something. But the details were kept quiet, and when the announcement was made that the Tomczak’s would be relocating, everyone was told to not ask questions and to just trust the leadership. Period. End of discussion.
Now it would seem, given the insights, that CJ might almost seem exonerated or vindicated. A hero. Tomczak needed to go, and it would seem for good reason. And no wonder that he’s not talking because there’s still something he prefers to hide. I would agree that honesty is an important characteristic of those who are chosen to lead people into an understanding of God’s truths.
That being said, what about all the information that is withheld from people in SGM nowadays? Where is the justification for that sort of behavior? To say its the way SGM has chosen to define their leadership structure is nonsense. Isn’t everything they do supposed to be “biblical” and “gospel-centered”? Where does the bible say that church leadership is to based on a hierarchy, with those in membership given no authority or the power to question or affect change?
Perhaps in SGM, any hint of sexual sin is the big kahoonah and that’s why CJ (with the help of a ghost writer) can address those things and instruct this readers about how they are allowed to discuss it themselves.
Perhaps CJ might want to address another hot topic: Climategate – and the sin of manipulating information and hiding the truth from others in order to make a profit from the unsuspecting believers.
Just sayin’
December 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I should also mention that I don’t doubt there were also theological differences between CJ and Larry T, differences that no doubt made the split more of a no-brainer.
It seems to me that “unity” and “peace-keeping” to protect PDI’s “good name” were just so ingrained in the culture that CJ was willing to do a lot to try and keep the situation contained, even despite the ways that his and Larry’s views were diverging. But once there was the alleged second transgression – after PDI’s alleged payola for the alleged first – even CJ couldn’t brook any more accommodations to sustain the illusion that PDI was above dissension and splits. Larry T simply had to go.
If this whole thing did happen in this way, can you just imagine the quandary in which CJ found himself? It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
If he revealed the alleged first incident and subsequent alleged payola (to protect “Christ’s” reputation, of course), that would probably kick off a horrible scandal. But not disclosing it would make him appear to be engaging in strong-arm tactics to consolidate his power and oust Larry. I guess he figured he could preach the Happiest Place On Earth sermon bunches o’ times, pretend Larry T had never existed, and just hope for the best.
It says a lot about CJ’s force of personality, that he pretty much pulled it off.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
One interesting item that I recall from listening to some of the older TAG tapes about Tomczak/Mahaney is that back in the early years of TAG, the two men discovered that they were hiding various Christian books from each other. This is going back before 1976. Not sharing the books was a way for at least one of them to look better than the other person. As they say, knowledge is power.
It might have been one hiding from the other; I don’t remember all the specifics but as I recall both were doing it. They reported that it finally came to a head and they both went and prayed for a while and then reconciled promising not to do this to each other etc. Who knows what really transpired during the years the two men were together. Both men shared this event in their messages at various times.
Thus even back then there was some type of rivalry that would apparently later show up. Put another way, their relationship was probably always colored by a streak of competitiveness. As one would say, typically, two “alpha males” aren’t able to share the same turf. No matter what the real story was behind the CJ/Larry split, it’s not a huge surprise that their seemingly “perfect partnership” eventually ended.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Steve,
I think you’ve touched on something interesting. And that is that it would actually be really abnormal for guys like Tomczak and Mahaney to have cultivated such an ideal, exemplary friendship.
It’s almost like CJ and the other SGM leaders hold themselves up to an unattainable, unreachable standard of perfection. It would have been so much more NORMAL for CJ to have just admitted that he and Larry T had had “irreconcilable differences” and had to part ways (if such were the case). Instead, things had to be all spiritualized, with silence commanded all around. “The commoners may not talk about leadership,” and such.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Off topic, but I saw on Carolyn McCulley’s blog today that Covenant Life is launching a new church in Arlington VA in a few months. Carolyn will be joining this church. http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/
Does anyone have any additional information about this? Does this mean that the church planting team will have to sell their homes (in this terrible market) in Maryland and purchase new homes in Virginia? I also found it curious that the launching team is coming from Covenant Life, and not from the SGM church in Fairfax.
I live in Arlington, and the funny thing is I know of at least three strong evangelical churches that launched in Arlington in 2009! One Presbyterian, and two Anglican. Not to mention the strong evangelical churches that already existed, such as Cherrydale Baptist and Frontline Arlington. Arlington is not lacking in good churches.
I am not, nor have I ever been an SGMer, but I find their practices fascinating…
December 7th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Kris said
“And that is that it would actually be really abnormal for guys like Tomczak and Mahaney to have cultivated such an ideal, exemplary friendship.”
That is a good point.
I always wondered why Tomczak moved from the “flagship” church to Fairfax which is only an hour away from the “flagship” location when Tomczac’s ministry was more of serving the whole “association” vs. being a local pastor at Fairfax. It certainly didn’t appear to make much sense. One possibility is that the friction between Tomczak/Mahaney became so much that one of them needed to move.
Of course people have suggested another possible reason for Tomczak and his family moving. At the time of Tomczak’s moving his oldest child couldn’t have been older than 14 and I believe barely have turned 13. To me that seems like a little young for what is alleged to have happened or perhaps what happened was exaggerated as Kris indicated in comment 56 might have happened .
Again we will probably never know this side of eternity.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I personally find CJ Mahaney fascinating.
When it’s all said and done (and one day it will be) all that will have been written about him will make for an interesting read.
Some SGMers occasionally make the remark that “their” church rarely even mentions CJ’s name. I have to chuckle. They really have no idea.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Welcome “Anonymous in Northern VA”…
Yep…nothing new there! It must be a pretty serious plant if Carolyn McCulley’s going. Are there any other “SGM celebrities” going?
December 7th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Totally off topic here…but…I just have to wonder….
Why oh why do I get a smathering of the fancy things the “A Team” is up to? A month or so ago, a uppity up in the SGM administration team was on a several-days “planning” trip to Orlando. And in the past couple weeks, I have several Facebook updates from “friends” who are related in one way or another with the “A Team” who has had their annual “conference” in Orlando.
They have wonderful pictures: balloon rides over Disney, fancy restaurants, fun and games at Disney parks. And some status updates about the meetings they are attending.
I’m wondering how much SGM gives for benevolence. I’m wondering how much SGM gives back to their churches that are struggling. I’m wondering WHY in this economy, can those men, in good conscience, send a “scout” to plan the trip and then take all the guys down there for their “conference.” Why, oh why?
Normal companies rent out a conference center in the mountains. SGM goes DISNEY …. every year….
Why?
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…..
December 8th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Kris,
This is random, but I frequently have folks ask me for the names of pastors and ministries that might be aligned with SGM to some degree in some of the areas of concern discussed on the site.
I get questions like…”Who can I trust?”; “Do you think this guy or ministry is headed in the same direction?”; “How cautious should I be of some of the ministries and organizations I see *consistently* linked on SGM sites and blogs?”; “What books from the “SGM approved list” should I actually throw out?”; “I’m beginning to hear some “SGMeze phrases” and observing some “SGM oddities” within my own church – should I be concerned?”…and the list goes on.
Could you put together some type of post on the topic sometime in the future worded in such a way that folks could comment along these lines? That way people could read their comments and decide for themselves who they feel comfortable trusting and who they might want to steer clear of, or at least be VERY cautious with.
I’m not talking about a “witch hunt,” or a “guilty by association” type thing. I think most of the commenters here know the difference and understand what I’m talking about. Some pastors and ministries would be pretty obvious. Others would fall under the “questionable” or “cautious” category. And naturally all those listed would simply be “a suggestion” as such, based on one’s “personal” experience or observation.
You may not be comfortable with “naming names.” If so, I understand.
I’ll go ahead and name a controversial one that will get a lot of tomatoes thrown at me…John Piper. I was a Piper fan for years, and have benefited from many of his books and sermons; but he’s DEFINITELY one of the “Reformed Big Dogs” that I now have my eyes on. I’m now more of a “Berean” and I’m scrutinizing his works in light of scripture rather than “blindly” following EVERYTHING he says. Piper certainly can’t help the fact that SGM promotes virtually every book he’s ever written, and that he and CJ run in many of the same circles, but he also can’t blame folks if they’re a little cautious after discovering such.
Obviously we should be a “Berean” when it comes to ANY pastor or ministry.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:29 am
My momma would always say, “Be careful who you run around with.”
It may be unfair, but some of the “Reformed Big Dogs” might want to step back and take a GOOD LOOK at themselves to see if it “even appears” they’re supporting certain “SGM teachings and practices” or possibly even beginning to adopt some of them as their own. I’ve actually been surprised to find that as I take a closer look, every now and then I find one that’s on the same page on a few of the issues. I’m not exactly sure “who stole what from whom.” Certainly SGM can afford to be bolder with it due to the fact that they have a “controlled” group.
These certainly are “Berean” days.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Hey, “Anonymous in Northern VA” -
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
I don’t know too much about that church plant, except that it appears to be attracting a younger crowd (so maybe, considering what the real estate market has been over the past several years in Gaithersburg, those couples and families don’t yet own houses that they’ll have to sell).
Also, something else interesting is that the word on the street is that maybe – just maybe – this church is going to be governed by elected elders!
Still, no matter how “innovative” (in quotes, because really, church government by the people is nothing radical, except in SGMville and maybe some Communist countries
) and no matter how young, I still hold that when you go and (trans)plant a church in an area where there are plenty of other decent churches, this move by definition has to be about advancing the
denominationand not so much about advancing the cause of Christ.December 8th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Sidney,
RE your comment #69, I think those leaders are just demonstrating how clueless they are about what life is like for a lot of people these days…and furthermore, how confident they are that none of their people would ever question them for spending ministry funds on holding their strategy meetings in what is an unnecessarily expensive venue.
They’re cluelessly confident.
But y’know, it kind of goes back to my post. I think these guys are this way because they’re so infrequently challenged and questioned by their people. It’s probably never even occurred to them that they should be more discreet about spending organization dollars on what amounts to a fun vacation (with some meetings thrown in). They post photos of themselves doing extravagant activities because nobody has ever challenged ‘em on this stuff before.
And, I think with what SGM teaches about authority and pastors – CJ’s twisting of the passage in Hebrews to read like it’s the people’s responsibility to “make their pastors’ job a joy” – these guys just have a sense of entitlement about some things.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:23 am
A church governed by elected elders! Wow! That would be a refreshing change in the SGM world. I recently looked into the Mariners’ church system and found that they have both pastors (who build up the body so that it functions properly) and a board of elders (who basically oversee the vision of the church). I’d love to see that happen at SGM.
According to the announcement we heard about the Arlington church, the main thrust of their ministry will be to the thousands of singles who live in the Rosslyn area. I didn’t know that Covenant Life was doing the planting but supposedly there will be people from FCC as well.
As to SGM preaching “another gospel,” I am not seeing that at my church and if anyone were to check out the book store I think it would be very evident that the true gospel is being preached. Even this past Sunday, Mark Mullery was talking about members of our church being blessed by sermons on-line so I don’t think he has a problem with members of SGM hearing teachings outside the SGM family.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Kindred,
I get a lot of email asking me similar sorts of questions. And honestly, I never know what to say.
I am extremely uncomfortable with saying that this or that ministry should be on some sort of “watch list” because of their association with SGM. For the most part, I am confident that most of the Reformed Big Dogs merely share the stage with CJ and have never really dug much deeper or questioned much of anything about SGM. I don’t think the RBDs have any sort of real concept of what goes on at the “local church” level – and if they hear of church discipline situations, or even if people try to send them to this site, they filter what they hear and read through what they THINK they know. They use the commonly accepted definitions of certain terms, rather than the “loaded language” of SGM.
Matter of fact, back in the site’s early days, I emailed someone who works closely with a particular RBD. I was so alarmed at what people were telling me about SGM, and I was stupefied over how that RBD could appear to endorse SGM. So I wrote one of the RBD’s associates and expressed my concern.
The person wrote back and plainly said that the RBD in question knew little about the daily workings of actual SGM churches. All the RBD really had to go on was the face CJ presented to the public through his conference talks and his writings. Basically, the guy was saying that his RBD’s association with CJ and SGM should not be viewed as some sort of endorsement.
Which, of course, is fascinating, because I cannot even begin to count the number of times SGM defenders write me and say things like, “Kris, you are so totally WRONG about SGM! After all, John Piper and Mark Dever know that SGM is OK! What’s the matter with you? You’re arrogant if you think you know more than John Piper!”
SGM defenders clearly see these RBDs’ association with CJ as endorsements of him and SGM.
I don’t see it that way.
I think the RBDs are pretty much in the dark about the subtle layers of what SGM does.
It reminds me a little of the Bernie Madoff (Ponzi scheme guy) scandal. Madoff, too, used reflected credibility to gain trust.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Mack,
I didn’t say that SGM was preaching “another gospel” – I said that the planting of more SGM churches in already-heavily-churched areas was more about promoting SGM than promoting the gospel.
Big difference.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Kris,
I wasn’t pointing a finger at you specifically but there was mention of another gospel in one of the posts above. By the way, I agree with you that SGM’s church planting methods leave much to be desired. Their attitude is definitely one of superiority and pride. The church plants are always done in up and coming neighborhoods. It would be great to see a church plant in a down and out neighborhood where the members could really do some good for the people.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:47 am
But…
To continue my thought from #76…
I do think that SGM’s church-planting strategies (and viewing those church plants as “missions”) reflect a basic assumption about how necessary SGMers believe participation in SGM churches to be to a successful Christian life.
I would issue a challenge to SGMers to examine how much actual evangelism – reaching the unreached, those who have never known Christ before – takes place through the efforts of their SGM churches.
It is my belief that the vast majority of growth in SGM churches comes through taking members (who have been believers for a long time) from other churches.
If that isn’t about promoting SGM, and about SGM’s superiority to other churches, then what’s it about?
I can tell you this: it ain’t about the gospel of Jesus!
December 8th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Mack,
You and I were posting at the same time.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
#67 – a Kindred Spirit;
I had to chuckle at your comment;
“Some SGMers occasionally make the remark that “their” church rarely even mentions CJ’s name. I have to chuckle. They really have no idea”.
This is EXACTLY what my SGM-going family do. During the 2 years I attended SGM in Bristol, England – C J Mahaney’s name was probably mentioned more often than that of Jesus Christ (bearing in mind they called Him “Saviour” – in true SGM-style). The pastor would frequently even re-preach Mahaney and Josh Harris sermons.
My family in trying to persuade me that the church has changed and isn’t so “SGM-ish” as when I attended ALWAYS use that comment as sort of “proof”;
“You hardly ever hear C J Mahaney’s name mentioned anymore!”.
That always puzzled me. Why is that a good thing? Do they know deep down that there is a degree of idol-worship going on for the man who preached “The Idol Factory”? Or are they trying to convince themselves they are a healthy stand-alone church that doesn’t look to Mahaney for all things doctrinal?
I dunno.
Sorry – just a thought!
(well not really new, just a quiet observer!) 
December 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Merry Christmas to all!
RE: Disney
I can’t get too upset about the Disney/vacation issue. Ministries / churches often get great deals on conference packages. I’ve benefitted from such myself–to the point of enjoying a Rolls-Royce vacation at a broken-down Chevette price, and that’s the truth.
RE: Arlington / Government
If it’s true that the new church plant will have elected elders: that’s great, to a point — but the root issue is that SGM is governed by ONE MAN who is not “removable”. Unless that changes, actions at the local level are akin to putting bandaids on cancer.
PDI’s government was of concern to us when we first joined our SGM church — but at that time, there were TWO guys in charge, which provided some checks and balances — and the way things were worded made us think that there was an actual “board”. They’d say things like “…led by a team of men related to CJ Mahaney and Larry Tomzak…”, which to me, sounded like the TEAM of leaders were in charge, with Larry and CJ kinda moderating/leading/advising. And I’d never heard of either one of those guys, so I just figured they were regular, run-of-the-mill good guys.
I remember when the CJ/Larry split first happened. I wasn’t real interested in the higher-up SGM stuff at the time, so I didn’t pay alot of attention. First, it was announced that the leaders had determined that CJ was more gifted in the administration of the organization, so Larry would still be involved, but in ways that focused more on his gifting. I was new to PDI at the time, but had come from a church where it was often taught that people ought to work within their gifts, so I thought this was a reasonable statement. I had no reason, at that point, to mistrust the actions or the reasons behind them. Later, I don’t remember how long after this — and can’t remember the exact wording — we received a letter from PDI Headquarters via US Mail, informing us that Larry T was going through a season of discipline after hiding the truth of some family issues. Again, I don’t remember the wording, but my impression was that after the discipline was over, Larry might be restored to ministry. I remember seeing Larry at the next Celebration, as an attender — don’t think he spoke at that one. The next thing we knew, Larry left PDI, and my impression at the time was that the “discipline” thing hadn’t worked out.
It was then that I began to wonder if maybe there had been a “king of the hill” competition, won by the one who could kick the hardest.
There are many things that happen behind the scenes that are none of my business — but there are ways to honestly give information regarding sensitive issues.
After reading some of the history here, such as the situation of sexual misconduct by a leader’s son, I wonder if the SGM policy of removing people from pastoral leadership when a child misbehaves might have stemmed from this prior situation of NOT removing/restricting someone when severe misconduct occurred.
I don’t want to know details that are none of my business. But I DO want to know the reasoning behind actions that affect policy-making.
So, for example, if SGM were to come out with a statement that said, “Once upon a time, such-and-such a hurtful situation occurred, and we failed to take appropriate action, causing further damage. Therefore, in the future, if such-and-such occurs, we will take the following action in order to protect our members…”
That kind of thing might clear a lot of air.
I do know that horrible things happened at many churches (SGM and others) which caused the institution of background checks, rules about who can/cannot change diapers in nursery situations — and when you know the reasons behind such rules, it’s easier to swallow them.
(Sort of like the disclaimer on a Superman costume that says “Do not attempt to jump from high altitudes” – and you know that some idiot did exactly that!)
RE: Evangelism / Missions
A comment about evangelism — sadly, most of the churches I’ve been involved with over the past 30 years (Baptist, Methodist, Independent, Charismatic, Presbyterian) are in the same boat — most new members are already Christians. In my observation, those who are brought to Christ as a result of those ministries have often been friends / relatives of those who attend regularly. There are a handful of examples that I could list where people stumbled into church for a wedding, funeral, or even once when a baby had been given a Christening dress and they wanted a baptism in order to use the dress — and they came to Christ.
These days, new churches of every flavor seem to be popping up all over — many who desire to target the unchurched — and that’s great. But most of these denominations also have a strong emphasis on supporting missions beyond their own culture. What bothers me about SGM’s emphasis on church clones in highly-churched, affluent areas is that there is no commensurate attention focused on taking the Good News of Christ (which transfers to every culture) into dark corners of the earth (where SGM music would not be music to non-affluent-Western-pop-music conditioned ears.)
SGM’s apparent belief is that mission work is just as valid on the streets of Arlington as it is in the jungles of Africa or the poorest corners of Singapore. And that’s true — but there is little apparent growth of their missions plan — no stated vision for this “family of churches” who are probably among the wealthiest per-capita denominations to SEND ministry and EQUIP those who have few resources to places where there’s no way people will hear of Jesus unless we go, send, or equip.
They could change that with a lot of prayer support and a few healthy checks!
But again — I see no desire in SGM to change, grow, or increase in the area of missions.
And again, I appeal to the “team of men” who lead SGM — come on guys — you’ve had a great thing going – get the ship righted and back on course.
Lord, guide us gently, safely o’er to Thy kindom shore.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Hi Dan,
It’s good to “hear” from you!
Don’t make a habit of staying “silent” for so long.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Steve said,
“One interesting item that I recall from listening to some of the older TAG tapes about Tomczak/Mahaney is that back in the early years of TAG, the two men discovered that they were hiding various Christian books from each other. This is going back before 1976. Not sharing the books was a way for at least one of them to look better than the other person. As they say, knowledge is power.”
Okay, is it just me, or does anyone else find this EXTREMELY telling. Books? They were hiding various Christian authors’ *BOOKS* from one another?
There’s been LOTS of discussion on the blog implying that CJ relies more heavily (much more) on what other men have written rather than his own personal study. I think that particular piece of information on those tapes supports what I’ve read.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Nickname, You said:
“RE: Disney
I can’t get too upset about the Disney/vacation issue. Ministries / churches often get great deals on conference packages. I’ve benefitted from such myself–to the point of enjoying a Rolls-Royce vacation at a broken-down Chevette price, and that’s the truth.”
I’m certain they didn’t get “great deals” on the airline tickets. Or the fancy dinners. Or the rental cars. Perhaps the hotel rooms at the resort.
Even with a “great deal,” having a conference at a very expensive family resort is extravagant. Maybe a better option would have been a local conference center where as few as possible had to fly.
Times are extremely tough. Even a “great deal” is still too much to blow on a conference.
Heck, why not have Webexes? Conference calls are an excellent way to do business in the technology age.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:29 am
I didn’t know this kind of site existed! I’m kinda happy to find it. Former Providence Church of Pittsburgh member here.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Sidney — when I wrote my thoughts, I was assuming the “charitable judgment” that people going to such conferences are responsible for many of their own expenses, such as entertainment tickets, costs for family members, extravagant meals, extra hotel rooms, etc. If “ministry” money was used for such, that is indeed a travesty.
Most businesses and ministries with which I am familiar would not pay extra expenses for family members, entertainment — and I hope that SGM would not be doing so, as I believe they are members of the organization that promotes financial accountability among evangelical ministries.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Thanks a Kindred Spirit!!
It’s always nice to feel wanted, I didn’t ever want to be accused of being boring though.
Okay – I was thinking a LOT about SGM this morning and why so many thousands of people are so upset about this. A couple of thoughts came to mind (and I’m VERY willing to stand corrected);
1. The fact that so many of us devote so much time to discussing SGM suggests to me that we actually CARE about those people rather than just enjoying a “Hate” club.
For instance, my family (Mum, Dad, younger sister and family, and four other younger sisters) are STILL in SGM. It matters a GREAT DEAL to me how they get treated. What if one of my sisters was to fall into sin (get pregnant etc etc) – and most likely would receive the same kind of authoritarian heavy-handed “discipline” that I (and so many others) experienced? That upsets me just at the thought.
Also there are thousands of GOOD NICE people in SGM! Let that be said surely! My experience of SGM showed me that actually those in SG leadership are extremely fortunate. They have a devoted, loyal (perhaps too loyal) group of people under their care! And that’s what makes the abuse so much worse. They are mistreating the Bride of Christ – and if I read Revelation rightly, Jesus Christ gets quite upset at that – “Be not many teachers brethren for THEIRS (Yes C J – that means you) is the greater judgement”.
2. Why am I STILL so upset about the treatment I received at the hands of the SGM pastors four or five years later?
I think it’s because so many of us went to them in genuine need, hoping and expecting to be cared for. And instead we were “kicked when we were down”.
I NEVER went to see the pastors to talk about the fact that I was gay or bisexual. NEVER! I went because I was extremely depressed, virtually suicidal and self-harming. But they ignored that (presumably C J Mahaney would call it psycho-babble and blame it on my pride) – and told me that it was because I was gay.
So to add to my already depressed state, I also had to deal with being thrown out of a church without so much as a discussion or appeal, and also deal with my family standing with the church against me.
I don’t mind admitting that I STILL don’t trust church leaders – and probably never will (unless I find a good one here in the UK!). Once bitten – twice shy.
As Nickname said so well in #81;
“And again, I appeal to the “team of men” who lead SGM — come on guys — you’ve had a great thing going – get the ship righted and back on course”.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Nickname, I didn’t say the family members were paid for. Please don’t misunderstand me there.
Kris, Wasn’t there some information shared here on the blog about the financial report and what CLC spent on “travel expenses?”
I wish someone would share current information. Nickname, if you still go to SGM church, won’t you check with the financial statements and let us know what SGM spends on “travel expenses?” That might be helpful.
All I’m sayin’ is that the “A Team” goes to Disney every year. And they do all sorts of fancy things while they’re there. Unless and until someone shares otherwise, there’s no reason to believe the company didn’t pay for it.
I know many people who travel for work. If there are functions on a business trip that everyone goes on together (team building sorts of things), then the company pays. Meals, events, extracurriculars etc. It is customary for the events with work people while on work trips are paid for by the company.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Sidney — I am no longer an SGM member — it’s been almost a decade since we left — so I have no access to such information.
I hope that they adhere to standards of financial accountability.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
welcome Pirates
December 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Welcome, Piratesmvp –
the lone churchplanting family from Fairfax who moved to Pittsburgh was very special to us. Last I heard they were still in PA – are you still in PA or have you moved on?
December 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Defended-
Were you a part of the planting team?
December 10th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Good song on grace…
Tim McGraw “Let it Go”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ZGO6r9pCw&feature=player_embedded
Let it Go ~ Tim McGraw
I’ve been caught sideways out here on the crossroads
Trying to buy back the pieces I lost of my soul
It’s hard when the devil won’t get off your back
It’s like carrying around the past in a hundred pound sack
[Chorus]
Today I’m gonna keep on walking
I’m gonna hold my head up high
I’m gonna leave it all behind
Today I’m gonna stand out in the rain
Let it wash it all away Yeah wash it all away
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
Skeletons and Ghosts are hiding in the shadows
Threatening me with all the things that they know
Choices and mistakes, they all know my name
But I’m through holding in and holding onto all that pain
Today I’m gonna keep on walking
I’m gonna hold my head up high
Got no more tears to cry
Today I’m gonna stand out in the rain
Let it wash it all away Yeah wash it all away
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
And I know I know I know I know I’ve been forgiven
I know I know I know I’m gonna start living
Today I’m gonna keep on walking
I’m gonna hold my head up high
I’m gonna leave it all behind
Today I’m gonna stand out in the rain
Let it wash it all away Yeah wash it all away
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
I’m gonna let it go Oh yeah
Oh yeah
December 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Tonic, Thanks for the encouraging song!
December 10th, 2009 at 11:51 am
re Luther – not sure why its necessary for him to declare himself either an sgm apologist or a hater. Seems pretty clear that he’s thinking things over.
Often I’ve seen comments posted from people who are questioning things but are not yet solidly in the hater camp. Because they can’t be readily identified as haters, the regulars here draw their knives and commence stabbing.
Recently, I had my brother who isn’t a Christian read this blog. His comment was “No question. Christianity is bare-knuckles bloodsport.” I think he’s onto something.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The Missus -
It’s not “necessary” for Luther to “declare” anything. And there’s plenty of room for people to be in the middle, somewhere between apologist or “hater” (and I’d beg to differ with you over your unfortunate choice of words, as I don’t think there are too many of us who are actually SGM “haters”…sigh).
What I was saying to Luther – and what I’ll say to you – is that I just don’t understand why people seek to participate in a conversation if all they’re going to do is condemn (in one way or another) the others who have already been conversing among themselves. The topic at hand here is, for better or worse, SGM’s issues. The topic is NOT how Luther will handle SGM’s issues, and whether Luther’s approach is superior to everyone else’s. If Luther has something to share about SGM, fine. I’d be interested in hearing about Luther’s own journey, and why he’s suddenly changing his song and actually daring to articulate the possibility that he and his family might leave SGM. That’d be interesting to me, because if Luther were to explain how he got from being Semi-Crazed SGM Defender #1 to “spending untold HOURS” talking with his pastor about SGM’s issues, then he might actually have something of substance to add to our discussion.
Instead, he pops by here to trumpet his lack of discussing SGM…even as he alludes to SGM’s issues.
It just makes no sense.
As to your own remarks, I gotta tell you, lady – you have a snarky tone. If I went through all the comments, I’d bet I could find at least a handful of jabs that YOU have made. I’ve seen more “stabbing” from you than a lot of others here.
I’m thinking you should check your own knuckles. You’d see just as much blood there as anywhere.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Actually, it probably isn’t the “snarkiness” that you object to as much as it is that my comments tend to hit home.
No one who knows me would accuse me of being an apologist or a defender of sgm. Personally, I think its all horrible – the stories of abuse by sgm and the response to it on this site and others.
Thank God these aren’t our only two choices – defend sgm no matter what awful thing takes place or align yourself with sgm haters.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
The Missus -
Your comments most definitely do NOT “hit home” with me.
Rather, I think you demonstrate that you haven’t actually paid much attention to what I (or others) have said. I’ve frequently discussed SGM in a nuanced fashion, and I do believe that there is both bad AND good within the organization. As I’ve said over and over again, though, this blog is not primarily for discussing what’s good about SGM. You can find hundreds of blogs that will sing SGM’s praises. This site isn’t one of those.
This site is to discuss SGM’s issues and problems. We’re not providing a forum for people to attempt to change the subject by talking about the relative badness of those who comment here. I’m really sick of that. If Luther and his ilk don’t like what people say, or how they say it, and if he is so convinced that he is making a more spiritual choice by remaining silent about experiencing abuse and dysfunction within SGM, he has the right to that opinion. But he does NOT have the right to come around here and trumpet that opinion and sing the praises of his silence.
I’ve said this many times, but I just don’t understand why people think they can lumber into a blog conversation, spout off their contrary opinions, and expect to be petted and welcomed and applauded for what they say. I would NEVER go around to pro-SGM blogs and slam the participants there. If I ever were so whacked as to do such at thing, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if I received less than a warm welcome.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
So are you saying that dissenting views aren’t welcome here? Isn’t that more or less one of your complaints about sgm? That no one is allowed to express a view that differs from the accepted norm?
December 10th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Oh, you can dissent all the way till the cows come home.
You just need to expect that people will respond with dissent toward what you say.
And don’t then turn around and attempt to post silly cracks about knife wounds.
You get as good as you give, ‘zall I’m sayin’…