For our “Things That Make You Go Hmmm” file, here’s an excerpt from a post over at The Wartburg Watch (you can read the full article here):
When Joshua Harris assumed the position of Senior Pastor of CLC in 2004, C.J. Mahaney began an extensive campaign to advance SGM full-time. Since 2004, Mahaney has formed some important alliances with leaders of the reformed movement. Now C.J. shares the stage at various conferences with John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Driscoll, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, and other Calvinists.
How did this “success story” happen? As far as we can determine, C.J. Mahaney was not well known until the release of his book Humility: True Greatness in 2005 and the re-release of Living the Cross Centered Life in 2006. Mahaney seems to have become an overnight success, although it was at least 20 years in the making.
How did C.J. Mahaney become so popular among reformed Christians? We believe C.J.’s secret to success is that he has friends in high places. Here’s what we speculate… We believe his recognition among the “Reformed Big Dogs” began when he befriended Mark Dever, Senior Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, in Washington, D.C. (a church not far from Gaithersburg where CLC is located). C.J. interviewed Mark Dever for 9Marks (a Mark Dever ministry) a couple years ago, and they established during that recorded conversation that they have known each other for 10 years. We believe that conversation took place in 2008. Ten years prior to that time would be have been 1998 — the year Mahaney and Tomczak parted ways. Hmmm……..
Mark Dever is directly connected with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) where he serves as a trustee. Again, mere speculation on our part, but we believe Mark introduced C.J. to Al Mohler fairly early in the Mahaney/Dever friendship because we have discovered that C.J. began making contributions to Southern Seminary in 2002 at the Leaders Associate level (annual gifts of $5,000 to $9,999). Both C.J. and Covenant Life Church (CLC) gave at the Leaders Associate level in 2003. From 2004 to 2007, C.J. gave at the Distinguished Associate level (annual gifts over $10,000), while CLC gave at the Leaders Associate level in 2004, 2005, and 2006. It appears the church did not make a contribution in 2007; however, C.J. contributed at the Distinguished Associate level (annual gifts over $10,000) once again in 2007. We haven’t bothered to check C.J.’s contributions for subsequent years. All of this information can be obtained from the SBTS Roll Call by following this link:
http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2008Spring.pdf (use the same website address but change the year accordingly going back to 2003 to verify the above information). Remember that the Roll Call included in the Spring edition of the SBTS magazine is for the previous year. For example, the 2007 Roll Call is published in the 2008 SBTS magazine. The information is stored in a PDF file, so allow a few seconds for it to be retrieved.
In addition to the annual gift levels, the SBTS Roll Call includes the “Lifetime Cumulative Gift Levels”. On the 2005 Roll Call, C.J. Mahaney was listed as a “Patron Member” (cumulative gifts of $25,000 to $49,999). Check out page 45 at this link: http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2006Spring.pdf
Incredibly, on the 2006 Roll Call, Mahaney has quickly risen to the level of “President’s Council” (cumulative gifts of $100,000 or more). Check out page 43 at this link: http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2007Spring.pdf
That’s quite commendable, to go from being a Patron Member to a member of the President’s Council in JUST ONE YEAR! In order to accomplish this feat, C.J. had to contribute a MINIMUM of $50,001.00 in 2006.
Until the cumulative gift levels for the SBTS Roll Call are increased beyond the $100,000 mark, C.J. Mahaney will always be listed under “President’s Council”. In 2007 he gave at the Distinguished Associate level (annual gifts of over $10,000), so we know that C.J. has given a MIMIMUM of $110,000 to Southern Seminary by year end 2007. Here’s the link: http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2008Spring.pdf (C.J. is listed on page 36 for the annual gift and on page 43 for the “President’s Council”.)
How did he do it? Here’s our theory. Books can be BIG BUSINESS with the right endorsements! C.J. Mahaney’s book Humility: True Greatness is copyrighted in 2005 and includes this endorsement:
“This is the right book from the right man at the right time.” R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
When Mahaney’s book Living the Cross Centered Life was published in 2006, Al Mohler wrote the forward. Dr. Mohler’s endorsement begins as follows: “The book you now hold in your hands is nothing less than a manifesto for turning your world upside down . . .”
By following the money trail, we believe we have discovered the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. When a rather obscure charismatic (C.J. Mahaney) receives a glowing endorsement from a well-respected Baptist leader (Al Mohler), the results can be extremely profitable for both Mahaney and Southern Seminary!
I never got the "meeting" thing, either. 
February 20th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Info, I am very familiar with the religious organization of SGM and the pastor you mentioned. We were involved for many years. The pastor you named has not changed and never will since he is a company man.
Obviously, you haven’t read this site and have just jumped in with your boots on to spout off the usual remarks of ‘those-who-defend-SGM’ so expect to debate this issue with those who know way more than you do about what goes on in the inner workings of this group.
Follow the money is an excellent topic. If people knew what was spent on what– they would not give as much.
But like you, they have drank the koolaid and it is tasty to them. So they continue to defend their idol heroes and look to them instead of to the Lord. Which is how the enemy wants it to be. But, it’s in God’s plan so that those who desire to grow strong in Him can be tested and tried by those of the religious world. So you see it all works out.
The good thing is that once your eyes are open and you perceive the truth you never again will place your hope, faith and trust in men. You can just look to the Author and Perfecter of your faith….Jesus, and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you and guide you into all truth.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:42 am
How old are you, info?
February 20th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Rejects and witches?!?
Really…how old are you?
February 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
sigh.
just a troll trying to distract…the usual whenever something like this is being discussed. :/
February 20th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
If I had to guess, “info” is the young adult child of someone who works for SGM. That’s just a guess, mind you.
But I think that would best explain the statements he/she has made.
“info,” when you come back – which you inevitably will, because nobody who declares they’re leaving ever actually does – I would like for you to explain specifically which parts of this site are “lies.” If you can prove that there are untruths here, I will post the appropriate disclaimers.
And…
About your hangup with calling various men “Pastor,” have you considered that none of these men is actually functioning in the role of pastor to any of the people here? Why would we call them “Pastor”? It’s not like “Pastor” is an official title. These aren’t elected officials or anything…CERTAINLY they’re not elected in SGM…
I think your sensitivity to our referring to guys like CJ by their first names probably has more to do with the “respect” that was beaten into you with glue sticks during your childhood. I’m very sorry about that…
February 20th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Kris –
Have some more koolaid, info – it helps the “medicine” go down.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Hi Kris,
I stand corrected! I was one who questioned that financial incentives were a factor in these relationships. Your evidence is compelling.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Info -
You can jest about my handle as much as you like as long as you remember the most important bit: former SG. “Former” as in “see ya”. Odd that you would post about SG franchises on the opposite sides of the country that have created former pastors in the last year or two. Odd that you would post about two apostles that have not fared well on the blogs because they kinda mucked things up in caring for souls. Odd that you would post this on the topic of Grand Poobah CJ’s giving (sorry Info, I don’t know what Mr Mahaney’s current preferred title is).
In keeping with the topic here, Info, could you favor us with an answer to this question: how will you feel tomorrow when you plunk your hard-earned cash into the plate knowing that your pastors, apostles, and assorted self-crowned heads funnel it to a SBC seminary, a Presby parachurch ministry, and suburban outposts in your
family of churchesdenomination?Oh, Info, if you only knew. If you only knew, you would be “in fo” a big letdown. Beware of the ones that you defend; experience shows that they are the ones most likely to hurt you.
Not pretending,
Former SG Pastor
February 20th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It occurred to me that “info” is demonstrating a misunderstanding of the word “pastor.”
The term “pastor” is a role, not a title. In that respect, it’s similar to the word “dad.”
I typically don’t go around calling someone else’s father “dad” – and unless I’m acknowledging a pastor’s authority over me, I typically don’t go around calling someone else’s pastor “pastor.”
February 20th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I am an adult, (man, am I ever an adult…), so I call other adults by their first names, unless they have a title, like “President” or “Sir” or “Judge.”
My beloved pastor is a good friend. He would be appalled if I called him pastor, and would laugh his head off. But many people call their pastors “Pastor So and So.” This is an individual choice and habit. It just so happens in my denomination, we call our pastors by their first names, for the most part.
I make no distinction between my pastor and Mark Dever. Both fellow heirs of mine in Christ. I’m older than Dever, maybe he should call me “madam” or something?
I just asked you questions, none of which you answer.
Westender–I suspect we sit in the same sanctuary each week. Let’s both stand up right before the offering and yell “SGM” and see if I’m right or not. :-)
You guys are great here. So gracious to someone like info who spews hate and calls names. Silly little hobbit.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
INFO,(or shall I say lack thereof?)
I could invite you to read my story where I have an account of “pastor” Steve Shank displaying a deep knowledge of scripture, such that my dog has a better grasp of how to build a space ship and fly to the moon and thrive in a colony of her own making.
Instead, I will kindly remind you (or perhaps inform you for the first time in your short life) that you, yes YOU, will stand all alone someday before the LORD Jesus, KING of Kings, and LORD of Lords, and you will be required to give an account for your life.
You will be ALL ALONE.
Neither your pastor, Steve Shank, CJ, nor your Mother will be there.
ALL ALONE.
NAKED.
I am here to tell you by my experience, that NOTHING in SGM will properly prepare you for that meeting that you cannot avoid.
Everything you say, think, or do should be in expectation of that coming meeting.
Do you know how that meeting will go?
Will He be your advocate, or judge?
Be very careful how you condemn people here (or anywhere, for that matter.) You just might find out that we are the ones who were redeemed by your judge. (I hear He gets really “ticked off” by that.)
ALSO, there is ONE who cares for our souls. He is the one who purchased us with His blood. (And we will all stand before HIM.) I believe that any “pastor” who claims to be the one who cares for souls is doing the bidding of Satan. (Gasp! How could you say such a thing??) Satan is the one who always seeks to usurp God’s rightful place. Don’t you EVER forget that. (There will be a test. The one given while you are NAKED.)
JOB 33: 14 For God does speak— now one way, now another— though man may not perceive it.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men as they slumber in their beds,
16 he may speak in their ears and terrify them with warnings,
17 to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride,
18 to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword.
JOB 33: 28 He redeemed my soul from going down to the pit, and I will live to enjoy the light.’
29 “God does all these things to a man— twice, even three times—
30 to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.
Ps 57:1 For the director of music. To the tune of “Do Not Destroy.” Of David. A When he had fled from Saul into the cave. Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for in you my soul takes refuge. I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed.
Ps 62:5 Find rest, O my soul, in God alone; my hope comes from him.
Ps 116:8 For you, O LORD, have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling,
Ps 143:8 Let the morning bring me word of your unfailing love, for I have put my trust in you. Show me the way I should go, for to you I lift up my soul.
AND
Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
And by the way, I am (and I can probably say we all here on “survivor” are) in fact genuinely concerned for the eternal status of people in SGM, and you too.
That is why we post here. To warn, and encourage others.
So, tame your tongue, (and fingers) and next time you want to “instruct” people, gird up your loins like a man and bring scripture with you.
With love,
Defender
February 20th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Defender,
Does this genuine concern for the eternal status of the people in SGM extend to CJ SS and the other folks who are frequent targets of criticism here?
Chuck
February 20th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I feel tired.
Back one day and DANG. Not much has changed.
SGMers, WILL YOU EVER ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTIONS?
Of course everyone here is concerned about CJ’s eternal status.
But far more so for the flock, who is steeped in legalism and fear.
February 20th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Chuck,
Uh, let me think about it.
YES!
The fact that you have to ask that question speaks VOLUMES about you.
I call it “Projection.”
Kris, Thanks for fixing that closing tag goof I made.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Defender,
It certainly speaks volumes…..
You may call it “projection” if you like, I would call it being “moderately observant”.
Chuck
February 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Honestly, Chuck, I’m having a difficult time figuring out what point you’re actually trying to make.
If it’s that the commenters here don’t display enough concern for CJ…well…so what?
It seems to me CJ has way more than his fair share of people who worship the ground he walks on and care about him.
But the people who have been harmed by the system he’s created and maintained – I think THEY are the forgotten ones, and that’s why they receive the lion’s share of my concern.
In the many comments you’ve made, you yourself have demonstrated that you are far more concerned with defending CJ’s and SGM’s honor than you are about the people your church system and church leaders have hurt.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
“Wartberg Witches”, eh?
Info. is just another SGM sycophant who resorts to name calling when he refuses to discuss the issues…
Well, it’s not working.
Here, have another drink…
February 20th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Wartburg witches hmmmmmm? Funny thing about all of this… I grew up in Salem, Massachusetts (I promise I am telling the truth-Deb will confirm). I can assure, I am not. Neither were the supposed “witches” that were executed in Salem. 18 were hung, one was pressed. And it was the church leaders who condemned these poor women. It seems like history is doomed to repeat itself.
Blessings in the midst of this anyway.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Chuck,
Moderately Observant??
Oh PUH-LEEZE!
SGM “Observations” (In my EXPERIENCE not judgment, but actual experiences) is nothing more than Pharisaical Prideful Judgments put on people while the person being judged is not looking.
I want you to reply with one thing.
EXACTLY what did you “observe”?
What observation prompted you have to post the implication that I (or anybody here) does not have, or show concern for SGM people and leadership.
I can promise you this, that if we were not concerned, the site would be closed down for lack of interest.
If I were not concerned for the eternal well being of SGM people & leadership, I would just say to myself; “Self? They all are going to hell, and I am not stopping them either. So much there’s more room in heaven for me! So I will stay silent”
Be a man! Show me what you “observed” here in my posts.
Don’t be a “drive by” coward.
February 21st, 2010 at 6:59 am
Dear info,
You wrote, “A, thanks for showing in pictures how I feel about this site along with SGM Rejects and Wartberg Witches.”
That is exactly how I felt for so many years. (Rejects.) In fact, that is what I would call myself. “Rejects of (fill in the name of my old SGM church).” It was so terribly painful.
February 21st, 2010 at 8:51 am
See “info,” you don’t get it.
We’re the good guys. SGM is the “bully” who abuses folks and we’re the “good guys” who come along and help the “victims” up, shaking our fists at the bully and yelling, “Hey you, stop it! Stop bullying (abusing) these folks. What you’re doing is wrong!”
(Now…if we could just get the reformed big dogs to realize there’s a “bully” among them.)
February 21st, 2010 at 8:59 am
Guess what Info…
You have inspired an upcoming blog post over at The Wartburg Watch, and it will be dedicated to YOU!!!
BTW, Martin Luther would be upset that you don’t know how to spell the name of the place where he translated the New Testament into his native language.
Actually, we know you misspelled it on purpose to poke fun at us, but that’s O.K. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, and that’s what is about to take place over at TWW. Look for our response sometime this week…
Here’s a “sneak peak” of what we will be discussing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
SOCIAL CONTEXT (Salem Witch Trials)
“The patriarchal beliefs that Puritans held in the community added further stresses. Women, they believed, should be totally subservient to men. By nature, a woman was more likely to enlist in the Devil’s service than was a man, and women were considered lustful by nature. In addition, the small-town atmosphere made secrets difficult to keep and people’s opinions about their neighbors were generally accepted as fact. In an age where the philosophy “children should be seen and not heard” was taken at face value, children were at the bottom of the social ladder. Toys and games were seen as idle and playing was discouraged. Girls had additional restrictions placed upon them and were trained from a young age to spin yarn, cook, sew, weave, serve their husbands and bear their children, while boys were able to go hunting, fishing, exploring in the forest, and often became apprentices to carpenters and smiths.
In accordance with Puritan beliefs, the majority of accused ‘witches’ were unmarried or recently widowed land-owning women; according to the law if no legal heir existed upon the owner’s death, title to the land would revert to the previous owner, or (if no previous owner could be determined) to the colony.[citation needed] This made witch-hunting a possible method of acquiring a profitable piece of property.”
When Dee and I first learned about the Danvers Statement a little over a year ago, Dee was amused that it had been drafted in a town so close to where she grew up. Yes, Salem, Massachusetts REALLY is her hometown.
Thanks to you, Info, we plan to put together the puzzle pieces for our readers. And what are the pieces that need to be connected?
The Danvers Statement
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
The Calvinistas LOVE for the Puritans (who weren’t so “pure” as history has shown through the Witch Trials)
The misogyny that is so prevalent in Sovereign Grace churches and other congregations caught up in the “Calvinista” movement
Dee and I have explained over and over again that we are NOT feminists! We are wives and mothers who have dedicated our lives to our families by foregoing our careers.
And we are FULLY dedicated to Jesus Christ who is our first love! We eat, sleep, and breathe the Gospel. Sovereign Grace Ministries has been the catalyst for our outspoken positions on the “New Calvinists” whom we label “Calvinistas”.
Thanks again, Info, for inspiring our upcoming post. Keep up the good work…
February 21st, 2010 at 9:42 am
Welcome, Wartburg Watch ladies! I posted a link to your blog on my facebook recently, because I’ve been so impressed–and to warn both my SGM and SBC friends and family.
I’ve been teaching “The Crucible” (Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem Witch Trials) for lo, these many years in AP English–including the excellent film version with Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder–and the parallels between CLC/SGM and Salem scare me. If you click on my handle and read my story, you’ll see that I didn’t sign the covenant in part because of what I knew about the Puritans.
There is truly nothing new under the sun.
February 21st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
acme,
I read your story, and I’m so sorry for what you experienced! I will keep you in my prayers. Thanks for posting our blog’s link on your Facebook page.
While Dee was recuperating from her knee replacement surgery in late December, I spent the following month (January 2010) managing The Wartburg Watch solo. I was passionate about exposing the charlatans involved in the Prosperity Gospel. They have caused tremendous damage in the body of Christ!
Dee and I are just as committed to publicizing the extremely serious problems that exist within Sovereign Grace Ministries, and we will spend as long as it takes to expose the abuses that are taking place in SGM. We look forward to the challenge because we know first hand that SGM is influencing other denominations within Christendom (e.g. the SBC and probably PCA, among others).
We bring a unique perspective because neither of us has been in SGM; therefore, we have not been psychologically or spiritually abused by the hyper-authoritarianism that is so prevalent in this “family of churches”. I am absolutely horrified by what I am discovering! My heart breaks for all of you who have been hurt in SGM, especially the children. God has given Dee and me the passion to help you through our faith forum called The Wartburg Watch.
When I was earning my undergraduate degree at Duke and then my MBA at UNC-Chapel Hill, I developed excellent research and writing skills. Now that I have raised my two daughters (the younger one will head to college in August), I’m looking forward to stepping up my efforts in using this relatively new research tool called the internet. I am tenacious in my pursuit of the truth, and rest assured, I will get to the bottom of things as I did with the “Mahaney Money Machine”. There is much more to uncover (CCEF is high on the list).
What is so great about researching the Calvinistas (SGM in particular) is that they have relied heavily on the internet to “market” their ministries. They have put so much information out there that it makes the “discovery” process relatively easy.
The Holy Spirit is leading Dee and me in this quest for the absolute truth about the Calvinistas and Mahaniacs, and we plan to write all about it. Stay tuned. There is much more to come…
February 21st, 2010 at 4:27 pm
FSGP said to info:
“Odd that you would post about SG franchises on the opposite sides of the country that have created former pastors in the last year or two. Odd that you would post about two apostles that have not fared well on the blogs because they kinda mucked things up in caring for souls. Odd that you would post this on the topic of Grand Poobah CJ’s giving (sorry Info,”
Maybe you should share that with both of these “apostles” how the Peter Principle appears to apply with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
“The Peter Principle is the principle that “In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, ”
Maybe since both of these men have been around since the formation of the group is why they were and remain as “apostles?” Sadly in the last year or so both have shown their incompetence in their job.
February 21st, 2010 at 6:31 pm
defender, #211, a powerful post, thank you.
I used to pray for abusive people a lot, I’ve known quite a few over the years. Now I mostly pray for their victims.
February 21st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Watch this video and substitute these characters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
Charlie the Unicorn = Unsuspecting non-SGM Person
Annoying Pink and Blue Friends = SGM leaders
Candy Mountain = SGM
Magical Leoplurodon, that speaks a unidentifiable language = SGM’s Gospel, that isn’t interpretable by the Bible
“Shun the non-believer. SHUUUUUUUUUU-NUH!” – What SGM’ers do to people who question or doubt their leadership
Candy Mountain Cave, it’s a land of sweets and joy! = Local SGM Church, the happiest place on earth!
Charlie’s stolen kidney, which rendered him incapable of filtering out the poisons = The usurpation in SGM of the Holy Spirit in each member’s life
February 21st, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Deb – post #224
Amen! Bring it!
February 21st, 2010 at 7:52 pm
claireon,
Don’t forget about “LOVE BOMBING”. That’s an important reason why Charlie gave in and went inside Candy Mountain. He thought his friends really “loved” him!
February 21st, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Good one Deb! Charlie had to be Love Bombed so he wouldn’t pay attention to the splinters he was getting and to what he was thinking on the Magical Bridge of Hope and Wonder.
You’re promised it’s a joyous place, but you end up losing something vital
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
It is wrong to reject Calvinism, Puritans, CBMW and male leadership, and so forth based on SGM.
The aberrant witch hunting crew were not Jeremiah Burroughs or John Owen.
Husband headship with submitted wives do not all equal Carolyn’s sweet syrup.
The great biblical truths of God’s sovereignty and grace, as organized and expressed by Calvin or the WestminsterCF/HeidelbergC, are beautiful, scriptural and to the glory of God…..and CJM is not their divine representative.
Deb, to even subtly equate Calvinism/Calvinistas with SGM as another error to be investigated, is a grave misunderstanding. Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word “Calvinistas?”
CJM and SGM use the bible. There is no problem with the bible. Only with the hearts of control freaks and they use anything they can get.
Please be careful folks. Sound doctrine is very important, and SGM uses some good authors, like it or not.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:35 am
5yearsinPDI,
Perhaps you do not realize that I am drawing a clear distinction between “Calvinists” and “Calvinistas”. I assume that you are in the “Calvinist” camp, and that’s terrific!
Dee and I coined the term “Calvinista” on our blog The Wartburg Watch, and soon we will put up a “definition of terms” page so no one gets confused. The Calvinstas include C.J. Mahaney and any other “New Calvinists” who are taking reformed theology to a new level that does not appear to be what the Bible intends. My primary focus will be on Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Here’s what I truly don’t understand. Why is John Calvin being elevated to a level just below Jesus? At times, Calvin seems to be quoted more and discussed more by reformed Christians than Jesus.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“Why is John Calvin being elevated to a level just below Jesus? At times, Calvin seems to be quoted more and discussed more by Reformed Christians than Jesus.”
Deb…there is a great tension and fragmenting today among the traditionally Reformed, about the role of confessions and theologians and the definition of what Reformed is. Of course the baptism debate has been there since the 1689 Baptist Refomed confession, and today there is the subject of cessationism vs continuation of gifts, the regulative principle (what biblical worship should look like), the sabbath, women deaconesses (traditionally not allowed, but Calvin allowed them,) “two kingdoms” (the role of the church in the civil political sphere) and so much more.
The role of the confessions is hot right now. Westminster California guys such as Scott Clark are pushing a strong return to them such that John Frame (Reformed Seminary) has written lengthy rebuttals about the growing attitude that puts confessions on the level of scripture. They say they don’t, but they do….and sola scriptura becomes scripture plus tradition when Presbys take vows to the Book of Church Order. (I happen to think the Confessions are a great systematic theology of biblical truth and am all for them being used that way. But the BCO is full of man made rules).
So, everybody wants to find somebody to back themselves up with, and you’ll hear them quoting whoever they can to back themselves up. Hey, when the Toronto blessing started people were claiming Jonathan Edwards as their defense to bark like dogs and roll on the floor.
Calvin isn’t actually as primary as you’d think among the old time Reformed IMO, they seem more into confessions. And yeah, you’ll hear them speaking as if the confession is canon. Newer Calvinists like Calvin, well naturally, and I read about a group in England where people were complaining that Piper/Grudem was the canon.
I do think given the way things are you can’t just say “I believe the bible”. Everybody claims that- the liberals, the Arminians, the Calvinists, the dispensationalists, the amillenialists, the pro SGM, the anti SGM, the catholics, the Protestants. At some point you need to have an internal mental framework about how you approach scripture and understand basic truths, and it isn’t bad or wrong to identify with a great scholar or scholars from the past to some degree. That has a certain true humility in it (gag, the word humility pulls my barf triggers unfortunately, I wonder why
)
The great theologian John Murray forced his students to do everything from scripture, not old dead guys and confessions. He is accused by some rigid Reformed of being too much of a biblicist, but I happen to think we must be able to make our case from scripture alone ultimately, not Calvin or Owen or the WCF or Piper or anybody else. To be reformed means you REALLY believe the five solas.
The thing is, no matter who CJ quotes, his polity is unlike any in church history except the pope. He rules from the top and when he speaks ex cathedra (from his apostolic office) he is essentially infallible (they will disagree, but we know its true). His understanding of ordo salutus (how you get saved, irresistable grace and election and regeneration, etc)is Reformed. But nobody in Reformed history carried his dicator abilities, at least not on paper.
Complicated subject and I have to run now, hope that helps a bit. I would look at Jim’s polity posts at the Refuge first if you want to see where CJM is not Reformed. And John Frame is an excellent writer on all this. This 40 + page review might help at the start and end, to grasp the divisions among the Reformed. Doesn’t mention SGM though.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2010Clark.htm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
5years, I do not reject Calvinism, Puritans, or CBMW solely because of SGM. I reject them because of my understanding of scripture (understanding that I see in part and know in part–as we all do)–and because of their fruit. I believe that “sound doctrine” can be an idol.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
After being in an SGM church for 20+ years, I am now attending a new church (Baptist, btw). Not long ago I asked a pastor at the new church where they fall along the continuum of Reformed to Armenian and his reply was that even among the pastors they differ and so they agree to disagree. They believe this issue causes division and so they do not teach from the pulpit one way or another. I can assure you that the basic tenets of the gospel are preached and the messages are very biblical with plenty of life application. I found this response very refreshing.
Personally, I do not have a strong stance on this issue but find myself changing over time (or according to which scriptures I read) which, I think, is fine. The good thing is that we can agree to disagree and still be brothers and sisters in Christ!
This has probably been been said before, but I think we tend to hold too closely to doctrine when we just need to hold closely to Christ. As long as we know Him, we don’t necessarily need to know what we believe on every disputeable issue in the Bible. He will show us if we need to know – and maybe we don’t.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Deb,
“New Calvinists” = “Calvinistas”?
I like that!
I don’t call myself a “Calvinest”. I call myself Reformed. Cuz I was raised Lutheran, and Lutherans are not in agreement with all 5 points of the TULIP. But then I don’t fall into the traditional Lutheran camp either, being a continuationist.
A Baptist Elder once told me that I am an oxymoron.
I aught to start my own Denomination. “Oxymoron’s for Jesus”.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
If my history is correct, Calvin was a proponent of, “Once saved, always saved.” Yet in the SGM world, ones salvation seems to always be in a fragile place. That is if you are not, “Doing well,” concern for one’s, “Soul” and, “Salvation” seem to erupt.
Perhaps everyone is simply left on the unknown list, except for the pastors of course,
and ones, “appearances” simply sways the Pastoral comfort level in acknowledging ones conversion.
It would explain the whole no voice, no vote approach to membership.
Would not want any non-believers driving the SGM direction or polity.
BTW
Would Calvinistas be Pastors who combine their love for Calvin with their need for Barista’s??
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Deb and the other lady,
“young restless reformed” type Calvinists (see the Christianity Today cover article from a year ago or so) like SGM do not “take calvinism to a new level” or “elevate John Calvin to a close second behind Jesus”.
SGMers generally know extremely little about Calvin. They are enamored by the word “doctrine” and the 5 points, and think that makes them reformed. Also, they are not taking calvinism to a new level, but are dragging it to a level where it becomes unrecgnizeable to Calvinist groups that have been around for decades and centuries.
Be careful not to make up your own target to shoot at.
If you feel the desire to follow after thousands of other blogs and bash hyper Calvinism, then SGM is the wrong target. They have other issues. And those are already being talked about here and at Jim’s blog.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
5years said:
Y’know, I was really thinking about this one, and I’d say that I believe a case could be made that CJ’s ordo salutus is NOT traditionally Reformed.
And no, we would not be able to learn this merely from SGM’s/CLC’s statement of faith. What is on paper is “kosher.” It’s how the statement of faith mixes with the practical realities of SGM life that I’m thinking of.
Take, for instance, the way that SGM treats the concept of the “Perseverance of the saints” (the “P” in TULIP). Technically (on paper), SGMers would say they believe that if a person is saved, God will preserve and keep him for all time.
But the practical reality is that SGM pastors are quite ready to question a person’s salvation, even if that person professes “all the right stuff.” If you need hard-and-fast proof of this mentality, read the transcript from Andy Farmer’s The Counseling Process teaching given to pastors last year. You’ll see several statements about how often, in the counseling process, a pastor “may not be sure the member is a believer,” or that the “gospel may have taken hits” in the member’s life. Considering that SGM churches require signing on to SGM’s statement of faith prior to granting membership, and considering that Mr. Farmer was talking about counseling given by pastors to their church members, it seems apparent that Mr. Farmer (and his audience, or he would have felt the need to better explain himself) believes that someone could have been enough of a believer to have been granted church membership, but then – because of how the gospel had “taken hits” – could have lost that believerhood.
Likewise, SGM’s stance on permitting older professing children to be baptized would reflect that they demand a huge “burden of proof” to consider someone a believer. The most recent policy is that a child of, say, 12 or 13, even if he affirms and would appear to be living out church beliefs, cannot be presumed to be saved without some “fruit” from later in his life.
The underyling reasoning here seems to be that anything resembling sinful missteps can mean that a person was “never really saved,” no matter what the person professed or how he lived up to the point of the sinful misstep.
Also, I’d say that CJ/SGM views a very particular type of church participation as eventually necessary for “proof” of salvation/believerhood. This is why so many still-professing former SGMers have found that their SGM pastors and congregations ultimately end up treating them like unbelievers. In the SGMer’s mind, there is an assumption that rejection of SGM equals rejection of Christianity. Or at least, rejection of Christianity done the “right” way.
So, I’d say that SGMers may believe in the various aspects of TULIP in theory, but in practice, they certainly don’t believe that God keeps those who are His. The practical reality also is that while SGMers will TALK about grace, and how salvation comes only through Jesus’ work and not ours, there is totally an element of “works righteousness” that plays out on a daily level. To be deemed a believer in SGM, one must show continual evidence of participation in church life as defined by SGM, and must show continual victory over sin (“sin” also being defined by SGM).
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Unassimilated: From comment #237: “Yet in the SGM world, ones salvation seems to always be in a fragile place.”
How sad…I lived that. And I inflicted that judgment on others.
I am so grateful to be free from it! Isn’t it awesome to be free! To actually be able to make a decision, between Jesus and yourself, where you stand? Isn’t it awesome to just know?
Yet I grieve for those who continue in that sad, desperate place…
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Deb/Dee -
I’d join with Famagusta in urging you to be cautious about making broad generalizations about the “new Calvinism” based upon SGM’s particular take on what it means to be Reformed. SGM’s issues result from a whole host of factors, one of which is CJ’s understanding (and promotion) of Calvinism.
In other words, I fall off on the side of the fence that would say that the “new Calvinism” is not SGM’s problem – rather, it’s SGM’s particular twists on the “new Calvinism,” mixed with SGM’s views on pastoral authority and church governance. SGM’s view of what it means to be Reformed is really more along the lines of hyper-Puritanism.
CJ has been able to gain a foothold among the Reformed Big Dogs (and with organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention) because these people do not really grasp the way that what CJ teaches plays out in the SGM culture…the RBDs do not have a clear understanding of SGM’s polity and SGM’s views on pastoral authority. The RBDs filter all of CJ’s teachings and writings through their own (likely more balanced) assumptions and practices…and assume that CJ is using terms the way that they use terms.
It’s not as dramatic, of course, but the way that CJ/SGM redefines words within the confines of SGM churches is akin to the way that Mormonism will use common Christian terminology, only what they mean when they say “Jesus,” (“Jesus” to Mormons is NOT an equal part of the trinity, is NOT God incarnate, but instead is Satan’s brother) for example, is not actually the same as the Jesus of the Bible.
Again, that’s an extreme example of redefining key terms. SGM does this less dramatically, with less important terms, but they still do it. When they talk about things like the “local church,” or when they speak of “governing by ‘elder’ rule,” the traditional understanding of those phrases is NOT what SGM is really meaning.
But the RBDs don’t know that.
It’s the same with the way that SGM talks about “grace.” And a whole host of other terms and concepts.
It’s little wonder why the Reformed Big Dogs think CJ is singing their song, and why they’ve invited him to join their choir. They just don’t get how different CJ’s song sounds to someone who has been engulfed in the SGM mindset.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Famagusta,
You really do have an unusual moniker! Do you trace your roots back to Cyprus? I’d love to hear the story behind it.
Time flies, doesn’t it? Can you believe the Young, Restless, Reformed article you mentioned was published in September 2006? For those of you who have never read it, here’s the link:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html
If what you say is true about SGM (that they don’t really know much about Calvin), I guess I should be referring to C.J. as a Spurgeonite rather than a Calvinist.
Silly me, I assumed that since Collin Hansen focused on Mahaney and SGM in his Young, Restless, Reformed piece they were true Calvinists.
Here’s the excerpt from the CT article that led me to believe that to be true:
“Later, C. J. Mahaney, a charismatic Calvinist and founding pastor of Covenant Life, took Harris under his wing and groomed him to take over the church. Mahaney, 51, turned Harris on to his hero, Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher in London. Mahaney assigned him a number of texts, such as Iain H. Murray’s Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism.”
I didn’t realize there are thousands of other blogs out there “bashing” hyper-Calvinism. I am, however, aware of many, many blogs promoting reformed theology.
Here’s the bottom line for me. Why are we so hung up on labels, specifically Calvinism or Arminianism? I believe it’s divisive and causing much harm to the body of Christ. Personally, I am a 3 point Calvinist. I do not embrace “limited atonement” or “irrestisble grace”, but I do accept the “T”, “U”, and “P” in TULIP.
My goal at The Wartburg Watch is to discuss a broad array of “faith issues”, ranging from the prosperity gospel to hyper-Calvinism and everywhere in between. Since C.J. Mahaney will be speaking at the Southern Baptist Convention Pastors Conference in June, he is becoming an influence on other denominations. That’s why I’m trying to alert Christians who are unfamiliar with him that they need to be very, very cautious…
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Kris,
I didn’t see your helpful comment before posting my own. Thanks for your insights. I will definitely give this some thought.
I love your term “hyper-Puritanism”! Perhaps that’s the REAL problem with C.J. Mahaney and SGM. They want to take us back to the “good old days”. I have enjoyed this discussion!
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Anytime we base a definition or assumption on a document, I think it’s important to think about where that document came from, and just how authoritative that document might be.
I tend to take Wikipedia articles with more than a grain of salt, as I’ve seen firsthand how subjective the editing can be.
Likewise the Christianity Today article. Just because a couple of reporters described someone like CJ as a Calvinist does not actually make that so. Really, where did those CT reporters get their info? Wouldn’t it likely be from the subjects themselves?
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
What listener said in post #235 was exactly what I would have said had I had the eloquence. Sooo well said!
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Unassimilated said:
“If my history is correct, Calvin was a proponent of, “Once saved, always saved.” Yet in the SGM world, ones salvation seems to always be in a fragile place. That is if you are not, “Doing well,” concern for one’s, “Soul” and, “Salvation” seem to erupt.”
Calvinism teaches a “perserverance of the saints” which is quite different from the “once saved always saved.” I believe Mahaney holds to this “perserverance” doctrine. It is what the “p” stand for in “tulip.”
This “perserverance” doctrine says that if one is a true believer then they will always follow Christ and won’t backslide etc. This doctrine teaches that if a person doesn’t continue following Christ then they were never saved to begin with. Also, since Calvinism teaches that God decides who does and does not come to Christ, it would mean according to this doctrine that these people were never really chosen by Christ for salvation.
The “once saved always saved” means something different. It teaches that if a person comes to Christ and falls away and stops following Christ they are eternally secure.
There is quite a difference in these two.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Let’s look at the practical side of discussing SGM’s theology. As most of us here have experienced, it doesn’t really matter what PDI/SGM’s theology is today because… give them a year or two or a decade or two, and it’s going to change anyway.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Kris said:
“Likewise the Christianity Today article. Just because a couple of reporters described someone like CJ as a Calvinist does not actually make that so. Really, where did those CT reporters get their info? Wouldn’t it likely be from the subjects themselves?”
From my research the term “sovereign grace” (not the name) is another way of saying Calvinism. Like Calvinism teaches, it is saying God is in control of who He does and doesn’t give a saving grace to.
The fact that the group changed their name to this (and we know Mahaney controls the group) certainly indicates that he and thus Sovereign Grace Ministries is Calvinistic.
I myself don’t believe in Calvinism.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Steve,
I think you’ve pointed out an important distinction. It is true that “Perserverance of the saints” is not exactly the same thing as “once saved, always saved.” Calvinists hold, in one form or another, that if someone “falls away” and engages in persistent habitual sin, then they were never a “saint” to begin with.
I believe, though, that it’s also important to remember that in SGM, the issue would be what constitutes “falling away” and what constitutes “habitual persistent sin”. It seems to me like the non-SGM Reformed people I’ve known throughout my life were much more laid back and took a wait-and-see attitude about treating “sinners” as unbelievers. There was a much greater “live and let live” attitude among them – after all, where is GRACE in the practice of deeming someone who is still professing a belief in Christ to be an unbeliever?
How does that square with the concept that God will “preserve” those who are His?
The two things just don’t go together, in my thinking.