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 22nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Unassimilated,
Rofl! Calvinism and Starbucks – The SGM perfect marriage
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Unassimilated, RE. post #237
In my research I find that SGM falls into the “Tests of Genuineness View” on Salvation. That is, they believe “once saved, always saved”, but hold out that the genuineness of your salvation can be tested. Unfortunately, those tests are administered by a rather Pharisaical leadership.
I find this information in an article by Thomas R. Schreiner, at http://www.sbts.edu/documents
It’s a good read. I have heard that Schreiner has published a book on the topic. I have yet to find and read that book.
ALSO, it is my opinion that SGM falls into that category. It is not stated in the article.
Hope that helps.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Defender -
Is the article you reference in 252 called “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal”?
Shreiner’s book on the subject is “The Race Set Before Us – A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance”.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
FSGP,
Yes, and THANKS!
Have you read that book yet?
If so, thoughts?
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Too add a little…I worked with a guy who used to work for P&R publishing. He joked (sort of) that the folks there didn’t consider you a Calvinist unless you were a nine point Calvinist.
He also summed up the suspicious view of perseverance of the saints this way
“Once saved, always saved, if saved” .
As for the discussion about Puritans and the Salem witch trials-I think it provides an excellent warning from church history when authority goes unchecked and into extra biblical tests that are destructive.
I don’t think examining the errors of Reformed/ Calvinistic movements takes away any good the Reformed have brought to church history/ theology. But to ignore their mistakes is to risk repeating them, in my opinion.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Kris, Deb, thx. The presentation of Mark Hanson was overly enamored with a very simplistic concept of what it means to be reformed. Best review I have seen is from Darryl hart, former Westminster Prof. You can find it at: http://oldlife.org/files/2009/02/ntj-104.pdf
He rightly points out that this is nothing more than evangelical piety with 4.5 point decoration borrowed by Calvin, and based on an imaginery Reformed tradition that only goes back as far as to the Puritans. And is selective even there.
Deb, I’m not sure if you now want to debunk “rigid Calvinism” or if you want to transcend Calvinist/Arminian divides. In any case, SGM is not a good case in point. They share their selective imagination of what it means to be “reformed” with a lot of other groups that DON’t suffer from the ugly symptoms we have seen in SGM. So if you want to find fault with them – there’s plenty, but not where you think it is, I guess.
If you want to warn SBCers, however, to dismiss him as “Calvinist” will do. SBC intramural debates are so polarized that there is plenty of livid opposiytion to Calvinism, and the kind of thing that they imagine Calvinism to be is just as limited as it is in CJ’s mind. RT will probably confirm my words.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Kris…..those two long pink ones…yup. Excellent.
One of the things we noticed back in PDI, and this was years ago at one (big) church so I can’t speak for all of them, was the occasional mention from the pulpit- and often from the loyal flock we hung with- was how PDI was doing it right and everybody else was not quite so right. It wasn’t subtle, it was blatant.
Now if you want to talk about what being Reformed means, underneath it is dependency on God. He has to save, He has to draw men to Himself, He has to preserve us. We pray because He has ordained that our prayers are a “means of grace” and He answers petitions. But it is God who does things. We depend on Him.
Now contrast this with charismatic churches where they walk around declaring things and speaking things into being, and binding demons and breaking curses. No petitions to God, no dependency on God, all works, all what we do.
To be fair, there is an ultra conservative wing of the Reformed who will say that as long as they have word and sacrament on Sunday according to the Book of Church Order, they are doing it right. I’ve met that type and they are sterile and don’t seem to pray much or depend on God either.
That is why I don’t think of CJ or SGM as Reformed. No matter what doctrines they espouse about TULIP or anything else, it seemed like they had figured out “what to do” and it was about “doing it right.” The really frustrating thing was that doing it right would change drastically in some area and everybody had to step into line, but the prayer for God to move just wasn’t there (with a few exceptions).
Being Reformed isn’t being a Catholic with a list of sacraments and obligations you have to do. It is about faith in Jesus and what He has done, and total dependency on Him alone. CJ is so Popish and SGM so works centered that it is hard to think of them as Reformed. Yeah we have to obey the bible, of course, but PDI had it figured out how you are supposed to do all kinds of extra biblical stuff their way. From babies to small groups to school to marriage to leadership.
I guess I am rambling. I believe doctrine matters enormously, because how you think about God and life will make a huge difference when you pray and when you go through trials. You can understand sovereignty and have rest and hope, or spend the day rebuking demons. You can rely on your brilliant persuasive powers to win somebody to the Lord, or fast and pray knowing God must draw them. Doctrine matters.
CJ and SGM appear doctrinally reformed. They assent to the 5 solas and salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and TULIP, and sovereignty, and I guess Covenantal theology (as opposed to dispensationalism).
But if you miss prayerful dependency on God, you miss the whole foundation. You can’t have a foundation of human works “doing it right” and try to slap all the Reformed doctrine on top. It makes a mockery of the whole truth of God working.
change of subject….My husband observed recently that when you have loving kind caring pastors, almost any polity works. But if you have control freaks, whether you are congregational or Presbyterian or an SGM dictatorship, it leads to oppression and misery. I am not so sure that changing SGM’s polity would help at this point. Until CJ is totally and completely banished, and every other control freak, the misery will go on.
By the way, a lot of you people are in my prayers. We are so happy in our current church but it sure takes time to get over bad experiences. Remember that God has a future and a hope for us all, a place in His body. And even SGM’s sin and demons will be made to serve His kingdom purposes for us.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Musicman said:
“But to ignore their mistakes is to risk repeating them, in my opinion.”
MM,
It’s so wonderful to be understood! That’s exactly what I was trying to say about the Puritans. Some of their leaders weren’t as “pure” as 21st century Puritan proponents would have us believe.
The Salem witch trials stand as a testament to their sinfulness (the leaders’ sin, not the so-called “witches”). Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it!
Since Dee grew up in Salem, Massachusetts and studied the Puritans extensively during her schooling there, she plans to teach us some very important Puritan history at The Wartburg Watch. I was shocked by what she shared with me on the Puritans. It should prove to be a very interesting (and timely) topic of discussion…
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
5yearsinPDI,
Your comment #256 was extremely helpful to me. I am beginning to get a much better grasp on SGM. I especially appreciated the contrast you described between SGM’s so-called reformed theology (God’s sovereignty) and the charismatic aspect of SGM. Thanks for pointing this out. They do seem to be in direct conflict. A strange combination…
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Puritan bashing? Oh please… there are no easier exercises in blogging. I remember a Saab TV ad a few years ago, presenting the new convertible as luxurious, innovative, daring – and Puritans as boring, oppressive and oppressed. In the end, the spot askes the viewer “aren’t you glad you’re not a Puritan? Aren’t you glad that you too can buy the new Saab convertible?”
There are much more productive causes to take up with regard to SGM.
To be honest: I don’t know why this blog is being used as a platform for others to ride hobby horses that are only remotely related to SGM’s problems. That’s the kind of thing that makes this unreadable for me at times and ultimately harms its credibility.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Hi, Phil…
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
I don’t know that I’m always comfortable with every rabbit trail here. I know I’m not comfortable with sweeping condemnations of whole schools of thought. But, I also know that we’re all at different places in what we’ve learned, and I know that we can sometimes learn from each other just by talking about it.
Plus, if I had a dime for how many times people have chastised me about this site’s “credibility,” I’d be rich by now. It’s just not something I spend a whole lot of time caring about – the site is what it is, brought to you by the willingness of all our commenters to weigh in as they see fit.
Just like you just did.
But – I do agree with you that the Puritans make an easy target. However, I think it’s a useful distinction to make, between Calvinism and Puritanism, in any discussion about SGM and their warped ideas about being Reformed.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Defender -
I have not read the book yet but had a good intro to it via Google Books. The article you mention appears to be a good synopsis of the book. I agree with your assessment, BTW.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Phil-
I hear you-the Puritans seem an easy punch line. But I’m not talking about the lazy minded thinking that equates anyone who stands for a Godly standard being a Puritan.
I don’t believe that to be a fair picture of the Puritans.
I’ve never seen the Saab commercial, but I was in PDI/SGM when all things Puritan became the rage. The Puritans made an indelible mark on the Western church, some good, some bad. Ask the Brits if they would ever want to live again in Cromwell’s England. I believe many scholars of English history consider it the low point in the wars over the Church of England.
All that to say, SGM has held up the Puritans and their thinking towards the Christian life as a model, without telling the whole story of some of the fruit that was born out of their teaching and theology.
Does it mean all Reformed theology is wrong-I don’t think that’s true. But it is a cautionary tale to those that would so emphasize certain Calvinistic teachings, to the neglect of the plain teachings of the New Testament. I believe Spurgeon preached against this and labeled it Hyper-Calvinism (he had been labeled as being not Calvinistic enough by some of his detractors.) Spurgeon, who I think once called himself the last Puritan preacher, was not afraid to offer criticism to his own doctrinal leanings-why should we?
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Deb-
Thanks…I’m looking forward to hearing what you have to say about the trials.
Some things that escaped my notice until recently are:
1. The only people who suffered the death penalty were those who protested their innocence. It strikes me that I experienced a similar mindset in SG. One that says, if we (the authorities) think you’re guilty-then you must be guilty. To protest you’re innocence is just proof of your willful disobedience to God’s authorities and lack of trust in his leaders in your life.
Even odder to me is that anyone who had confessed to witchcraft (in Salem), was spared and considered to be repentant and restored to the church. So there was a huge incentive to make a confession and point the finger to someone else…..
2. It hadn’t occurred to me before that the Puritans (even their clergy) bought and owned slaves-it was Minister Paris’s slave that was 1 of the first 3 women accused of witchcraft. I know it’s not the main point of the witch trial period-but I wonder how we are to reconcile the racist and unjust practice of slavery when thinking about the Puritans as a movement. It seems to be a blind spot to me and most of their concern seemed to be very Nationalistic (English Puritans) or given to Exceptionalism (New England)…
Anyway-sorry to ramble on-just a few thoughts stirred by this conversation.
peace-mm
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:38 am
Those interested in the negative aspects of the “young, restless, Reformed” movement and its contrasts to the “older Calvinism” may be interested in this article by Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-nameless-one.php. Some of the negative aspects he writes about include cults of personality and the influence of conferences and megachurches.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 am
Kris,
What if you had a dime for every email you recieved behind the scenes of Survivors…..
Wanna go shopping?
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:29 am
Amanda,
The article by Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary has to be one of the best I’ve ever read on the “New Calvinists”. Thank you for pointing us in that direction. I highly encourage everyone to read it.
Here’s the link again: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-nameless-one.php
I found the following excerpts from Carl Trueman’s article to be thought-provoking:
“…history is littered with the serious human wreckage caused when good Christian people start worshipping the messenger rather than the one to whom the message refers. A cultic devotion to a leader, combined with the kind of authority structures which churches necessarily have in order to function as churches, can prove a sometimes deadly, and always a painful, mix.”
“I worry that a movement built on megachurches, megaconferences, and megaleaders, does the church a disservice in one very important way that is often missed amid all the pizzazz and excitement: it creates the idea that church life is always going to be big, loud, and exhilarating and thus gives church members and ministerial candidates unrealistic expectations of the normal Christian life.”
“Ultimately, only the long term will show if the YRR movement has genuinely orthodox backbone and stamina, whether it is inextricably and inseparably linked to uniquely talented leaders, and whether ‘Calvinism is cool’ is just one more sales pitch in the religious section of the cultural department store.”
According to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals website
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID559376_CIID1936766,00.html
“Carl Trueman is an Alliance Council member and Professor of Historical Theology and Church History and Academic Dean/Vice President for Academic Affairs at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has an M.A. in Classics from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in Church History from the University of Aberdeen.”
C.J. Mahaney is proud of his affiliation with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. This will be interesting to follow…
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:13 am
Musicman -
You said,
I remember back when we were discussing aspects of what happened to Noel and her family. The one thing that almost nobody could wrap their thoughts around was how strange the pastors’ reactions were.
The person who garnered the pastors’ sympathy – to the point where a year or two later, they actual lobbied Noel to help the “boy” get this incident stricken from his legal record – was the perpetrator. Noel and her family (the victims), on the other hand, were treated with an odd mixture of brusqueness, annoyance, and scrutiny. The pastors seemed hyper-sensitive to anything Noel might say that would seem to show that she hadn’t quickly forgiven the perp. Anything having to do with seeking legal justice was viewed as evidence that Noel hadn’t forgiven and wasn’t wanting to move on and return back to normal church life.
In light of what happened to Noel’s toddler, the pastors’ responses were pretty staggeringly bizarre. Again and again, we’d come back to why. Why in the world would they have sided with the perpetrator rather than the victims, especially in a case where guilt was admitted, and the crime was so heinous?
I can’t remember anymore who it was who finally shed light on the pastors’ odd mindset, but one day someone pointed out that in SGM, “humility” is valued above all else. And “humility” (to the minds of SGM pastors) is marked by freely accepting and discussing one’s “worst sinner” status, as well as quickly agreeing with one’s authority figures in whatever their assessments of one might be.
In the dynamic of victim and perpetrator, it is suddenly obvious that the “worst sinner” status quite naturally belongs to the perp. Just the act of standing up and decrying the perp’s behavior – and the act of standing up and seeking justice – sets the victim up as someone who is turning the focus away from his or her own sins and sinfulness in the moment, and is instead focusing on the sins of another person (the perp).
This was one of those “Aha!” moments for me, because we see this dynamic at play every single time someone not in SGM leadership attempts to direct attention to wrongdoings or problems that are primarily the responsibility of someone else. We also see this dynamic when someone protests his or her pastor’s assessment of his or her sin. That is one of the reasons why issues of church discipline can arise in counseling situations – if the pastor becomes convinced that the counselee’s own sin is causing the problem, then there is no other choice for the counselee but to agree with the pastor. To do otherwise will simply validate the pastor’s assessment, since in SGM it is a sin not to submit to one’s authorities. If a pastor declares a person’s sin, that person will only sin further if he does not agree with his pastor, since the act of disagreeing with one’s authority figure is sin.
In SGM, there is simply no room for “innocent victims.” Likewise, there is no room for fighting against a pastor’s diagnosis of being “less than innocent.” You can see the thinking behind this mentality in the little talk CJ gave about Conflicts and Cravings. Anytime there’s a conflict, the thinking goes, there have to be “sinful cravings” present in BOTH parties. There’s never a time when one person is essentially wrong and the other person is essentially right.
For the essentially right person to argue otherwise simply provides his pastor with “proof” of his sin.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 am
Deb and I have been studying trends for a number of years before beginning our foray into blogdom. Our purpose is not only to discuss issues that we see in the here and now but issues that we predict are on the ascendancy.If you go to various websites in SGM, the Calvinista crowd(to be distinguished from Calvinists with whom we have no issue) and other wannabes, you will find that the Puritans are the latest cool” group to read and study. Betcha anything that the books on sale in SG may begin to include Puritans.
Anyway, Philip, we do not to highjack the discussion, only give fair warning that we “prophesy” that this will be the next hottest topic amongst the “assimilated” and that it might be wise to verse yourself on the subject.And by verse yourself, we mean to become aware of both sides of the issue.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:02 am
Actually, Dee, Puritan authors have been on SGM’s “hot” reading list for many years. You’ll note that in the Christianity Today article from 2006, Josh Harris apparently shared with the reporters how part of his mentoring relationship with CJ involved CJ’s turning him on to the Puritans.
I personally have enjoyed reading some of the Puritans’ stuff, particularly their poetry. (I taught an American Lit class for several years.) But I remember feeling downright uncomfortable when a member of our SGM care group read a Puritan poem as part of sharing her testimony. Her voice was cracking throughout the whole reading, and at points she was openly weeping as she quaveringly read lines about “my great sinfulness” and such. I no longer remember the exact author – I want to say it might have been Anne Bradstreet – but I was sitting there thinking that of all the author’s works this gal could have quoted, she chose the saddest, most grim, most navel-gazing and sin-obsessed poem of them all…the one with the least amount of joy and peace.
It just seemed so sad to me that such a “downer” of a poem could have been such a significant part of someone’s testimony…when Christ paid such a huge price to buy our victory and our freedom and our joy and our peace.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 am
CLC has been adoring Puritans for a LONG time now. When my kid was dedicated as a baby at CLC in 2000, the pastors gave us a Puritan pamphlet on childrearing. One of the meeting rooms at CLC is named after Jonathan Edwards (“The Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” Puritan preacher). There’s also a Spurgeon room.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 am
So, you “predict the ascendancy” of a “Puritan trend” in SGM churches based on “studying trends for a number of years “. Wow. Thanks for alerting me to the past, ahm… future.
Btw., what was the topic, again?
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Phil-
Why the condescension?
To answer your question, go back to the the top of the page, read “Show Me the Money” and then click on comments to read the non-linear free flowing thoughts of those who cared to comment on the article or comment on each others comments.
That way you can know the topic and not be so lost…hope that helps.
mm
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:58 am
Phil,
It seems we have struck a nerve…
Why did the comments suddenly shift to the Puritans? Oh yes, now I remember…
Back at comment #200 a certain SGM proponent named “info” made a false accusation that brought to mind the atrocities that occurred during the Puritan’s heyday.
info said:
“A, thanks for showing in pictures how I feel about this site along with SGM Rejects and Wartberg Witches.”
If info hadn’t referred to Dee and me as “witches” we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It just goes to show that history often repeats itself…
In hindsight I believe info’s remark is a clear example of God’s sovereignty. I’ll get off the topic here, but over at The Wartburg Watch we plan to research and report on the parallels we are discovering between the Puritans and SGM. It should be interesting, at least for some.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I’ve been thinking about some of the SGM defenders who have been posting here lately. Take Chuck, for example.
Apparently Chuck’s inculcation in SGM ideology is so strong that he is unable to see the forest for the trees. All he does is make little nit-picky remarks instead of attempting to grasp the big picture.
Why doesn’t he care about the victims?
Why is he only concerned with the nuances?
Has he read the site?
Is he insane?
Yet these SGM’ers are supposed to be the good Christians, right? They’re supposed to care about the abuses of others, aren’t they?
But they don’t care.
SGM constantly harps on sin. Their leaders are always preaching about the sinfulness of the people. But apparently, in their minds, they are the only ones allowed to point out sin. Fact is, they don’t like anyone shining a light on their corruption.
Seriously, when you meet these people and live among them like I did for so long, you discover that they are not nice people. They hold others that disagree with them in contempt. They are vindictive toward anyone who dares challenge them. The leadership creates hostilities by acting in bad faith – which they love to gloss over and cover-up. They all seem really nice on the surface – but then you get to know them. They’re definitely a different breed.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Kris – post #268 was absolutely dynamic!
SGM has created a firewall for truth and accuracy and they don’t accept any other perspective other than their own.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
The problem with SGM is there’s no accountability. If SGM doesn’t want to talk about something, they don’t have to talk about it. I would be interested in knowing if any SGM members have tried to discuss what is being said on these blogs with any of their leaders. My guess is SGM won’t discuss it – at all. And no one can make them!
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Claireon,
I’ve actually received NUMEROUS reports from people who have talked about the blogs with their SGM pastors. Some wrote to assure me that their pastors were different, very accommodating to them and willing to listen and dialog.
Others have shared that their pastors basically blew them off, saying that “those blogs” were unreliable, presented a false picture, misrepresented various stories, and the usual things that SGM defenders say when confronted with their organization’s wrongdoings.
So, I’d say that at least part of the time, SGM pastors have been willing to talk about “those blogs.” And of course, recently SGM has instructed its leaders to demonstrate a new “humble openness” in these conversations, so that people will come away satisfied that their concerns had been heard.
(Key to this, though, is that it’s all about giving people a sense that their concerns had been heard…and not so much about actually changing anything.)
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Clarion,
Your description in #275 is spot on!
Reminds me of another description I became familiar with while we were going through our SGM ………….. stuff.
From 2 Tim 3:
(NASB)
Keith Jacob was a perfect match for that entire description, and Steve Shank was on the way to fitting that , but we left before Steve could finish his “interview”.
On the Puritan topic: It was 1994 when I was new to PDI, and I approached Benny Phillips and asked his advice on good books I could read to enhance my personal growth & faith. To Benny’s credit, he advised me to start with “The Holiness of God” by R.C. Sproul. I’ve been a Sproul fan ever since.
After that, I picked up a copy of “Sin & Temptation” by John Owen. Now that one was all the rage at that time. So I read it, and enjoyed it, but I noticed that over the years only selected quotes were used in calling everyone to “kill your sin! kill your sin!” I was baffled at that, because I can quote a balance of paragraphs in that book that confirm that it is the grace and mercy of God that only the Holy Spirit can lead us to “Mortify our Sin.” (As per John Owen.)
These SGM leaders pick & choose in accordance with their inclinations as described in the 2 Tim reference above.
I have a number of Puritan books from the Fairfax Covenant Bookstore. They are great books written by MEN. Men who are sinners.
I think the Puritans were well intentioned, but went wrong when they came to believe that they had the “formula” for Godly living. (Pride masked as humility.) SGM wants to emulate that, and by golly they are!
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Amanda, that Carl Truman article was great! Thank you so much! It is obvious to anybody with even a cursory exposure to SGM that it is a personality cult more than a Reformed denomination (oops, family of churches.)
Deb- be very, very careful. Two of the best books ever written IMO are by (British) Puritans….Burroughs- The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, and Owen- Sin and Temptation.
Puritans came to the new world to escape persecution, and their kids inherited lush and seemingly endless timber, furs, and seas full of fish. The next generation prospers and turns away from truth and goes witch hunting. The story of the ages.
By the time Edwards pastored during the great awakening (1730-1745), he was eventually kicked out of his pastorate for insisting that you had to be saved to take communion. (well duh…but back then all that mattered was church membership, not conversion.) Owen wrote in the mid 1600s and in less than 100 years things had changed so much, to the point of heresy.
If you lump all the Puritans together you are gonna shoot yourself in the foot and lose all credibility with anybody who has read the good ones. By the way Edwards is a good guy, who knew and preached the love and mercy of God like few others. Don’t drink the koolaid that he was something else. He preached the wrath of God at times to save sinners who ARE on the way to hell, and he saw one of the greatest revivals in history. Please be careful. I am not sure that you have the theological historical knowledge to really sort through this adequately right now. Just my opinion. SGM is NOT the pious Puritans.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
5yearsinPDI,
Thanks for the info! I look forward to reading Owen’s book, and I really love your insights.
I believe your remark about the generations of Puritans is extremely important. Here’s a modern day example of something similar.
I learned while working in the trust department of a large bank that there are usually three generations in wealthy families. Here’s how it goes…
The first generation makes the money, the second generations enjoys it, and the third generation blows it.
Now, this is not universally true, but it happens more times than not. It sounds like the Puritans who came to escape persecution didn’t do a very good job of passing down their faith to their grandchildren. It’s a lesson all of us should remember.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Deb, and everyone else, if you really, really want to know who the Puritans were and what Puritanism, in all its breadth, was, I recommend you take a hiatus from sketchy online “research” and tales from high school textbook, and from drawing your inspiration on the topic from blog comments on SGM and read a few summary works instead. Here’s one evangelical and one secular one, for starters. Still classics.
Then blog again, and I promise your readers will be well served.
http://www.amazon.com/Worldly-Saints-Leland-Ryken/dp/0310325013
http://www.amazon.com/New-England-Mind-Seventeenth-Century/dp/0674613066/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266955811&sr=1-3
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Hey Kris, that’s so interesting (post #278). I guess it all boils down to how people approach their SGM pastor about the blogs. If they’re a SGM fan, then approaching their pastor probably leads to: “Yeah, we’re all sinners, there will always be those who disagree, and SGM isn’t for everyone…” Yada yada. Smile, laugh, and share a knowing look. No big deal.
It’s kinda like talking about your favorite sports team with another diehard fan. Everybody gets down in the mouth about the team now and then, but you both know it’s the bees’ knees.
But try discussing specific scriptural infractions and I’m sure the Pastor’s eyes would glaze over. He might appear to listen, but if you’re a regular member and haven’t been through the Pastor’s College, what right do you have to talk about such things? It’s not like the leaders are accountable to the members in any way.
An SGM’er knows that when they approach a pastor to discuss anything, they need to be receptive to what he says. Don’t question his judgment because you don’t want to make him unhappy, nor not be a joy to pastor. As CJ emphasizes, “…this would be unprofitable for you.”
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Hi Defender! and thanks
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Phil,
I am curious what brings you here to read.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Phil,
I appreciate your great concern for my “correct” understanding of the Puritans, and I’m going to track down the two books you mentioned and read them. Historical accuracy is extremely important to me.
As far as your comment about learning from “a high school text book”, Dee (who is my colleague over at The Wartburg Watch) studied the historic documents when she was growing up in Salem. She saw and read the actual records of the witch trials when she was in high school. Now they are off limits in order to preserve them. She’ll explain all this when she writes about what happened during the Salem Witch Trials. I can assure you that what she will discuss didn’t come from a “high school text book”.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Kris,
a sufficiently long personal history that leads me to hope for this blog. I am normally just reading and have been so pretty much from the beginning, off and on, and am grateful for your work.
It’s only the occassional bandwaggon-jumpers that get me going enough to write. (There was another lady here a year ago who also had never set foot into an SGM church, harping on how SGM was like the Amish church or so… e.g.) Mere concern for an elitist view of history, so to speak…
But hey, the world needs ever more hobby historians investigating the Salem witch trials yet again.
Alright. And now I’ll be silent, this will probably help the conversation to be directed on actual SGM matters from actual people who actually are personally affected by its problems. And that’s why I read here, in the first place. Godspeed!
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Deb…yup.
The early Puritans oozed mercy. The first ones here out of necessity had a strict covenantal authority. They were trying to just survive in the new world. A few generations later, well, burn the lady with the nice farm. Hey, I got saved in the great charismatic Jesus revival of the 70s and it didn’t take long for the money loving control freaks to sink their claws in. But look at Corinth, Galatia, the bad churches in Revelation. We all need to be devoted to intercession!
Phil, thanks, hope to read them myself.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Phil — I’d be interested to hear what your history is with SGM. Do you currently attend or have you in the past?
/a sufficiently long personal history that leads me to hope for this blog./
I’m wondering what you mean by “hope for this blog.” Could you elaborate?
It’s curious to me that you seem to want to direct the conversation here. I have a blog, too — that I don’t link to here for various reasons — and it’s always baffling me, in my years of blogging, when people criticize a blog if the content or conversation suddenly isn’t to their liking. Conversations ebb and flow and take turns in various directions, not all of which will be appealing to everybody. But this need to correct it or redirect it — it’s strange to me. Forgive me, but there’s a bit of a presumption there that every conversation on a blog needs to be a custom-fit to the reader. I tell my readers I don’t do requests unless, uhm, they suck up to me real good and tell me I’m purty.
Phil, if this conversation were happening in person, would you still walk into the middle of it and ask people to change the subject or why they’re talking about a given topic? Maybe not every thread is interesting to you, but may I gently suggest it’s not all about you?
(Sorry, Kris. As a long-time blogger — as you know, haha — this kind of thing chaps my hide.)
/But hey, the world needs ever more hobby historians investigating the Salem witch trials yet again./
And, Phil, is that really necessary? Why can’t Deb and Dee be free to explore whatever they’re interested in without a stranger condescending to that interest? Perhaps you might consider giving the commenters here a little more freedom to live lives and have interests different from yours and to discuss things that don’t necessarily interest you in particular.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Clarieon,
You posted a few queries about me, let me answer them in order:
Why doesn’t he care about the victims?
I do. Careing for the victims of real abuse and disagreeing with most of what the folks here post aren’t mutually exclusive. I can and do both.
Why is he only concerned with the nuances?
I’m concerned with far more than nuances. I know that I can be abrasive, but if you’ve read all of my posts you should see that my concerns about what goes on here are specific and genuine. I’ve just grown weary of arguing.
Has he read the site?
Nearly every post since before my first comment here.
Is he insane?
Ad hominum. I didn’t expect that from you. I disagree therefore I must be insane.
Chuck
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Show me the money…..
All of my puritan books made it safely to the dumpster. Every last one of them. I just couldn’t do this “study” stuff on any other christian, because of the way I was treated and still am treated by Sovereign grace Ministries. Yes, I know I am vague Phill, some accuse me of throwing the baby out with the bath water, but what they don’t know is that the baby was already dead. Some accuse me of “walking away from the faith”, or even of being an unbeliever and there for deserving the harsh accusations, threats from God, and instant disfellowship from family and life long friends…some even farther back then the 22 some odd years I spent in Sovereign Grace Ministries.
I just struggle now to read one book that really matters, all the rest are some rotten sinners interpretations…My X Sovereign Grace Pastor dealt himself quite the hand, his cards were fixed, he is definately in it for the MONEY…or out of it soon with the money…either way…it was rigged.
Load your book shelves, build a library, there is no budget for books recommended by CJ, Josh, John Piper and the likes, oh yeah, and I had them all in the end its all just recycling materials…except for John Eldredge..after all I’ve been through from the merciless hands of the leadership of Sovereign grace ministries…(I’m still being vague here…) page 182…I was kneeling in the shallow water, and as I looked down my eye fell upon one small stone in particular, as if it were some how illuminated, which is not quite right because it was one of the darker stones in the mosaic, almost black, so it could not have stood out for its brightness. But those of you who have had this experience will know what I mean, when in a crowd of people one face stands out to you almost to say look at me, or when you are reading a passage and one sentence causes you to stop and linger while all the rest of the pages fades into the background but for that phrase. The stone was in the shape of a heart…A kiss from God. A love note. I was being romanced….
I made it out alive…
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Little a,
I like John Eldredge too.
“A kiss from God…” How lovely.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Chuck, I’m glad to know you care and that you have a heart. Not sure if your kidneys are intact though.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Renee, my “liking is not important here, and you don’t know what I would “like”. And, yes, I would interject in person as well if such obvious freedom from any sense continues to be presented with such a startling self-confidence in one’s own supposed abilities.
Just remember the lady who came to tell us of her startling revelation based also on “internet research” that SGM was just like the Amish… that kind of thing is nonsense, period, and the product of minds who have become too dependent on Google to explain the world around them.
In this case, I know I’m not the only one interjecting though, btw., Im just the only one who has done it publicly.
Kris can give you my e-mail for any further conversation. After all, I said I’d shut up.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 pm
a ~
I appreciate what you shared.
When I got saved, I knew it was Jesus Christ who saved me. I fell in love with the Lord, who delivered me from all my sins. I knew that In Him I was free and totally accepted.
In my quest to live wholeheartedly for God, I easily embraced other Christians and the things I was being taught in the fellowship groups I participated in. I thought I was safe in the church – that it was a refuge from the world – and that the leaders could be trusted. I should have been guarded. I was naive and gullible.
I’m so glad you’re not in SGM anymore, and I’m glad you’re seeking His face. Reminds me of Psalm 27.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Phil, I don’t think anyone minds you interjecting. I know I don’t. You seem like an interesting and thoughtful guy, albeit a bit cynical. We’re all in the process of hashing things out. That’s part of the therapy. Be gentle or we’ll send the Amish after you. And that won’t be pretty. Because they don’t wear make-up.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Phil — Thank you for your offer, but I don’t think I need your email. I have a feeling we’re on different wavelengths — which is fine — and I’m having a hard enough time trying to process my own very recent and rotten experience at SGM.
I’m not sure you entirely understood what I was trying to say and I don’t have the reserves right now to make further effort.
But God bless.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:05 am
God bless, renee. I have been in SGM a sufficiently long time to make sense of some of the stories told here. Travel safe.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Phil,
Are you in the “South”?? Or can anyone answer this geological question??
Do tell your mamma and tem’ I said Huller….
February 24th, 2010 at 9:44 am
a, I love your,”I made it out alive!”
Yippee!
That reminds me of the song HE’S ALIVE!!!!
written by Don Francisco—very appropriate this Easter season.
The gates and doors were barred
and all the windows fastened down
I spent the night in sleeplessness
and rose at every sound
half in hopeless sorrow
and half in fear the day
would find the soldiers breaking through
to drag us all away
just before the sunrise
I heard something at the wall
the gate began to rattle
and the voice began to call
I hurried to the window -
looked down into the street
expecting swords and torches
and the sound of soldiers’ feet
there was no one there but Mary
and so I went down to let her in
John stood there beside me
as she told us where she’d been
she said, “they moved Him in the night
and none of us knows where.
the stone’s rolled away,
and now His body isn’t there.”
we both ran toward the garden
then John ran on ahead
we found the stone at the empty tomb
just the way that Mary said
but the winding sheet they wrapped Him in
was just an empty shell
and how or where they’d taken Him
was more than I could tell
something strange had happened there
but just what I didn’t know
John believed a miracle
but I just turned to go
circumstance and speculation
couldn’t lift me very high
cause I’d seen them crucify Him
and then I saw Him die
back inside the house again
the guilt and anguish came
everything I’d promised Him
just added to my shame
when at last it came to choices
I denied I knew His name
I denied I knew His name
and even if He was alive
it wouldn’t be the same
suddenly the air was filled
with strange and sweet perfume
light, it came from everywhere
drove shadows from the room
Jesus stood before me
with His arms held open wide
and I fell down on my knees
and just clung to Him and cried
He raised me to my feet
and as I looked into His eyes
love was shining out from Him
like sunlight from the skies
guilt and my confusion
disappeared in sweet release
every fear I’ve ever had
just melted into peace
HE’S ALIVE, HE’S ALIVE
HE’S ALIVE AND I’M FORGIVEN
HEAVEN’S GATES ARE OPEN WIDE
HE’S ALIVE, HE’S ALIVE
HE’S ALIVE AND I’M FORGIVEN
HEAVEN’S GATES ARE OPEN WIDE
HE’S ALIVE, HE’S ALIVE
HE’S ALIVE AND I’M FORGIVEN
HEAVEN’S GATES ARE OPEN WIDE
HE’S ALIVE, HE’S ALIVE
HE’S ALIVE AND I’M FORGIVEN
HEAVEN’S GATES ARE OPEN WIDE
HE’S ALIVE,
HE’S ALIVE,
HE’S ALIVE,
HE’S ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!