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 24th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Hello all!
To be honest, I didn’t read all of the posts, so I apologize in advance if these points have already been made. As someone who has been involved in both the SBC and SGM, there are a few things that I wanted to add:
1) Re: #96 (Chad): “I thought that to be a pretty strong accusation of Mohler, a man who brought the SBC from complete destruction, to life.” Mohler was instrumental, but he was by no means the only person involved in the conservative resurgence of the early 90′s. Paige Patterson, Charles Stanley, and Adrian Rogers were just a few of the men who involved in turning around the convention-and they do not necessarily share the same Reformed views of Dr. Mohler.
2) Just because John MacArthur speaks at the same conference as CJ or Mohler, that does not mean that they have the same pneumatological views. I would think that (as a Reformed theologian) MacArthur would put more faith in the sovereignty of God than in CJ’s influence. Or, as my grandfather would say, “Even a horse can eat hay and leave the briers alone.”
3) I’m wondering if the $ contributions are intended to pave the way towards some type of partnership between the SBC and SGM. I cannot believe that anyone would honestly say that the educational experience at PC would be superior to what someone would receive at SBTS. However, non-SBC students must pay substantially higher tuition rates (410/credit hour vs 205/credit hour for MDiv). This is because the tuition of an SBC student is heavily subsidized by the Cooperative Program. If there were some kind of partnership, PC students could theoretically receive a degree (or at least attend classes) at the lower rate. Maybe SGM wants to “outsource” the theology classes to SBTS…I don’t know, just thinking out loud.
If (as some have speculated) Mohler wants to bring SGM’s polity to the SBC, he’s going to have a fight on his hands. The Reformed view is still somewhat of a minority view in the Convention, but the idea of church autonomy is an almost universal view. I pray that any attempt to bring that kind of polity to the SBC fails.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
5solas4me, I agree!
I have lots of SBC friends, and that’s definitely the sentiment among them.
(How’d ya like that “formattin,” Kris?)
February 25th, 2010 at 7:40 am
5solas said,
You bring up an interesting point. (All of your comment #301 was good, actually.) It’s possible for conference speakers to share the same stage while holding differing views on the Holy Spirit.
However, considering what a dividing line the traditional Charismatic stance on “the gifts” creates, and considering John MacArthur’s book Charismatic Chaos, I think it is highly unlikely that MacArthur would join forces with CJ for anything if he thought that CJ’s church organization was still the wildly Charismatic place that it had been in the 1990s.
In fact, I really doubt MacArthur had even the remotest idea of what PDI/CLC had been like. By the time CJ was getting “together for the gospel” with these Reformed Big Dogs, things had changed dramatically…and it wasn’t the RBDs who moved.
If you think about it, isn’t it interesting that there’s virtually NOTHING in CJ’s books – the books that launched him into his relationships with the RBDs – that would indicate he believes anything similar to what the Charismatics teach about the Holy Spirit? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think CJ mentions his “prayer language” or anything about “prophecy” or ANY of the things that set apart Charismatics from the rest of Christianity. Nobody would ever guess, just from a reading of Humility: True Greatness, that CJ took a continuationist stance on “the gifts.”
And, it’s awfully hinky to me that SGM quietly introduced a new position on the “baptisim in the Holy Spirit” right around the time that CJ was attempting to become one of the RBDs.
All signs would point to RBDs like MacArthur being relatively clueless about SGM’s Charismatic past. MacArthur would NEVER share a stage with the likes of Benny Hinn. And one of the weaknesses of Charismatic Chaos is that MacArthur makes absolutely no distinction between the really “out there” Charismatics like Hinn versus the more “respectable” Charismatics. He paints with a broad brush and condemns them all.
Which leads me to believe that he could not possibly have believed that CJ’s Charismaticism was very important to him. And judging from how SGM tried to tone things down with the new position paper and CJ’s complete failure to mention anything continuationist in his books, outsiders would NEVER be able to tell that traditionally Charismatic stuff matters to SGM.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:10 am
And isn’t it nice how others have embraced Mahaney. Welcomed him. Extended fellowship to him. Included him.
I’d like to see a list of guest speakers at SGM.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Well, I’ll start the list, while I was at CLC, we had guest speakers like
- Elizabeth Elliot
- John Piper
- the guy from Peacemakers
- R C Sproul
- J I Packer
- that single woman who knows everything about marriage and the right way to treat a husband (I knew it all too before I was married–and the right way to raise kids to boot).
February 25th, 2010 at 11:35 am
When my kids were young I told them what to do. I knew as children they needed to be trained what to do, how to do it, and how to think about doing it.
As they got older they naturally began to do more and more things on their own. I’ve had to trust my training would serve them well, and then stand back and watch them work things out on their own.
As a baby Christian I was keen on learning all I could so I could grow as best I could. When others explained how I should live and what I should do, I was easily receptive to all their advice and counsel. I was hardworking and ambitious in my pursuit of godliness.
SGM was appealing to me because I felt it was a good place to realize my ambitions. I certainly wanted my homelife to reflect my love for God, and for it to be a good base for my children to be launched from into the world.
I didn’t believe my ambitions were selfish ones. I truly believed that my desire was to serve the Lord to the best of my ability, and that within the church we were to support and encourage one another in the process.
What happened in SGM, however, was that I kept encountering a different kind of ambition in people. Rather than receiving encouragement I encountered competition. Instead of being equipped I was controlled. The emphasis was on conformity rather than on unity.
As I have been reassessing a lot of my ingrained assumptions about many of my heretofore “biblical” beliefs, I’ve come to the conclusion that people certainly have the freedom to make choices. And as we grow and mature, those choices are best processed within an atmosphere of love and grace rather than one of legalistic dogmatism.
Take the issue of female subordination. Whenever I read the Bible, I never came away with the impression that I was a “subordinate” within the church or within the home. I knew the NT well enough to know that we all have gifts, that God gave us His gifts without partiality, that we are all living stones who make a contribution.
But the whole teaching of female subordination within the home and the church was so hammered into me that it was the only thing I knew. And within SGM, there’s no room to think otherwise. It is strictly forbidden.
I realize now that I am an egalitarian. I have always been an egalitarian. I’m not egalitarian because I’ve rejected complementarianism. I’m an egalitarian because when I read the bible, that is what I came to believe in my heart. It was there all along but I didn’t realize it.
Because of how I was taught, I couldn’t accept what I actually believed. I realize that this is where a lot of the internal and external conflict I experienced in SGM stemmed from. This, and perhaps more importantly, SGM’s teaching about authority and leadership in the church.
The problem for SGM, in my view (and what a lot of people have mentioned) is that they are dogmatic and legalistic in their definitions. They couch everything they teach in terms of it being “biblical” and “gospel-centered”, leaving you with only one way to think about issues that aren’t so black and white.
5yearsinPDI has stated that she believes “the clear teaching of scripture is male headship in the home and church (not from inferiority but from wise divine creational order)” (from her post #93). I don’t believe the bible clearly teaches that at all, but if she and her husband affirm male headship, and she chooses to obey in equality, that is their decision. I have no argument with that. Some households work better when the male head of the house makes all the decisions and some work better when the adults all have an equal say.
When the bible is shown to support equality in marriage, as well as the position some prefer for female submission, then it is up to each family to agree about which model works best for them.
The problem with SGM is that they demand people to think one way, by hammering you over the head with their continuous insistance that everything they teach is bibically accurate. Gospel-centered. “Biblical Manhood” and “Biblical Womanhood”. There’s no room for discussion or disagreement over issues that should be decided between individuals and within families. SGM is the outsider that sticks its fat head into every aspect of your life, especially your sex/gender role life. They seem to have a lot of hang-ups in that area.
Obviously many people are happy living within SGM’s phony Seahaven, and to have the rules they live by established by the authority structure they choose to submit to.
But when SGM moves into marriages and family lives with their message, telling people they need to obey and follow the SGM way of doing things because it’s “biblical” and “you need to submit to and obey your leaders”, then they are overstepping. Big time. Being a member of SGM doesn’t mean they own you. It doesn’t mean as outsiders they can demand how you should dress or act or think. That’s trespassing on God’s territory, if you ask me.
But if adults submit to it, then that’s what they submit to. It’s their choice. But they should know that’s not how the church functions. That’s how overbearing and demanding parents treat their children. They usurp their rights, stunt their growth, and keep them tied to the apron strings.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I remember hearing Elisabeth Elliot speak, and afterwards hear CJ share his and Carolyn’s criticism of her and her marriage with the congregation.
Not good enough Elisabeth. You didn’t quite fit the mold. Not sure she got invited back.
I heard Jerry Bridges a few times at CLC.
John Piper, at a conference (which was interesting, since he offered up an “observation” which he first didn’t get permission to do so from CJ – for which CJ publicly criticized for to the CLC congregation after the conference)
Ken Sande came in to do his Peacemaker’s thing at a special event, which was preceded by the hard sell of his materials – required reading for all.
But I never heard RC Sproul or JI Packer speak there. Was this fairly recent?
February 25th, 2010 at 11:59 am
acme – do you mean Nancy Leigh Demoss?
February 25th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
claireon,
Your post in 306 was very eloquent. I especially liked the first part of the post. Just wanted to let you know.
Stunned
February 25th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
claireon, I don’t think headship equals subordination the way you think of it. Headship in greek is like the prow of a ship, it meets the buffeting waves first and takes the pressure off. In practical ways in marriage that might mean Dad dealing with the kid who is misbehaving instead of shoving all the discipline off on Mom. It might mean taking the extra job for finances. It definitely does mean being the spiritual head and seeking God in bible and prayer, and praying with your wife.
I am not an SGM Stepford wife and never was, with the smile plastered on her face. We talk about everything as full equals before God. But as Tim Keller says, sooner or later in marriage somebody has to make a final decision about some major subject, it happens, and the husband gets the deciding vote. There are only two people- husband and wife- and when you hit an impasse and can’t resolve it, you let husband be the head. You don’t roll a dice or pick straws. And I am his helpmeet, I try to get behind God’s call on his life.
Some of this is semantics. Unfortunately SGM presents a distorted view of headship the same way they distort “Reformed”. Certainly their church model allows for no significant imput from laity. Authority without genuine loving interactive relationship- whether parent, husband, or pastor is simply wrong. I can appeal to my hub and my kids can appeal to me and in normal churches you can appeal to elders, without being called rebellious. I would not come to any conclusions based on SGM about what male leadership looks like.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
5years-
I agree that SG presents a distorted view of Reformed theology and headship….but those aren’t the only views that could be considered Biblical.
You can be a strong Christian without being Reformed or holding to male headship.
I have similar views to Claireon, but they were views that I came to years (maybe 5 or 6) after I had left SG. I didn’t leave SG because of either issues and would have eagerly expressed belief in male headship and most Reformed views of scripture, years after I left.
I’d say most of my theological assumptions are rooted in Reformed theology and the last church I attended was Pastored by a view of all male leadership. I firmly believe that my own view is correct on these issues, but can still live and fellowship within the body of Christ with those that do not agree. I might be persuaded to change my view again, on these issues, but the gospel stays the same. But these issues are not the gospel.
I don’t know if that’s helpful or just muddying up things for you….
just my 2 cents-mm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
mm….
yes, you can be a devout Christian and be Arminian instead of Calvinist, or egalitarian instead of complementarian, or dispensationalist instead of Covenantalist, etc etc etc.
I just think that as you read the bible and theology books and pray and discuss these things and come to conclusions, SMG is not the defining model for them, and that is the mistake I sometimes see on this blog. Too many people reject a truth because it was twisted in a cult.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Musicman you said
I just wanted to share that I didn’t leave SGM over the female subordination/male headship issue either. I left because I had grown completely uncomfortable with the exclusive focus on the Cross, the emphasis on depravity, and the lack of attention to our lives as Spirit-filled believers in the Kingdom of God.
I didn’t know at the time how closely the two issues are connected. I believed then that as a believer, the Spirit within didn’t operate with respect to my gender. In Christ, there is no male or female.
When I left SGM, I felt very strongly that by de-emphasizing the Resurrection and the Ascension, and the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom, it created a false environment that I could no longer identify as the church.
My previous belief in male-only leadership and male-headship was so ingrained in me that it has taken much longer for those things to come to the surface, and for me to be open to learning to look at it from a whole new perspective.
Like I shared, in my heart I always knew it be true, but the belief was buried under a teaching that kept it suppressed. I wasn’t ‘allowed’, if you will, to realize anything else.
SGM frames the argument so strictly that if you even hint at Christian Egalitarianism, you are accused of Feminism. They think you’re carrying The Disease. You’re immediately written off and guarantined.
When I left, I believed very strongly that the fellowship of the Spirit, and my participation, was being totally quenched by what they were teaching. I knew that I had the Spirit, understood the Word, and had been given the freedom by God to participate, instead of being made to feel like a sinner under the thumb of the leadership.
Furthermore, whenever I had gone to leadership for help in dealing with serious issues, the issues never mattered. What mattered was submitting myself to their relational structures. That superceded everything, and my issues were never resolved.
So, it wasn’t until later that I made the connection between the lack of emphasis on the Spirit and the Kingdom of God and and female subordination. It took me a while to connect the dots.
I would like to add that although I reject male headship and male leadership as being the “absolute clear teaching of scripture” (women are equal to men within the Body of Christ) that doesnt mean I think that every church should be led by a majority of women. What I am saying is that there should not exist the divisions based on gender, and that to insist upon them cannot be scripturally supported. If having a man be the leader helps to advance the gospel in a given circumstance or situation, then let the man lead. “All things are permissible but not all things are profitable.” But more and more and more we should be seeing women taking initiative and in positions of leadership, and for that to be widely accepted as both God’s will and normative within the church. There is zero biblical basis for the subjugation of women by men in the home or the church, regardless of the tumult of sea.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Claireon, why did they criticize Elliot’s marriage? I hope they at least waited till she wasn’t in the room! :-)
February 25th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Hi “Lurker”
Well, you know CJ and Carolyn Mahaney. They are THE model for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Carolyn says that all women are to make way for all men to lead and to encourage them in all their efforts to do so.
CJ asked Elisabeth’s husband Lars if he had inspected his wife’s wardrobe and approved of it before she went on stage. When Lars said, “What the hell..?” CJ thought, “Tisk, tisk. Ineffective male leadership.”
When Carolyn noticed that Lars was helping Elisabeth, and working at her book table selling her books, and asked, “Elisabeth, we are designed by God to be the helpers. Shouldn’t you be the helping Lars?” To which Elisabeth replied, “Pass me the cupcakes, Carolyn.”
No, really…apparently the Mahaney’s noticed something in how Elisabeth had related to Lars that seemed offensive to their biblical manhood and womanhood sensibilities. And CJ wanted to let his congregation know how wise and discerning he and his wife were, and how their marriage was a better model than the famous Elisabeth Elliot’s. He wasn’t specific, but the implication was clear.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
One other thing…
I know this has been discussed here on the blog before. I think I recall something about the Mahaney’s having actually shared an observation of sin with Elisabeth and Lars. But I could be wrong. I’m sure it’s somewhere in the archives…
February 25th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I remember that Elizabeth Eliot took the CLC ladies to task for wearing pants –she said she wore a pair of dungarees for working in the garden.
and yes, I meant Nancy Leigh DeMoss–who took the CLC ladies to task for not cherishing and encouraging men well enough.
February 25th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
acme,
I popped in to read up for a few moments, I just want to understand you correctly.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss is Single, and yet teaches married women how to be married??
Please correct me where I am wrong here.
(Yeah, it’s OK to correct this man, he won’t turn you into the SGM Police.)
February 25th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Miss DeMoss was single at the retreat I went to at CLC – but I couldn’t tell you exactly when it was — sometime this century — and yes, I remember thinking that yeah, I had great theories about marriage too when I was single.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Clareon-
Thanks for sharing a bit of your journey…
February 26th, 2010 at 12:31 am
Thanks acme.
I did a little google since my last post, and can find no mention of her being married. I’m wondering because she is highly touted by some in the church we currently attend.
Clarion, Re #316.
I laughed till I fell out of my saddle.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:01 am
One of the last SGM conferences I attended was the Women’s Conference where Elisabeth Elliot was the guest speaker. I was embarrassed that this woman came to share her life with us, yet we didn’t have the courtesy to select a single worship hymn that she could sing along with. I was so struck by the disjointed nature of the event that I didn’t stay through the whole conference.
I hope ol’ Lars told CJ that the esteeemed Ms. Elliot certainly had the good sense to pick out her own darn dungarees and his, too.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Claireon,
Thanks for #306 and #313, they are very helpful.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I think 5yearsinPDI in #310 gives the most accurate representation in scripture. I agree that semantics is an issue. But to say that the complementarian view “cannot be scripturally supported” at all is not true. And to say that “women are equal to men within the Body of Christ” is absolutely very true. The Complementarian view never implies that women are not equal. It only implies some differeng roles, they are equal image bearers of God that are equal in worth and value and importance.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I find this sad if SGM is not teaching about what happened with the Puritans. Wouldn’t studying and teaching make a whole lot of sense? Wouldn’t it be good to learn from their mistakes and try to learn from them to help reduce chances of repeating what happened with them? Maybe they should sell on their book table books that discuss the problems that evetually happened etc?
Of course one sided teaching happens with other things SGM teaches. Josh Harris doesn’t share the problems that have happened with his “alternative” to dating. SGM also hasn’t shared other problems and mistakes they have made in the past.
Bringing up problems with the Puritants might also teach regular SGM to be critical thinkers and from what I have read here SGM certainly doesn’t want that. ;-)
February 26th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
5sneakers
Well said.
Chuck
February 27th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
a,
re. your question in 299: if you’re asking this as a “geographical” or “apostolic” question, yes, I WAS in the “South”. Kris has my e-mail, feel free to ask her. I don’t remember your story and whether we have connecting points.