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!
February 8th, 2010 at 8:14 am
In all of this, the thing that puzzles me the most is, what is CJ doing donating over $100k to an organization like the SBTS…when SGM has its own in-house PC? And, to the best of my knowledge, SGM would not recognize a degree from the SBTS as enough training for one of its own pastors, but instead would demand that the pastor also attend the PC?
Another puzzling thing is how CJ feels about the Southern Baptist stance on Charismatic beliefs and practices. Traditionally, Southern Baptists do NOT take a continuationist stance on the more dramatic gifts of the Spirit.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:34 am
This is shocking.
If CJ has that sort of money laying around, why isn’t he putting it back in his own system?
Historically, evangelists have come under huge scrutiny for spending the money they make in their ministry in irrelevant, frivolous ways. Why not scrutinize CJ for doing the same.
Really…what does this donation do for CJ’s flock? What does it do for his own people? How about the SGM churches that are barely treading water right now? Maybe they could use a bit of support from SGM in their time of need?
Ya know, it never ceases to amaze me. One thing piles on another.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:37 am
I grew up among some staunch Southern Baptists who honestly believed that stuff like speaking in tongues was “from the devil” – that since it could not be from God, then it had to be something the devil was using to deceive and distract people.
You probably won’t hear present-day Southern Baptists talk in such strong language, but I believe the “official” stance of the SBC on “the gifts” is cessationism. Here is an interesting book review, written by none other than Al Mohler:
http://www.sbclife.org/articles/2000/01/sla6.asp
Mohler’s review can be summed up in this one line:
I think we can get a feeling for the Southern Baptists’ general uneasiness when it comes to Charismatic things. Which again begs the question, what are they doing hobnobbing with CJ, and why is CJ dishing out so much money to their seminary?
I don’t think it’s a huge coincidence that SGM changed its position on what it means to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit” around the same time that CJ’s association with SBTS really got off the ground.
I don’t understand how longtime SGMers – those who joined when PDI was fully and unabashedly Charismatic – deal with this. It wasn’t like SGM’s new position was put up for a congregational vote, or that it reflected the hearts of the majority of members. Rather, it was something that was just sort of foisted onto the people – “Here’s our new position, like it or lump it.”
Doesn’t this strike anybody as odd?
February 8th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Wait one minute here!
I looked at the lists from the links.
BOTH CJ Mahaney AND Sovereign Grace Ministries gave OVER $10,000 that year? ????? BOTH did???????????
I was thinking it was just CJ.
So, does this mean that CJ AND SGM gave the money individually? Or does this mean that CJ and SGM are grouped together, but then they split up their names in the listings?
And if you look at it, when CJ became a $100,000 + giver, so did SGM, in the same year.
It’s not making sense…
I guess when CJ gives his little speeches about how he’s on all these boards with guys who have lots of initials behind their names, it’s really because he gives big bucks.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Just discovered this site last night… I’m glad someone out there is willing to shed some light on the distortions and spiritual abuse that have been prevelent in the SGM circles for years. My own history with SGM dates back to PDI. I have not been a part of this organization of churches for over a decade now.. I had always hoped that maybe things had changed for the better there in the past years.. that perhaps God had led these people into a more genuine understanding of grace. It seems not. Almost choked on my morning coffee when I saw in this post that C.J. wrote a book on humility. Wow.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:49 am
I just wonder if SGMers knew that their organization was giving money to the SBTS like this? Is it something that’s published in SGM’s annual financial reports? Is this info distributed to SGM congregations?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Hi, SGMexile -
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:03 am
I wonder if Al Mohler has made similar donations to the Pastors College.
If not, why not?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:07 am
I’m so concerned for the SBC — my extended family includes SGC preachers, ministers of music, missionaries, Sunday school teachers, and more. It seems to me the connection is CBMW which I learned on Wartburg is housed at the Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville. When I left CLC and looked at other churches, I ultimately dismissed the Baptists because of CBMW.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Is there anyone reading here who went to CLC and gave/tithed there in 2009?
How about SGM?
Would you be willing to share the financial report here?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Kris said:
those who joined when PDI was fully and unabashedly Charismatic – deal with this. It wasn’t like SGM’s new position was put up for a congregational vote, or that it reflected the hearts of the majority of members. Rather, it was something that was just sort of foisted onto the people – “Here’s our new position, like it or lump it.”
Some of the time, as been pointed out, the SGM Leaders aren’t even that up front. They change theology etc. without even informing the congregation. Changing things without notice is much worse than saying this is the change we are doing and “accept it or leave.” It certainly looks like deception.
Perhaps what SGM’s strategy is to make minor subtle changes like they appeared to do when they moved toward Calvinism. Maybe they hope that members wouldn’t pick up on the change and thus are more easily swayed to this new direction?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Sidney said:
“Wait one minute here!
I looked at the lists from the links.
BOTH CJ Mahaney AND Sovereign Grace Ministries gave OVER $10,000 that year? ????? BOTH did???????????
I was thinking it was just CJ.”
Sidney,
One point of clarification — it was “Covenant Life Church” individually that gave to Southern Seminary, not SGM in general.
Mahaney was the pastor of CLC when some of these church donations were made.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Looks like “Mr. Humility” wants to be famous and more “influence” than he does as the pope of SGM. Of course, with the increased “fame” in the evangelical world comes more $$$$.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Someone a while ago posted a few links showing (county tax records) that show C.J. Mahaney gifted his existing residence with an assessment value of $500K to one of his daughters and son in law and then paid cash for a new residence with an assessment value of $700K. This was done in 5/2008.
C.J. Mahaney obviously isn’t hurting for money. I am sure there aren’t many people, especially pastors, that have the resources to do this.
C.J.’s daughter and son in law were quite fortunate. Usually the best a young couple can hope for is help on the down payment. Nice to be a child of privilege.
It is just kind of sad when one see a person apparently making a high income at a church that requires the tithe and many times presents higher than 10% as being ideal. They are also asking for additional “offerings” on top of the tithe. This happens when I am sure a number of the families in these SGM Churches are struggling financially.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:00 am
I really don’t have an issue with leaders who live well, or who have money to do things like “gift” homes to their children.
And if CJ wants to give $$ to the SBTS, that’s fine. Sort of.
But it does present a number of odd inconsistencies. As I said before, how does SGM reconcile such strong financial support for an organization like the SBTS with the fact that SGM does not consider the SBTS adequate training for its own pastors?
And, how does SGM reconcile the SBTS’s traditionally cessationist stance with its own supposed “Charismatic” position? (Personally, I think we could make a good case for the assertion that SGM is – in practice, at least – no longer Charismatic…but SGM holds so many people hostage with the notion that they’re BOTH “Reformed” AND “Charismatic” that we will take SGM’s own statements about itself at face value and grant that SGM is – on paper, anyway – “Charismatic.”)
And, does any Southern Baptist church, or the SBTS itself, support SGM and/or the Pastors College in any sort of reciprocal fashion? If not, then why the one-way relationship?
Finally, were CLC members aware of these donations?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Here’s another thought…
People can say that we’re just being picky – that we’re being unfairly critical of CJ Mahaney. Or whatever.
But it just struck me, as I was sitting here thinking about this, that because of SGM’s structure of governance, because CJ really answers to no one who doesn’t also work for him, he’s GOT to be extra-scrupulous in how he conducts his business.
He can’t blame these donations on a board of directors or anything. By his own design, he’s the one holding the bag. Since he holds so much ultimate responsibility for SGM and the things that SGM/CLC decide to do, he’s GOT to be absolutely above reproach. He’s GOT to be willing to be open about things like where he donates the organization’s money. After all, it’s not like there’s any recourse for any CLC member who isn’t so happy about it. The only way CLC members can “vote” is with their feet, so to speak.
CJ could choose – for that matter, all SGM pastors could choose – to make themselves formally accountable to boards of directors made up of non-employees. But they don’t choose to do that. Instead, they claim to be “held accountable” by people who ultimately depend upon them for their paychecks.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Deb,
The link to SBTS mag lists Sovereign Grace Ministries under businesses and CJ Mahaney under individuals.
Sorry if this is not correct information, but I was just reading it from the resource you linked.
Sidney
February 8th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Kris said:
“I really don’t have an issue with leaders who live well, or who have money to do things like “gift” homes to their children.
And if CJ wants to give $$ to the SBTS, that’s fine. Sort of.”
I feel that leaders in churches should make a reasonable and comfortable living but not so sure I would agree that leaders should make enough to “live well” depending on what is meant by that. I am not so sure that being able to make the contributions he has made to the SBTS, as well as funds to gift a house to someone in his family is just “reasonable and comfortable.” I would appeal that there be a balance here.
It appears that Mahaney is making significantly more than most of the members in his organization. It may not be extremely lavish but certainly appears well above average. Also one hears about the nice vacations Mahaney has taken his family on in the past. It does concern me to see a leader with this type of income when there is such a push for both tithing and additional offerings from some families whose money is fairly tight.
I am sure a significant part of his salary from book sales but as has been discussed before, he wrote those books while on salary. Some could call that “double dipping” depending on how Mahaney is paid, i.e. writing books on company time. He also has a captive audience of people in his group that buy his books. Maybe Mahaney could work without a salary if his book royalties are that high.
Just my thoughts.
Also wouldn’t there be a better use of these funds than to pay a high salary?
You do raise some good points about Mahaney needing to be above reproach.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Kris
I do have a bit of a problem with Mahaney making so much money. When Deb and I visited a SG church locally, we saw his books, etc. being pushed for purchase outside the sanctuary. Instead of “gifting” his daughter with said house, why not sink the money into a SG church which is struggling. CJ is taking time away from SGM shilling his books yet he is an employee of the organization and the money is made on SGM time.I feel for those people who feel obligated to donate above and beyond, get lectured if they don’t give appropriately and get lectured if they aren’t reading the books which they must pay for. My dad would have called this a “racket.”
February 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Sidney said:
“The link to SBTS mag lists Sovereign Grace Ministries under businesses and CJ Mahaney under individuals.”
OOPS! Who would have thought to look for SGM under “Businesses”. So the truth finally comes out…
So sorry I missed it. I may have to go back and amend the post.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:32 am
It seems like CJ and SGM may have much in common with the Oldest Profession.
Now, if there were just a willingness to repent in Gaithersburg.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:42 am
The irony of this is Mahaney sponges money from his family of churches, gifts his daughters with fancy houses so they’re set up to…….blog ad nauseam about being suzie homemakers in a way that seems to shame those who do not or, perhaps *can* not live with one income.
This ties in with the previous two Kris posts where our marriages and families are being affected.
My question is as follows, is there anything the Mahaneys leave for the Holy Spirit to inspire?
February 8th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
DB said,
The Mahaney ladies are the female voice of SGM. They are the de facto authorities about “Biblical” womanhood. They hold forth about how women should find their identities primarily through homemaking. They may sugar it up with the disclaimer of, “It’s just a suggestion,” but ultimately, it’s pretty easy to figure out what is considered “more biblical” or “wiser” in the SGM world.
Neglected in all of this, though, is the simple fact that the ability to be a stay-at-home wife is most of the time primarily a financial consideration. Especially in today’s economy, lots of women do not have the luxury of a daddy with a ministry at his disposal, where he can market his books to a captive audience, who will then dash out and buy them. Most women do not have a daddy who can ensconce their husbands in decently-paid pastoral positions and enable them to own expensive houses in an expensive part of the country.
It really bothers me that a theological significance is then attached to these ideas about “Biblical” womanhood…without acknowledging the tremendous amount of privilege that enables them to live these lives…privilege that ultimately has very little to do with theology but has everything to do with power and position.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
OK class, let’s spell these words together now…
N-E-P-O-T-I-S-M
E-N-T-R-E-N-C-H-M-E-N-T
F-A-M-I-L-Y B-U-S-I-N-E-S-S
February 8th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Deb,
You should amend the post. And credit me: “the commenter known as SIDNEY.”
LOL. I’m kidding. It was so bizarre when I saw Sovereign Grace Ministries right there out of the corner of my eye.
I wonder if SGM has a “gift matching” program for its employees.
Nonetheless, it seems like they are giving right about at the same level as CJ.
Hmm….
February 8th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Kris-
Really-all SG members should be concerned about where CJ and SGM INC. send their money…pretty sure that all SG churches tithe to SG INC.
In other words, our little SG church plant was expected to give 10 percent of it’s tithe to headquarters. Maybe someone more recent to SG can confirm if this practice still is in place.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Random thoughts:
Don’t forget SGM gifts to Ligonier … don’t forget checks presented by Dave Harvey to the poor and suffering in California (just go to church websites and find his latest MP3s. He presented checks at Grace Church and Wellspring) … there are struggling churches in SGM. I have heard of one where the pastor received only half rations for last year, which my sources indicate was probably less than $15 k … there is a vast gulf in financial resources in SG churches. Believe it or not there are country church mouse poor congregations that exist in the shadow of the CLCs, CFs, MLs, etc … how can CJ sleep at night when he spends or is comped more for a family vacation while some pastors in SG churches have just enough to buy groceries (and tithe)?
Praying for the lending tables to be overturned,
Former SG Pastor
February 8th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Does anybody have any idea for a legit answer to the question I posed at the beginning of these comments -
I mean, let’s all put on our thinking caps and try hard to think like diehard SGMers. How would they explain what strikes me as a really odd contradiction? How would they reconcile SGM’s (and CJ’s) support of an organization that SGM does not believe is even doing an adequate job of training people to be pastors in the SGM world?
What else is this, if it’s not buying favor to gain some reflected credibility?
I cannot even begin to recount how many times I’ve had to respond to the question of, “Kris, do you really believe that you are so much smarter than Al Mohler and all those other T4G/CBMW guys who share the stage with CJ and endorse his books? If CJ/SGM really did have problems, Al Mohler wouldn’t be endorsing them!”
My response is always something like this:
First of all, NO, I do NOT think I’m “smarter” than these great Christian minds. Pulllllease!
But secondly, I don’t believe that most of these men have a clue about how the things that CJ writes and teaches play out in the unique little world of SGM. What can sound like “sound Biblical exhortation” to someone like Al Mohler can play out very differently in a place where your pastor is always right, it is your duty to obey and submit to him and “make his job a joy,” and where there is utterly no recourse for you if you and your pastor have a persistent difference of opinion about something and he refuses to back down.
These T4G/CBMW guys are BUSY MEN. Most of them have more than they can even reasonably handle, what with managing their own ministries and then flying around the country to speak, plus the time they spend writing and promoting their books. I’d venture to guess that some of ‘em barely even do more than SKIM the books they so glowingly endorse. Obviously there’s no way they can invest the time to really get inside the SGM mindset. (For the record, I’ve been doing this site for more than 2 years, and I still wouldn’t say I’m able to get into the SGM mindset 100% of the time!
)
Finally, I believe that even if these guys actually DID take the time to figure things out, and even if they actually DID become cognizant of SGM’s issues, the fact remains that they all need each other. There’s a lot to lose when you alienate one or more of the Reformed Big Dogs…not to mention the “egg on your face” if you were to actually admit that you endorsed some giggling bald guy without actually first knowing more fully what he was all about.
But back to my question – can anybody explain to me how SGMers reconcile these sorts of donations to the SBTS when SGM does not believe that the SBTS is an adequate training facility for SGM pastors?
February 8th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
This post makes me sad on so many levels. During the time that I was in leadership at a SGc I had appeals made in person to me from 2 leaders in 3rd world countries to come and train native pastors. Either of these requests could have been granted inexpensively for the cost of airfare and living expenses for one or two teachers. I viewed this like a Macedonian call. The call was presented to the local sr pastor plus staff and leadership ream as well as the regional apostle. Result? Not a d*** thing. Not a penny spent. Not a finger lifted.
Send a check to Southern Seminary? Sure. Give a gift to a ministry run by well-heeled Presbys? You bet! Provide rebates to suburban California congretations? Yes we can. Help the truly poor and suffering in corners of the globe where you will get no publicity? Forget about it.
Makes it hard to go back to reading CJ’s lifechanging hints for watching the Superbowl.
Sickened,
Former SG Pastor
February 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
FGSP, I have a question for you. Does an SGC, out of it’s collected tithes and offerings, HAVE TO give to SGM? If so, how much? Is there a required amount (maybe a percentage) the local church has to pass along to SGM in order to stay in the fold? I’ve always thought there was this requirement, but have never been able to get a straight answer.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
This part at the link really hit me:
“Why would reformed leaders like Al Mohler, President of SBTS, endorse C.J. Mahaney who is not a Southern Baptist and who arguably is not a theologian? We believe one of the secrets is that Mahaney’s ministry has led the way in AUTHORITARIANISM for at least THREE DECADES. Could it be that reformed leaders are willing to endorse C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries in exchange for learning how to rule their flocks by implementing SGM’s church polity?
Here’s where the lack of balance in Sovereign Grace Ministries comes into play. We have done extensive research on SGM by following two blogs that are speaking out against this “family of churches”. They are http://www.sgmsurvivors.com and http://www.sgmrefuge.com
We have read alarming testimonies written by current and former SGM members, and we have concluded that the pastors in this “family of churches” rule with an iron fist. Patriarchy is preached and practiced in these churches, and the members are extremely fearful. We have never seen such heavy-handed control exercised in a church setting. As we have been following the New Calvinists, it appears they want to implement SGM “management” techniques in their own congregations.”
I assume some R. big dogs end up at the same conferences with CJ through no fault of their own and probably sincerely desire to help teach theology to the next generation. Love believes the best until there is clear proof of wrong. But I’d also guess that as the economy is plunging downhill and finances get worse, some surely want to tighten an iron grip on their money supply.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
I was told in the last couple years that they give back 10% to SGM.
Again, if we had some financial statements from SGM churches, this would be an easy thing to find out.
WHO has those? ANYONE who tithed in the last year at a SGM church has them. And anyone who gave extra money to SGM has them too.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
CD -
Great question. There is no straight answer, though.
At the church that I served/attended we were told by the area apostle to pony up a “tithe”, “10%”. Those were his words. Based on the last set of reports provided to members the amount paid was less than 5% (it may have been 1-2% but I can’t remember). On the budget for the year that was in process the giving to SG was less than 10%. Supposedly these reports were approved by the regional apostle (but I wouldn’t be surprised if the sr pastor had two sets of books). Why the apostle would state a 10% minimum but accept less is beyond me.
My guess is that most churches hit the 10% mark or more when you add up annual payments, “mission” tariffs, support to PC candidates, etc. But I know that at least one church was way short and I don’t know the reason why.
Clear as mud?
Former SG Pastor
February 8th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
So, I was going about my chores just now when something else hit me.
More questions.
In just about every neighborhood where an SGM church has been planted – typically at significant expense and sacrifice – there will be within easy driving distance a church associated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Granted, the SBC is a fairly loose association (more like an actual “family of churches” than a denomination). Consequently, SBC churches will vary significantly in style than do SGM churches.
BUT – if SGM is so A-OK with the SBC that they feel comfy pumping thousands and thousands of dollars into one of the SBC’s main seminaries, then why is SGM turning around and planting churches in areas already well-served by one or more SBC churches?
Does anyone else follow my train of thought here?
I think it’s obvious – if you look at the FACTS about SGM – that SGM does not really believe that the Southern Baptist Convention does things well enough. After all, if an STBS-trained guy comes to SGM and eventually distinguishes himself enough to be pegged as leadership material, and if he eventually does go on to get called to be an SGM pastor, his SGM authorities will NOT believe that his STBS degree represents enough training for him. No. He will still have to scrape together the finances and uproot his family and rent an illegal basement apartment from some CLC family, all so that he can attend SGM’s own Pastors College.
Likewise, SGM clearly does not believe that Southern Baptist churches are doing a good enough job…or else they wouldn’t go to such great lengths to establish new SGM churches in places right down the street from SBC churches.
So why is CJ/SGM donating all that moola to a seminary that they don’t believe gives pastors adequate training, run by an organization that they don’t believe “does church” well enough?
February 8th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
If you look at SGM as a for profit business Corporation instead of a church, things make more sense. Not much, but more than with the church model.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Sidney said:
“The link to SBTS mag lists Sovereign Grace Ministries under businesses…”
I just printed this page from the 2007 Roll Call. Actually, “Sovereign Grace Ministries, Gaithersburg, Maryland” is listed under “Businesses, Denominations, and Foundations”.
I do plan to give you well-deserved credit for spotting SGM on the list.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
“So why is CJ/SGM donating all that moola to a seminary that they don’t believe gives pastors adequate training, run by an organization that they don’t believe “does church” well enough?”
Kris,
Maybe the reason no one has answered your question is that we are all scratching our heads, wondering the same thing, with no plausable answer. Has anyone with a degree from an SBC seminary every been turned down for a pastor’s postion at SGM? Been made to go to the PC, even though he has a degree from an SBC seminary? If the answer to these two questions is a factual “yes”, then there this is truly something to be concerned about. Does anyone have knowledge of this happening?
As for sgm being charismatic, PDI once was, though it was well-balanced with the word of God. Changes were made in the church I attended without instructing the members. With these changes came more obvious control over our lives (confession of sin, etc.) and finances (a sermon correcting us on not tything properly – the pastor did blame himself for not “training” us better). Now I understand, finally, what was happening. They were moving from a balanced charismatic chruch to a reformed one. Without telling us. Like we were little kids. If they had been upfront and honest about the change in direction and what that would mean (I am speaking only of the church I attended), then my family could have made an “adult” decision about staying on as members. The final “leaving” wouldn’t have messed with our minds so much!
February 8th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Canary asked:
“Has anyone with a degree from an SBC seminary every been turned down for a pastor’s postion at SGM? Been made to go to the PC, even though he has a degree from an SBC seminary? If the answer to these two questions is a factual “yes”, then there this is truly something to be concerned about. Does anyone have knowledge of this happening?”
Canary,
It’s funny you should ask that…
Here’s an excerpt from a recent comment over at SGM Refuge, along with the link:
http://sgmrefuge.com/2010/02/01/grace-church-in-san-diego/comment-page-1/#comment-15390
“…there was a pastor who graduated from Southern Seminary and then was bitten by the SG bug and went to the PC. After graduating from the PC he was placed in an SG church in an associate position. When the SG ruling council replaced the church’s founding pastor (due to health and gifting), they passed over the seminary/PC grad and instead installed a PC student (he hadn’t finished the PC yet). It struck me as odd that the seminary/PC grad made it through his training programs, apparently confirmed in giftings, only to have them questioned after all that training and experience. To me the process appeared cold and capricious.”
February 8th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
The only visible sign of continuationist practice at many SG churches and events is the prophecy mike and not all churches utilize these. Even this remnant is subdued; I met with a group of decidedly cessationist visitors at a SG event a few years ago and they called the prophesying that occurred “testifying” or “giving testimony”. They didn’t see it as a spiritual gift at all. Many nowadays regard physical expressiveness as charismatic; doctrine or other practices don’t apply.
With the exception of prophetic song at a couple of WorshipGod events, I only observed one practice that would be regarded as charismatic. This was when someone spoke in tongues during prayers for healing. I heard a single teaching on the gifts of the Spirit in the 5 (+/-) years I was associated with SG; this was at a seminar session at WG06. Such sessions were eliminated in following years.
Lack of charismatic/continuationist practice makes many SG churches blend in with the pervading evangelical grayness.
Sought the Spirit at SG and didn’t often find Him,
Former SG Pastor
February 8th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I find it so interesting, the way that Canary describes her church’s quiet morphing from being a well-balanced Charismatic church to one that was “essentially Reformed.”
That is precisely how the shift from blatantly Charismatic to “Reformed” has been described by those at CLC, too. I’m thinking it was something that took place at most of the PDI churches that existed back when things changed at Corporate.
The interesting thing to me is (as always), WHY? Why did they change things with no real announcement, no special question-and-answer panel for concerned members, no written report to members that they could have perused at their leisure?
It wasn’t like leadership just FORGOT to mention it.
And it also wasn’t like leadership WASN’T AWARE that they were changing things.
This whole Al Mohler/SBTS connection is quite intriguing, especially in light of the fact that just a few years prior to the first $10,000 check CJ wrote to SBTS, PDI leaders quietly morphed their churches to be more in line with what guys like Mohler respect.
But what’s really sad to me is that a lot of SGMers out there still genuinely believe that their church is “Charismatic.” I get SO MANY emails from people who ask me the same question – “Where else could I go to church…what other denomination is both ‘Charismatic’ AND ‘Reformed’?”
I always tell them the same thing, which is that the reality is that their very own SGM church is not really either of those things.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Kris,
Maybe you should have a thread about the ever changing statement of faith. We asked a member of our “leadership team” about our local SGM church statment of faith changing, and the person acknowledged that yes, it probably has changed four or five times in the last 15 years, and that it was no big deal. Well it’s a big deal to us old-timers who didn’t know it changed until we started hearing things being taught and then discussed in care group that were obviously more Calvinist than the statement of faith was when we joined our local SGM church…
Why should we trust these leaders when they think its okay to change the “rule book” on us without telling us???
February 8th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Sue,
Like I said, I am just intrigued by the WHY of it – WHY would a statement of faith be changed, even slightly, without formally announcing and explaining it to the congregation?
(I would have added “without congregational input,” but alas, we know that in SGM there is no such thing…)
It’s sort of interesting to me, because if church members sought to change something on their end of things – like if it were technically possible for them to go in and edit some aspect of the “Membership Covenant” they had to sign – I don’t think leadership would look kindly upon that.
But leadership is free to change one of the key aspects of what members agree to and affirm – the statement of faith – without explanation or even (in some cases) an announcement.
Think of how bizarre that is.
What is the point of all these membership covenants anyway, if they can (and likely will) be altered willy-nilly without explanation? Why even have members sign or agree to anything, if what they’re agreeing to can be changed anyway?
February 8th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Well we’ve asked why it has changed, but have not really been given an explanation — just that CJ was always “reformed”, and our pastor had to be “reformed” to become a SGM pastor. We’ve told a few friends outside our SGM church that the statement of faith changed without the members being informed — and no one can believe that that can happen…and they all think we should flee this church ASAP….
February 8th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Deb,
I remember reading that now over at the Refuge. So we have at least one witness to the fact that a man from a SB seminary had to go to the PC. Man, that is just too bizarre. What could he have possibly learned that he didn’t already know a hundred times over? Or am I just presuming?
Kris,
I am surprised (though I shouldn’t be) that what I experienced happened at another sgm church. So much makes sense, now. Like SueBee asks, “Why should we trust these leaders when they think its okay to change the “rule book” on us without telling us???”
I went through several years of torment in my mind, trying to figure it all out. They changed the rule book and didn’t say anything! I wasn’t crazy. These things did happen. So much suffering could have been avoided if the leaders had only told us what they were doing. My family and I would have left quietly, understanding that the direction being taken by leadership was not where we were called to go. Instead, it was a subtle shifting of attitudes and teaching. I would almost call it deception to have not told us what they were doing.
So much pain and confusion…it all could have been avoided if integrity had been in play.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Didn’t CJ’s mantra use to be, “Constant change is here to stay”? I thought he was just getting us all prepared to have leadership changes happen more often. Little did I know…
February 8th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Kris said
“What is the point of all these membership covenants anyway, if they can (and likely will) be altered willy-nilly without explanation? Why even have members sign or agree to anything, if what they’re agreeing to can be changed anyway?”
Kind of reminds me of dealing with credit card contracts…you know the ones where they say that they can change or discontinue the contract at any time, without warning, and almost always to their benefit and your financial harm.
SueBee- I agree with your friends, trusting SG leaders, that don’t explain or notify changes in the statement of faith or membership covenant, is like trusting a credit card company to look out for your financial well being. I think Proverbs warns against those who move boundary stones and the first major schism between Eastern and Western Churches was over the insertion of a word into the creed, without the knowledge or approval of the Eastern church.
Anyway-I hope you find your way through it all…
peace-mm
February 8th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Dude, you got it! You solved everything! Now, everyone will know that Randy Alcorn, James MacDonald, Wayne Grudem, D.A. Carson, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Gary Thomas, Bob Lepine, John MacArthur, John Piper, et. al. who have commented on C.J.’s books are guilty of this same thing. They must have never once thought that they were endorsing content in a book that would help others see who their God is.
Are you not gaining income from people buying various items from your website? I bet you are in bed with the show Survivor, because of the logo and the obvious reference to the show. Do you give this income to help seminarians (like myself) have a chance at bettering their family’s future? What a hypocrite. I guess you finally joined the ranks of the rest of us. I held you in such high esteem before you made a complete fool of yourself.
But, you know what? The Father calls you “sons”, so I don’t think that I will hold a grudge, but forgive you like Christ forgave me. He had compassion on my sins, so I won’t continue for years to destroy relationships between believers, but maybe I would instead try to mend broken ones. I guess that is what you are doing on this site, mending broken relationships by continually bringing up sin in others, and profiting from it. Awesome.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Hey, Chad B -
It’s always so nice when a “bro” like yourself takes the time to really read and understand the site before weighing in with the Matthew 18 platitudes…
Or not.
Y’see, Chad, I’m not a “dude,” and you obviously haven’t been reading here much, or you wouldn’t have spouted off the way that you did.
There’s way more to this than what you seem to think.
Dude.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Hey Dude –
You seem like a really nice seminarian. I’ll send you the proceeds from the last quarter.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
And oh yeah, the “Survivor” merchandise has netted Guy (my husband) and me all of about $15 since we first put it up – as more of a joke than anything else – about 18 months ago. That $15 is not even enough to pay for the domain name. This really is a labor of love.
Sheesh, for a “seminarian,” you sound frighteningly flippant and immature. Yikes. PC student? Or do you go to a real school?
February 8th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
(I had a sudden vision of Chad flipping frantically through the endorsement pages of his own well-thumbed copies of CJ’s books, to compile that list of names up there in comment #47…)
Chad, I’m sorry I’m teasing you. But really, how long did you read here before deciding to weigh in to defend
your idolCJ? It couldn’t have been very long, or you would have figured out that I’m not a dude, I’m a chick.And that makes you sound kinda silly.
But anyway, you should be careful about what sorts of challenges you throw out there. If Dee and Deb start digging, they may just find all sorts of other money trails from CJ’s purse (“It’s not a purse! It’s European!”) to those other guys’ coffers.
But dude, stick around and tell us about yourself. How long have you been with the organization? How’s PC treating you?
February 8th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Hmm. I’m all for people making money and being well-compensated for hard work. I’m all for those people giving lots of that money away within the Kingdom of God and to other worthy causes. But look at another example of a pastor/writer: Rick Warren, who, if I am not mistaken, added up everything the church paid him over his career as a pastor, and paid it all back and gave more. Maybe that’s not a good example, because the huge amount of $ he generated probably makes CJ look like a pauper, and Warren still has plenty left over. But there are other pastors who write books, etc., and believe that the materials they produce for God should be given to the church at the least possible cost — basically, they charge enough to cover printing costs, etc.
I’m shocked though, at the mixed message of supporting the SBTS yet not encouraging people to enroll there. But hey, I’m all for supporting good guys. Maybe next they’ll give to the International Mission Board and help send Southern Baptist missionaries to the ends of the earth! But come on, SGM, where are CJ’s blog posts explaining that SBTS is getting support generated by CJ’s book sales and from CLC?
Re: the change in theology. When we first joined a PDI church, they didn’t have a published statement of faith. Nobody really knew what they believed except by showing up on Sunday mornings and hearing the sermons. We were from a reformed background with a significant charismatic element that was NOT SGM. They didn’t invent that wheel. But it’s been a long time since I’ve heard the head worship leader say “Ok, let’s everybody speak in tongues”.
When it comes to CJ and his money, or anybody else and their money, God asks for the same faithfulness from everyone. You can argue to tithe or not to tithe, but there’s not much point in arguing to give or not to give. The rich have an awful lot more to give. But I’m with Kris — what’s up with giving $ to a seminary and not even sending people to school there?? Now, if they decide to close down the PC and pack those guys off to Louisville for three years, I’ll applaud and maybe even send a check!
February 8th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Oh snap. Chad’s not from the PC. He does go to a real college. Or at least that’s what his MySpace says.
My bad.
At least we can breathe easier, knowing that Chad’s not living in an illegally-rented basement.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Kris, you said: “(I had a sudden vision of Chad flipping frantically through the endorsement pages of his own well-thumbed copies of CJ’s books, to compile that list of names up there in comment #47…)”
While I was reading Chad B’s comment and list of names, I had a picture of MYSELF! Because when I was delusional (delusions of grandeur because of my “status” as a “sgm christian”), I would have done the SAME EXACT thing!
I’d have read Kris’ mean spirited post here (coming from a completely different blog, mind you), crossed my arms and let out a HMPH while I thought “hmm…I’ll go get ALL my autographed CJ books and see who else has endorsed him!” Cuz CJ is famous based on his own merits, ya know. I would have done the EXACT SAME thing!
It’s funny how people function in cults. Like little robots. Nobody told Chad to do that. But, because of his conditioning and brainwashing, he did exactly what every other properly brainwashed SGMer would do.
It’s pathetic really.
Sidney
February 8th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Is it this Chad [last name edited] who posted this comment on Bob K’s “Worship Matters” blog?
http://www.worshipmatters.com/2008/10/01/glorious-and-mighty-choral-arrangment/
“16 | Chad
October 24th, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Bob,
Is there any video or audio of Glorious and Mighty with the ensemble from WG08 available? I searched YouTube like a maniac in search for it and wasn’t able to find anything. Please, oh please, tell me that something is available!
I praise the Lord for you Bob. I praise Him because He has given us worship leaders someone to point us who God is and what He has done through His Son by His Spirit! Thank you for seeing the Savior and knowing that it is He who provides the good works for you like the Scripture says in Ephesian 2:10.
[name & location edited]
February 8th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Not to be picky (well, okay, maybe), why do some sgmer’s call Jesus the “Savior”, like they don’t know Him by His first name?
Hey Kris, “Dudette” would be a more apt description. It is probably hard for some sgm men to comprehend that a woman could run this incredible blog, which would explain Chad’s mistake in assuming you were a dude. You go, my sister!
February 8th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Canary said…
“As for sgm being charismatic, PDI once was, though it was well-balanced with the word of God. Changes were made in the church I attended without instructing the members. With these changes came more obvious control over our lives (confession of sin, etc.) and finances (a sermon correcting us on not tything properly – the pastor did blame himself for not “training” us better). Now I understand, finally, what was happening. They were moving from a balanced charismatic chruch to a reformed one. Without telling us. Like we were little kids. If they had been upfront and honest about the change in direction and what that would mean (I am speaking only of the church I attended), then my family could have made an “adult” decision about staying on as members. The final “leaving” wouldn’t have messed with our minds so much!”
Canary, you weren’t the only ones unaware of the “change in direction” at that Charlotte SG church. Lots of folks were unaware. Some of them finally realized the “charismatic” element was a thing of the past and left to help start up a new church…one that was charismatic (a newfrontiers plant). You would probably know some of the families.
http://catalystchurchcharlotte.com/
February 8th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Well first of all, I want to say that I did throw away my copy of HUMILITY, along with 22 years worth of thousands of dollars of books.
I kept my pilgrims progress, the childs version, The way of the wild heart, by John Eldredge (the book I was not allowed to read or recommend at Sovereign Grace ministries) and of course my bible. And I bought a new one since then…A spirit life bible.
Second of all…the misuse of money has been alive and well here in the south.
I have a few questions for quizzler….
1. When the church gave did the pastor
a. Give also
b. Give nothing
c. Give generously out of the “new building fund” as if it was his to give with no accountability.
2. How many hours does a SR Pastor labor in a week, and who is he accountable to.
a. 40 or more like the rest of us
b. Upon ocassion
c. Sunday and a little during the week
3. How should a SR Pastor be compensated during this economy if the church should feel that the budget does not allow for an increase.
a. He already is over compensated for this area and certainly for the amount of work is done.
b. He should take an additional “day off” only working 4 days and being paid for 5.
c. No extra compensation is necessary.
I smell a big rat…
Chad, you are funny dude. You rock as a christian. Dude who is mentoring you through these prepubescent years? You see dude, you can’t beware the bewarers…Thats impossible dude. Get a wife, maybe she can teach you some manners….
February 8th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
“They were moving from a balanced charismatic chruch to a reformed one.”
um…..I’ve been in two Reformed churches (both PCA).
Reformed churches can be great, or they can be rather sterile. Just like any church, the atmosphere depends on the leaders and congregation and the present work of the Holy Spirit.
At any rate, SGM is Calvinistic instead of Arminian with regard to certain doctrines, but not Reformed. They can tell you they are Reformed until they turn blue, but they are not, nor will they ever be with the current polity. It is a major mistake for people here to equate them with being Reformed.
In both of my PCA experiences there was MORE life of the holy spirit, more dependency on God in prayer, and more of a sense of revival than when I was in PDI, sad to say. It is NOT about the doctrine of gifts ceasing or not, it is about the Holy Spirit being real and present and moving as we look to God in humble dependency and obedience and love. That is what makes a church good.
By the way, there are other gifts in scripture besides tongues and prophecy. A bit more emphasis on the gift of giving (to the poor) and the gift of mercy might not hurt SGM any.
Kris….”At least we can breathe easier, knowing that Chad’s not living in an illegally-rented basement.”
February 8th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
The last bit of this string has me singing “Dude looks like a lady”.
For those of you still in SG, that is a song by a rock group called Aerosmith. You would know about this band if you were permitted to watch SuperBowl half time shows or were part of the drug culture in the 60s and 70s like your leaders claim.
Carry on.
Former SG Pastor
February 8th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
5years,
I so know what you mean, about supposedly “cessationist” churches being more Spirit-filled sometimes than purported Charismatic churches.
Ours is like that, actually.
Also, you’re precisely right with how SGM is NOT “Reformed” in the way that they claim to be.
As our old friend Reformed Teacher used to say, “The Charismatics get to define what is meant by “Charismatic,” and the Reformed get to define “Reformed.”
SGM just does a nice slight-of-hand with their redefinition of terms. It’s quite a neat trick, actually, as there is a large group of people who are extremely restless and discontent with the way things are in their SGM churches, but they feel helplessly chained down because “no other church is both Reformed AND Charismatic.”
Sad. Neither is SGM.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
I am LMAO at all the comments to Chad. You all took the words out of my mouth and just made my night!
February 8th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
So why all the lying?
Ten years ago, why didn’t CJ just say “Okay…everyone that wants “charismatic” go with Tomczak; but me, I’m “reformed”…if you stay with me that’s what you get.”
Of course, I know the answer as to why he lied.
And Bob Kauflin’s “expressive/charismatic” style of praise and worship helped to keep everyone convinced SGM was still “charismatic.”
February 8th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Hehe…
Chad, I bet you’re wishing Kris had closed the comments earlier to that thread now!
February 8th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
“As our old friend Reformed Teacher used to say, “The Charismatics get to define what is meant by “Charismatic,” and the Reformed get to define “Reformed.”
She was a wise old gal!
February 8th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
FSGP -
Your #60 is hysterical.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:16 am
WOW Kris! Great response to our self-exalting guest who knows (unlike the rest of us uneducated fools) what is really going on in the Reformed world. Of course he would know because he goes to one of the best Reformed seminaries (and we don’t.)
God, I thank you that I am not like other men and women, non-seminarians, lowborn, stupid sheep, or even like this…. blogger.
Oh dear, I forgot to check with my pastor as to whether I should post here, and people like ME who are being led don’t know what they are doing, so I’ll just mimic….Chad. That’s normal, right? OK, enough mockery. Ya know what Chad, my pastor guides, he doesn’t prescribe, there’s a big difference. Loving recommendation vs. “You are an idiot, with no discernment, so I must protect you by restricting your access to the outside world and all the unsound doctrine which could assail you!” You know what? I don’t need my pastor to BE the Holy Spirit, because HE lives within me! Yes, new/immature believers may need more guidance, which then ought to look like loving advice…promoting discernment, rather than SG’s media blackout. I lived in the blackout for a long time, it’s prison. Dwell with us commoners a while, perhaps you’ll learn something from us (gasp.) Read.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Hi Canary,
You asked,
I believe the answer to your question lies at the heart of the top-down leadership structure that SGM has adopted, which they claim is derived from the Godhead.
Rather than believing (as I do) that there is no hierarchy in the Godhead, SGM places the Son of God, Jesus Christ, in a position of eternal subordination to the Father.
Thus, Jesus Christ’s position in SGM is emphasized as that of “The Savior”.
Referring to Jesus Christ as “The Savior” is deliberate in order to build and maintain the false construct that there are levels of power in the Godhead, and therefore levels of power within the church & family.
From this basis, SGM assumes a top-down pyramid of authority, contrary to what is taught in Scripture.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:05 am
Kindred,
Thanks for the link. I’m going to check it out. Glad some of our old friends found a way out.
Clareon,
Thanks for answering my question. I have to admit, it hurts my bird brain trying to understand. To me, calling Jesus the “Savior” when referring to Him seems so impersonal. Is that intentional, I wonder? I remember the focus being so much on sin and so little about Jesus that we hardly heard His name used near our last days at pdi. Yet, the bible says that there is great power in the name of Jesus. Seems to me that means we should use His given name!
Kris,
When I was in the Fairfax church, we were essentially manipulated into committing to give a certain amount of money for a building program that none of us had any say in starting. The pastor had a trained specialist speak to us at a family meeting one night. He was a master of manipulation. We didn’t realize til later how we’d fallen for the whole thing. Some of the families, I remember, could not fulfill the number they wrote on their comittment sheet that night, including us. Others who paid off their offering were held up as model members. I hope this sort of thing doesn’t happen today. It was an unethical way to get money out of the saints, playing on their faith and emotions, and then asking them to give more than what they could, trusting that God would supply the money throughout the year (if I remember right, it was a year’s comittment of giving what you promised to the night of the meeting, above and beyond your tithe). It put terrible pressure on many young families.
I know that some workers are truly worthy of their wages, but Pastors who live off the sheep should be very, very careful.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:38 am
If I were still attending a SGc I would not give a nickel to SG until I had an explanation that satisfied me on the following:
1) why do we support Southern Seminary?
2) why do we give gifts to ministries like Ligonier?
3) why do we give rebates/gifts to churches on the Left Coast?
4) do all SG churches pay membership fees and if so how much?
5) when and where can I find 990s for SGM and SG churches?
6) the members in SG are often called to follow the example of SG leaders. Given that, how should a member interpret CJ’s example of giving to Southern Seminary?
Fellows, if you can’t answer my questions then you can’t cash my checks!
Blessedly not attending a SGc,
Former SG Pastor
February 9th, 2010 at 1:45 am
Kris, dude, don’t forget a modesty check!
Chad is 31, according to his mySpace page. Is this how 31 year olds talk these days? And allegedly educated 31 year olds? It’s interesting how Chad is full of judgment and assumptions about you, Kris — a “son” of the Father, no less, lucky girl! — while simultaneously claiming to forgive you. How does that work, that talking out of both sides of one’s mouth? There is either judgment OR forgiveness, not both. It’s telling that so far his comment seems to be a drive-by. He doesn’t want to engage. He wants to judge while claiming to forgive. I wonder, what does he need to extend forgiveness for? How has this blog or Kris wronged him? Forgiveness is extended to a person who has wronged you, not a blog that’s ticked you off.
Chad, wisdom and maturity — of which you should possess a modicum at your age — would dictate that you at least acquaint yourself with this blog before you judge its content, its author, or its commenters. To judge without knowledge is a little bit of foolishness, isn’t it?
I attended the SD church. I think I know who our dude Chad here is, but to be honest, all the various worship teams blended together for me. Uh, as did the music.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:20 am
Speaking of Chad, his age, maturity, and music…
This is going to seem mean, but how many of you saw/see a “burning desire” in a LARGE number of the SGM young men to play a guitar or set of drums with the dream of playing/singing/leading in a “praise and worship” band?
Just think about it for a minute. Think of how many young boys are in your church right now taking guitar lessons, sitting around playing, etc. Take some time to listen to their talk.
It’s odd to find so many.
I’m sure there are a few that are wanting to for the right reasons, but most of them remind me of young boys wanting to be “rock n roll” stars. It’s quite obvious it’s for “selfish” reasons – I don’t care how much they raise their hands and “express” themselves.
Call me judgmental, but I do have a set of eyes.
(It gets them up on stage and in front of the girls, too.)
February 9th, 2010 at 8:17 am
To be fair to Chad, he did post a very lengthy comment on an older post (“Normal,” And SGM). I closed comments there after I replied to him, just cuz I’ve been finding it too distracting to deal with multiple conversations.
So, he wasn’t a total drive-by.
Renee brings up a good point, which is that his comment in this thread was an odd combination of judgment with talk of “forgiveness.” Interesting.
But let’s give ol’ Chad a break. While I totally think he brought it on himself (by posting so pompously, under his full real name), I don’t want to make any more fun of him.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Thanks Kris for the excellent intel! This information needs to get into the hands of every SGMer!
Matthew 10:26 “Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.”
February 9th, 2010 at 8:29 am
FSGP has some good advice for those of you still in SGM. Church finances shouldn’t be so vague and mysterious.
What I don’t understand is why SGM churches don’t have finances committees. Why is money the province of the
elderspaid staff pastors? After all, these guys are supposedly so super-spiritual that they can’t even have a glass of lemonade with their congregations without “watching over their souls.” Why would anybody believe that these soul-watchers would also be whip-smart with money? Wouldn’t that be like hitting the pastoral lottery, to be both able to sniff out sin in people better than they can themselves, but then also be “numbers guys”?How realistic is it to put the ultimate (literal) “buck stops here” power in the hands of guys who probably don’t have a lot of training or experience in finance?
February 9th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Hi Canary
You asked in post #69:
I do think it is deliberate and intentional because of SGM’s belief in the eternal subordination of the Jesus Christ, whom they call “The Savior” the majority of the time. SGM believes that there is a hierarchy of power and authority in the Trinity.
If you look at SGM’s logo, it shows concentric circles preceding from a center. I believe this issue is at the center of the debate. At the end of the day, our problems and concerns with the ministry MUST be rooted in Scripture, and herein lies the crux of the matter from which the problems in SGM proceed from.
Writing on this subject, Kevin Giles states:
The reason behind calling Jesus Christ “The Savior” is SGM’s way of subtly, subliminally and repeatedly enforcing the false concept of His eternal subordination (and keep Him stuck on the cross). This is what I believe, and it serves as the basis of the major Scriptural and doctrinal differences I have with SGM. It also why I find SGM such a deeply offensive *cough* Family of Churches.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:20 am
These links should have been included in my above post.
For further reading:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/eternal-subordination-of-christ-and-of.html
http://www.ajmd.com.au/trinity/Giles_Adam.pdf
February 9th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I actually think SGM’s use of “The Savior” (instead of “Jesus”) is less about their belief in Jesus’ eternal subordination, and more about making Jesus some far-off figure defined mostly by His crucifixion.
It seems to me that “The Savior” is a distancing term, and not so much a term of subordination. “Jesus” is much more familiar…much more common…much more the way one of Jesus’ friends might have addressed or spoken of Him.
I think there may even be a thread of deliberateness about keeping Jesus at arm’s length – it reinforces the concept of leaders-as-priests, with the common people less able to hear from God and understand His Word.
And…
If you see Jesus mostly as your savior and not so much as a “friend that sticks closer than a brother,” then you’re going to remain focused on your position as a sinner, rather than as a saint and a joint heir with Christ.
I believe that who we are in Christ – once we believe the gospel and understand that Jesus has saved us – is one of being empowered by the Holy Spirit to live as SAINTS, with all the authority and power that goes along with being a child of the Heavenly Father. We who were ONCE afar off (not “STILL” afar off, but “ONCE”) are NOW brought NEAR through the work of Jesus. The finished work. Jesus did not remain on the cross. He rose again, and now He sits at the right hand of the Father, where He makes intercession for us. We have a high priest in Him. And we have a FRIEND in Him.
Yes, He is our Savior. But He’s (dare I say it?) so much more than that, so much more than some distant figure defined by only ONE of His roles. We don’t have to refer to Jesus as the distant “The Savior” – we can call Him friend.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Please allow this to be entitled “In Defense of Dude Speak”
Hi Guys (as opposed to just saying hi to Guy),
In defense of Chad and fairness, please allow me a moment on top of the soap box of “culturally appropriate language”. (And I also ask for a great big dose of grace. You may need to be giving it to me by the time you get done reading. Trust me.)
My mini-thesis on Dude: In many parts of this country and among a few generations within our culture, Dude is a gender neutral terminology. For this reason, it is wrong to assume that Chad assumed Kris was a man.
Also, the use of this term in no way is exclusive to those in higher education nor to those illiterate among us. In other words, it is used as commonly by those without degrees as by those with several degrees and many silly, little letters after their names. It is used on the beach, in business, in academia, in homes and out in bars, among friends and with strangers, with family and with foes. Once again, Chad in no way showed his education, nor lack thereof in the use of it.
As to the referrences to Chad’s age (31 if this is the same Chad as some think) and his use of the word Dude, I am flummoxed. I know of few people over 50 who use this term regularly and I know of no one under 5 years old who use it, but between 5 and 50, it’s somewhat common as well as a socially accpetable word, whether or not you yourself choose to use it. I’m confused as to whether some commenters here think Chad is too young, or too old to be using it. (I can almost see some thinking he’s too young to be using it if those who think so are unaware of it being used as a somewhat “retro, ironic” terminology, but I don’t think there’s any reason to think of Chad as being hopelessly behind the times. Except for his having a myspace page. That would be the only indication we’ve seen, if indeed it is even the same Chad.)
So, as far as the pounding this poor guy took for his use of the word Dude, I stand beside him, strong and proud. As far as him being a bit of a wanker, he’s just like me and all the rest of us here who drank the koolaid at one time (which I know all of you agree with- this point just gave me a chance to say that I am not defending Chad’s words in general). I’m so glad that we eventually came to see the fruit of that Kool-Aid working its way through our systems, into our limbs and out through the ends of our fingertips, affecting everyone we touched with our acid hands.
I don’t like having the Kool-Aid drinking masses spewing their Kool-Aid stained vomit on us any more than the next guy (again, no reference to the big Guy), but I wonder if we can find some way to respond as a whole that says, “We disagree, and I think what you just spewed on us is poisonous and gross” but somehow do it without getting distracted by other things. I don’t know if it’s possible, because if you’re still busy recovering from the Kool-Aid you sure as heck want to do everything you can to defend yourself and others from its toxicity.
And I KNOW that I am as snarky as they come at times so it’s not like I think I know how to do it any differently or any better. It was just a thought that made me say “Hmmmm” and made me wonder if anyone else out there had any ideas.
Stunned
(at how long she wrote about the word Dude, Dudes)
February 9th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Hey, Stunned -
Dude, you know I love you.
But Chad also called me “bro.”
Now (sorry for the continual Seinfeld references), I don’t think he was meaning to insinuate that I’m a “Man-Zeer.”
He thought I was a guy.
You’re right, though, in that it’s not a big deal…EXCEPT that to me, it demonstrated rather clearly that Chad hadn’t read the site very carefully, or he would have picked up somewhere on the notion that I’m not a bro.
Or a Man-Zeer.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Stunned, dude:
Is Kris a brother? Cuz that was another label Chad applied.
“Dude” was a minor, laugh-it-off offense. But when Chad rode his seminary/SG horse in and got dumped on his backend, well, that’s just too funny. The pedestal he fell off was of his own making and it wasn’t all that high.
I’m just sayin’,
Former SG Pastor
February 9th, 2010 at 11:48 am
ha ha ha ha. well, my bad. you can tell i hadn’t given what Chad wrote much weight. clearly i didn’t even read it closely! skimmin’, skimmin’, skimmin’ when it comes to unimportant stuff like spewing. forgive me, please. hmmm, now wondering if my friends who use bro only do so with men or with women, also. or do those who dod that say “brah?” oh, no. off to waste more of my imagination wondering about worthless things.
Stunned
but not over her inability to screw up
February 9th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Hon, if someone is indeed from San Diego, then people from Southern Cal say Dude all the time. (About as often as Southerners say Hon, in fact…
)
February 9th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Um, what’s a Man-Zeer?
February 9th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Stunned –
You do make a good point that “Dude” can span generations, and I’ve heard it used on women, too.
My issue with Chad was the apparent double-whammy of judgment and forgiveness and the he seems not to notice the utter disconnect of that combination. There was almost the appearance that he was forgiving a personal offense when none was given. He magnanimously announced he wouldn’t hold a grudge. For what?? (Moments after calling Kris a hypocrite.)
His thinking and logic are faulty and somewhat indicative of a much younger person than he actually is. Again, at least read the site for a while before you make willy-nilly pronouncements about it.
I’d be so curious to hear Chad’s rationale behind the judgment/forgiveness whammy. Either judge or forgive.
But don’t claim to do one when clearly doing the other.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Luna Moth –
It’s from “Seinfeld.” It’s … uh … a bra for the well-endowed man.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Luna Moth, like a brassiere for me. Bro-zeer. (I LOVE Hon.)
renee, I hear what you’re saying. You’re right, the whole forgiveness thing was pretty funny. As if Kris had offended Chad or had said anything about him whatsoever before he wrote that.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
YIKES! I dropped the “n” from men. That was meant to read “like a brassiere for MEN”, not me. How embarrassing!!!!!!!!!!! My mistakes are cracking me up more and more. Maybe I oughta take my keyboard and go home…
February 9th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
FSGP — Love, love, LOVE the Aerosmith reference…(maybe 2 times??).
The SGM-speak thing is something I could never get into. It drove me nuts from the start. But in defense, in every church I’ve ever been in, I’ve noticed people adopting the “phraseology” of the pastors, etc. My observation, and others may have heard it differently, is that in the south, the more charismatic, more fundamental or less educated the congregations, you hear “Jesus”. The upscale churches will say “Jesus Christ” – and the frozen chosen will simply say “Christ.” In Catholic conversations, I hear “The Savior”, along with “The Blessed Mother”. And once again, here’s another direct link back to the Catholic upbringing of several SGM leaders.
Regardless, His name is Wonderful, Counselor, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Holy One, Emmanuel, Alpha and Omega, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Lily of the Valley, Bright and Morning Star, Master, Savior, Jesus — and Oh, how I love Him!
February 9th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
nickname,
FROZEN CHOSEN -ha!
Thanks Clarion and Kris for explaining your thoughts on sgmers saying the “Savior”. You both make perfect sense, and clear up this issue for me. I thought I read somewhere that Bob K. had worship leaders remove the word “Friend” from all worship songs. IF I heard right, I can understand better why he did so. Did someone here post that?
Continuing in my friendship with Jesus, who is EVERYTHING! Canary
February 9th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Hi Kris,
You said:
While this could be part of the reason, I think there is enough evidence to support my claim that referring to Jesus Christ as “The Savior” in SGM is more directly connected to their belief in His eternal subordination within the Trinity.
I’m not sure if you had the chance to glance at the articles I posted the links to, but if you believe what Kevin Giles says, those who are committed to the subordination of women are strongly committed to the belief in the subordination of the Son. There is overwhelming evidence of this practice in SGM. Therefore, I contend that the way SGM portrays the role of the Son (The Savior) has more to do with the emphasis on His subordination that is foundational within SGM than about using the title “The Savior” to characterize Him as a “far-off figure.”
February 9th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I was thinking some today about SGM’s emphasis on their “doctrine of the church” and how they teach that Christians shouldn’t “date” the church, but rather be married to their local church.
I think we can all agree that the church is the Bride of Christ. As believers, we are all part of the church as His “called-out ones.” Each of us has the Kingdom of God within us because we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
But the church is not God. The church is not Jesus. And the church is not the Spirit. Jesus prayed that we would all be one as He is One. But if we look at the history of the church, we see a tortured past. Throughout history, the church has often been the source of the abuse the Christian faith has suffered, and it’s no different today.
We want to think of the church as being a perfect place, a refuge from the world. We want to trust that what we are taught is always the truth. But the church has a long way to go, we have a long way to go, before she is without spot, wrinkle, blemish..or any such thing.
Come Lord Jesus! May Your Kingdom come and Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
February 9th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
As a woman who believes that the clear teaching of scripture is male headship in the home and church (not from inferiority but from wise divine creational order), and that the son Jesus willingly submitted himself to the will of the Father, let me only say…..
….watch out that you don’t throw out orthodox doctrine because of all the control and legalism in SGM.
The more I read this site the more I am convinced that the single biggest agenda of Satan concerning SGM, is to make people associate the corporation evils with certain doctrine, so they end up dismissing all of it.
The great truths of the creeds and the Reformation confessions, and a whole lot of books by old dead Reformed guys, are wonderful true doctrine. And just because CJ and his minions mentioned them is no reason to assume it is the root cause of the control. It isn’t. Patriarchy isn’t, and eternal submission isn’t.
The problem isn’t Piper or Grudem or Spurgeon or Sande or Duncan. The problem is the abusive controlling heart of CJ Mahaney and his enablers, and I ask you all to pray that you can keep the two separate in your mind and emotions. Cults use the bible and that does NOT make the bible a bad book!!!
February 9th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
a………..
You offered a very interesting quiz at comment 58 above. Compared to other churches I’ve attended, SGM churches have a much higher pastor-to-parishioner ratio. Preaching at only one Sunday service is also a luxury most other non-SGM senior pastors don’t enjoy. There does, however, seem to be grueling retreat schedule to which many SGM pastors are subject.
FSGP………..
You have also presented some very pertinent questions at your comment 70 above. Voting with one’s wallet is always an effective (and powerful) method through which to get SGM’s attention. After all, for a business like SGM “the bottom line is the bottom line.”
N.S.L.B.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Hi 5years,
Believe or not, I understand where you’re coming from. Truly I do. I wish that you understood where I was coming from without thinking that I’ve just gone and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Like I said before, at the end of the day, what matters to me in all of this is the Bible. If I didn’t believe that the Bible spoke to the issues we confront in SGM, then I wouldn’t be here. What good is it to complain about SGM if there’s no Scriptural basis for doing so?
By the way, I couldn’t disagree with you more about ‘male headship’. And I trust we can agree to disagree.
Peace †
February 10th, 2010 at 1:38 am
Hey dudes (;p)
), and have 3 kids.
I guess that went to plan. Yes, that is my myspace page. I dedicated it to really horrible 80s-90s one-hit-wonder-stars. I think the last time that I went on it was in 2008, up until a few weeks ago. I got facebooked, so to speak. I am 31, have a wife of 8yrs (she’s stuck with me because I won’t leave
As for the “dude” comment, I knew Kris was a woman because I had emailed her twice and read almost every forum on the site. I am sorry for the bro references. One of my best friends is named is Kris, and so it must have confused me in the reply.
As for the post, it was highly sarcastic and meant to annoy. Sometimes when you post on blogs, you really think that something good is going to happen, and then you go back and read what you wrote and realize that it was pretty sucky.
Well, I…that was me. My post was rude, arrogant, and actually completely ass-like. Please forgive me for this. I didn’t take the pain and hurt that you all feel seriously. I didn’t consider who God is and what He has done through His Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. I didn’t prayerfully consider the way in which you have all been wronged by SGM in the ways that you have. I was very immature in my response and became what I hate the most: gentle-less and humility-sticken.
I interpreted the above post as you saying that Al Mohler and C.J. are in bed together. I thought that to be a pretty strong accusation of Mohler, a man who brought the SBC from complete destruction, to life. That’s my reply.
My first response sucked…please forgive me.
I actually didn’t sleep too much last night because of it. I spent a lot of time in prayer and the Lord showed me that I have a Savior complex (not the one talked about here with reference to “Jesus”). I think that I can save people with how witty I am, how awesome my arguments are, etc. I have always battled this. Again, forgive me for sinning against you all, especially Kris and Guy.
I attend the SGM SD church and [seminary name]. I hope that my stupidity doesn’t make the people there, that have worked hard to glorify God, look foolish for investing their time and lives into me. Normally, I just make jokes, read books while scratching my head, drink great beers, scotch, Jack, and smoke cigars/pipes.
It was wrong for me to judge you all without ever meeting you and knowing what you struggle with daily.
Please help me see what the truth is. I desire my family to follow the truth.
May the Lord bless us with the remembrance of who He is and how great our Savior Jesus Christ is by the power of His Holy Spirit,
Chad
February 10th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Hey, Quizzler -
Thanks for your comment and welcome to the site.
(I feel like you’ve been around here a long time, but I think that’s just because I’ve read your posts at SGMRefuge…I’m pretty sure this is actually your first comment here.)
February 10th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Kris………
You are correct. Thank you for the welcome.
N.S.L.B.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Hi, Chad…
I’m glad you’ve come back, and thank you for such kind words.
I think you raise a legitimate question, which will also help us get back to the topic of the original post. And that is this:
Even though it’s stated at the top of the post, maybe some people missed that I was not the author of the article about CJ’s donations to the SBTS. Dee over at “The Wartburg Watch” wrote it.
So I can’t speak for precisely what Dee was intending to say, but in my mind, any time an individual or corporate entity donates a significant amount of money to an organization like a seminary, that donation is going to garner positive attention FOR the individual or corporate entity. At the end of the day, Al Mohler is only human…just like the rest of us. He’s no doubt accomplished some amazing stuff and blessed untold people through his ministry. But he’s ultimately still just another guy.
You know?
And, since he IS human, he’s going to sit up and take notice of someone who has donated more than $100,000 to the seminary he’s leading. Typically, a significant part of a seminary president’s job IS fundraising. So if Mohler is just doing his job, he’d be motivated to be on good terms with such a significant donor.
I think it’s a mistake to imagine that our favorite teachers/authors/Christian leaders are completely removed from all normal human thoughts and feelings. It doesn’t always have to come down to “sinful motivations,” either. It’s possible to believe that Al Mohler was influenced by money without reading anything especially negative into that.
I think it’d be odd, frankly, if Mohler was NOT influenced by CJ’s (and SGM’s) donations. It would mean that he was blowing off a significant part of his job as SBTS president – that of fundraising – if he didn’t care who gave what.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Good for you, Chad. You are listening to the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth. Don’t **ever** let anyone tell you that you can not hear Him.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Claireon said in #92 “But the church is not God. The church is not Jesus. And the church is not the Spirit. Jesus prayed that we would all be one as He is One. But if we look at the history of the church, we see a tortured past. Throughout history, the church has often been the source of the abuse the Christian faith has suffered, and it’s no different today.”
Claireon, I’ve never looked at it that way before, about God not being the church. Thank you for sharing this. Can I please say a great big AMEN! That is so beautiful. And may I add to the last part of the quote above is that not only has the church been the place of great pain for the body, but, tragically, it has been the place of great pain for those we are called to love. (Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, etc, etc.)
February 10th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Chad, wow. That’s about all I can say right now. Wow. I’m impressed, Brother. (I’ve almost never called anyone brother but I hope it’s OK with you that I did.) I want to be more like you. Seriously. I really admire the grace with which you just treated us in your last posting. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And oh, by the way, my wanker reference is still yours if you want since I consider myself one at times, too. If so, climb aboard the wanker boat with me and a lot of us on this board. If not, I’ll understand that, too. I mean, who would want to identify themselves that way? (Except those of us who recognize that we all are once in a while.)
Stunned
and impressed with the love and sensitivity you’ve shown and genuinely saying I want to be more like that example you’ve just set (not easy to do after all was said to and about you) Three “Huzzahs!” for you
February 10th, 2010 at 9:41 am
To sort of expand upon my comment #99…
I’ve talked about this before, but I think it bears mentioning again – I’m always amazed at what happens if anyone seems to insinuate something negative about one of the Reformed Big Dogs. It seems like people will come out of the woodwork to express their horror that anyone would dare question anything done or said by the RBDs.
It’s like the RBDs are always automatically far above and beyond reproach.
Now…I’m NOT intending to say ANYTHING negative about any specific RBD. I’m NOT insinuating anything with this comment.
Except to say, it strikes me as ludicrous that the people who make such a big thing out of their persistent innate sinfulness and talk so much about their total depravity and original sin would also be the very people who believe that certain celebrity preachers/teachers/leaders are automatically removed from the human responses and tendencies that perpetually beset the rest of us. It’s as if writing some great books or giving some powerful sermons or being a faithful pastor for 25 years have wiped out these heroes’ potential to EVER be wrong…to EVER respond the way the rest of us would respond…to EVER put their pants on one leg at a time.
(Oops. Just kidding with that last one…)
But seriously, think of the total logical inconsistency at work here. “Reformed” types are BIG into reading sin into everything they themselves might do or think. They are led to think like this in part because of what their favorite teachers/authors say. I know that in SGM, CJ models this all the time with his “I’m the worst sinner I know” talk.
And yet if someone seems to be pointing out something about one of these guys that might actually be slightly “off,” the IMMEDIATE reaction is that it Just Cannot Be So!! This or that RBD simply wouldn’t do or say or feel or think that way!!! He’s written books! He’s been wonderful! He’s an amazing pastor! He’s a fabulous leader! He’s ALWAYS demonstrating [fill in whatever amazing leadership attribute]!!!!
It’s just so ironic that so many of us who claim to hold to a “Reformed” understanding of human nature and sin really don’t believe that our own pet heroes might occasionally succumb to normal human weaknesses.
We will wag our fingers at guys like Ted Haggard. But the funny thing is, Mr. Haggard had more of a “Reformed” sense of his own potential to fail than CJ has demonstrated – at least in Mr. Haggard’s church, which he totally started singlehandedly, from the ground up, he’d had the wisdom to put in place measures that could enable his own ousting, should the need arise. He actually ANSWERED FORMALLY to guys who did not work for him.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:49 am
FGSP:
The internal revenue code does not require churches are not required to file Forms 990. So CLC does not have to publically disclose its financial statements and I think SGM Inc is accorded the same treatment.
I also enjoy your posts. well written and thoughtful.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Five years:
Excellent post defending reformed theology versus SGM’s version of it. Sometimes here folks do throw out the baby with the bath in terms of dismissing reformed theology because of SGM’s poorly defined reformed views.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Dear Lord ….
I’ve just read this post and the entire comments and to be honest this just chills my blood. I just need to repeat it in simple form to remind myself;
2005 – Both SGM AND C J Mahaney gave between $25,000 to 49,999 and became “Patron Member”.
2006 – C J Mahaney gave $100,000 or MORE and joined “President’s Council”.
2007 – Both SGM AND C J Mahaney gave $10,000 or more and became “Distinguished Associate”.
2008 – Ditto.
I’m just … staggered.
The verse that springs to mind is; (Matthew 6:2) – “When you give … do not announce it with trumpets … They have had their reward in full”. Enjoy being on the President’s Council and being a Patron Distinguished Marvellous Associate or whatever Mahaney.
Glad I rarely ever gave money to SGM (something just stopped me) – now I know where it went!
February 10th, 2010 at 10:35 am
5 years and formersgmer, there’s room in the Church Universal for reformed and not, for complementarian and egalitarian, for Calvinist and Armenian, charismatic and cessationist (sp?) and charismatic-liturigical, and more. That’s what I love–all the ways it’s possible to be a “good Christian”.
Of course, I do have my growing understanding sense of what’s better, but I feel strongly that the ground of all must be love.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am
formersgmer -
True; churches don’t have to file 990s. Ministries do. DesiringGod, Ligonier, GTY, James White – their forms are online, available for inspection. Is there a loop that SGM slips through? It would be interesting to see their 990.
Thanks!
Former SG Pastor
February 10th, 2010 at 11:50 am
“5 years and formersgmer, there’s room in the Church Universal for reformed and not, for complementarian and egalitarian, for Calvinist and Armenian, charismatic and cessationist (sp?) and charismatic-liturigical, and more. That’s what I love–all the ways it’s possible to be a “good Christian”.
Of course, I do have my growing understanding sense of what’s better, but I feel strongly that the ground of all must be love.”
Acme…thanks. There is NO room for people who claim to be “Reformed” and then run their churches in a way that goes back to the Pre Reformation catholic polity.
A little honesty on their part about how non Reformed they are in some ways would be a positive step. SGM, believe what you want, but at least be honest about what you believe, and spare us these word games.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Agreed. I remember the tract table at clc and learning that the Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses tend to use familiar sounding words with unfamiliar meanings. I didn’t know then that clc was doing the same durn thing, that doctrines and practices would be changed at a whim and never directly acknowledged.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
FSGP:
The ministries you mention probably disclose their Forms 990 on their own websites. Becauee of tazpayer confidentiality rules, absent SGM’s self-disclosure of its information returns, neither you nor anyone else will ever see them.
Although I can tell you that if you give money to SGM, the ministry will send you a copy of its financial statements with your year end contribution statement. I know this because I still have a copy of one the statement in my own tax return records from years when i used to donate to SGM.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Hey, folks…
For the record (because aspects of this thread may not make much sense now), today I suggested to Chad via email that he permit me to edit his comments and remove his full name and some of his identifying info.
Long ago, back in the blog’s early days, another commenter was furious with me and everyone else for our relative anonymity. To him, not posting on the internet with your full real name was an “integrity issue,” somehow evil because it enabled people to gossip and slander SGM (or so he thought) with impunity, among other things.
My response then – and it is the same one now – is that it is never a good idea to go around publishing stuff online under your full name. These things live on indefinitely out there in cyberspace. Who knows who may find it? Look how easy it was to find Chad’s MySpace and figure out way too much about him…and here in his opinion, that site doesn’t even reflect what he is like today. Imagine how he (and others who have posted under their full names) will feel 10 or 20 years from now, when someone researching them before a job interview finds their opinions posted for the world to see? What if they’ve changed their thinking in those decades? Nobody should be haunted by that sort of thing.
So, all of this is to say, I’ve gone in and taken out all the references to Chad’s full name, as well as some other details he shared about his family. He did not ask me to do it, but he agreed with my suggestion. I would strongly encourage anyone else out there reading this – anyone thinking of joining our discussion – to choose an online handle or nickname, or just go by your first name, if you feel like you’ve just GOT to be who you really are in real life.
It’s time-consuming to go in and edit comments, and I may not always feel so protective and generous…so really think it over before you plaster your views and real full identity out there for anyone with access to a search engine to find.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Kris – re: #112
Dude, you’re awesome! (I just couldn’t resist. Well, I could have but …)
Seriously, that was an incredibly nice gesture.
Humming Aerosmith tunes,
Former SG Pastor
February 10th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Chad –
Thank you for your apology to the group here. It resonated with me for very personal reasons. I’m actually in tears as I write this.
As I think I said, I attended your church, quite recently. It ended badly, despite EVERY attempt at reconciliation — and IT HURTS LIKE HELL, pardon me. The individuals involved will not even speak to me. This all on the heels of previous — and egregious — spiritual abuse.
Your initial tone and attitude, both here and at Refuge, only confirmed my terribly low opinion of your church and only confirmed that I can expect to remain permanently unreconciled with these people. So, yes, fairly or unfairly, you are
“representing” your church on these sites.
That said, I’m impressed and grateful for your apology. The Holy Spirit is clearly at work in you. So that’s something indeed.
Thank you.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Just so no one gets confused, I am the one who investigated and wrote this article about contributions to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by C.J. Mahaney, CLC, and SGM, which was first posted at The Wartburg Watch in May 2009 and then re-posted last week. Here’s the link:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/02/05/the-mahaney-money-machine/
Kris is not to be blamed in any way for the information provided here. She is simply sharing what I have discovered with her readers.
If you have a problem with it, then I recommend that you to take it up with me.
Rest assured that the financial information is 100% accurate because I printed out the SBTS Roll Call from 2002 through 2007 and have stored them in a notebook (just in case this information ever mysteriously disappears from the internet). I have not been able to access the Roll Call for 2008 or 2009, although I have tried.
Sidney alerted me to the fact that Sovereign Grace Ministries has also given to SBTS. When I researched this information last May, I was only looking for contributions from C.J. Mahaney and Covenant Life Church. Silly me… SGM gave to SBTS too! Now I have to go back and amend my post at TWW.
Let’s cut to the chase and look strictly at “Lifetime Cumulative Gift Levels” as of year end 2007.
The Roll Call 2007 lists the following contributors and their cumulative contributions:
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL (Cumulative gifts of $100,000 or more)
Individuals
C.J. Mahaney
Businesses, Denominations and Foundations
Sovereign Grace Ministries
Gaithersburg, Maryland
SUSTAINING MEMBER (Cumulative gifts of $15,000 to $24,999)
Churches
Covenant Life Church
Gaithersburg, Maryland
It’s noteworthy to mention that PDI gave to SBTS in 2002 at the Leader’s Associate level ($5,000 to $9,999). BTW, that was the same year that Sovereign Grace Ministries came into existence.
If you want to see for yourself, go to this link:
http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2008Spring.pdf
Mahaney and SGM are listed on page 43, and CLC is on page 44.
Just follow the money trail…
February 10th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Thanks, Chad. This dudette now thinks you’re a pretty cool dude, bro…
Off topic, but I have a question. Today a friend of mine called to say her church in NC has become affiliated with a “denomination” called something like Harvest Church International. The church voted to join — now they find they have no further voting rights. The pastors are “elders”. A group her husband refers to as “The Mafia” came in to organize the church. They’ve spent a bundle on mega-decibel sound systems and remodeling. Have their own music and own books. Care groups start this week. Her descriptions of what is happening to her church sounded eerily familiar — sounded like SGM all over again. Does anyone have any information or insight into this uh, family of churches?
Thanks!
February 10th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
nickname:
I only had a couple of minutes to research you question because I’m watching an important basketball game — Duke vs. UNC!!!
I’d love to know where your friend’s church is located (city) because I live in North Carolina.
Please ask if she has been hearing the name James MacDonald at her church, and if so have her check out this link:
http://www.harvestbiblefellowship.us/
If this is the correct “denomination”, go and read this blog post:
http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=1138
Please let me know if Harvest Bible Fellowship is involved, and then I’ll share some additional information that may be beneficial.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Deb –#117 — Yes, that’s the correct group. I’d like to email you that info about the Harvest Bible Fellowship church privately. Couldn’t find out how to do that on your website. Please let me know after Duke and Carolina both lose! Thank you.
February 11th, 2010 at 9:01 am
My sister and I were talking yesterday, and it suddenly struck us as sort of funny, the way that people will leap to the defense of the Reformed Big Dogs.
I mean, why are people so eager to assume that the RBDs are automatically above any of the human drives and desires that sometimes motivate the rest of us?
It’s not like these guys are recluses, like recently deceased author J.D. Salinger, who shut himself away on his farm and has refused to publish anything since the 1960s. Nope. The Reformed Big Dogs all actively promote themselves.
Now, I’m not saying I think that they promote themselves for purely selfish, self-centered reasons. But at the same time, I think it’s silly to believe that because you agree with a particular RBD’s message or really like his books, or think he’s a dynamic preacher, that he’s this totally selfless, self-sacrificing, self-effacing Christian who’d never EVER have an eye on the bottom line…or on advancing himself and his own fame.
I mean, think about it. The RBDs have all WORKED at getting their books published. Book agents and publishers didn’t come begging at their doorsteps, pleading with them to please write something! No, these guys SOUGHT to get their works out to a larger audience.
Moreover, these guys put a significant amount of time and energy into flying around the country, speaking at conferences. They stride onto stages in the midst of standing ovations. They get their pictures plastered all over brochures and promotional materials.
Nothing wrong with any of this, mind you. But – at the end of the day, it still is WORK, and it’s still work that involves these guys’ self-promotion…and an element of fame-seeking…of seeking to increase their influence…maybe, even, of seeking to have more control…
Again, it’s not like I’m saying they do this for reasons that are all about themselves personally. But at the same time, I don’t understand why these guys’ fans can’t believe that there MIGHT be an element of ego, of self-promotion, of career advancement involved…why it’s such a stretch to imagine that CJ deliberately set out to get noticed, so he was intentional about where he donated money (and where he had SGM donate more money)…which then led to Al Mohler’s endorsement of CJ’s book…
If these guys were so above the rest of us humans, then we wouldn’t know their names and they wouldn’t collect speaking fees or charge for their books. They wouldn’t be “Reformed Big Dogs.”
February 11th, 2010 at 9:23 am
nickname,
If you have ever read our posts at The Wartburg Watch, you will quickly realize that Dee and I are EXTREMELY concerned about what is happening within reformed circles.
Last year Dee and I visited the Sovereign Grace Church in Apex on January 25, 2009, where we heard C.J. Mahaney deliver a “teaching” on Cravings and Conflicts.
We would be more than happy to visit your friend’s church some time soon and educate our readership about James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Fellowship. Sounds an awful lot like SGM!
Hope you were able to read James McDonald’s post entitled “CJ Mahaney is an Awful Sinner, but I am Worse!!” at this link:
http://blog.harvestbiblefellowship.org/?p=1138
One way C.J. and James MacDonald know each other is through the “Gospel Coalition”. It’s a group of reformed pastors who are forming strong alliances for the sake of the Gospel. Yeah, right!!! It’s all about power and control. Check out this link: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about
FYI – Dee’s former pastor is in this GC group.
We are in the process of revamping our blog, and the only working e-mail address right now is
dee@thewartburgwatch.com
If you will send your confidential e-mail to Dee, she will forward it to me. I hope to have my own working e-mail address soon.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Kris, I’m totally with you and your sister.
It’s that whole “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2) thing. Christians take it as “they can do no wrong – EVER!” – like it’s not even possible.
Folks pretty much view the RBD’s like every other reformed pastor until they make celebrity status, then it’s up on a pedestal they go. And it’s not just any pedestal – it’s “fall proof.” If they keep their noses clean of the dirty stuff (like sexual sin), there’s almost a guarantee that they’ll always stay securely planted on top of the pedestal – “above reproach.” (And there are some that REALLY enjoy that pedestal.)
Woe to anyone who ever questions these guys. Their “fans” are a loyal group.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Kindred,
It struck me as I read your comment that it seems like the reaction – when someone points out something questionable about a Reformed Big Dog – is one of anger, like the person is questioning all of the RBD’s teachings or is saying something that will somehow negate the man’s life work.
It’s not that at all.
But you’re right, as long as they don’t get caught in any kind of sex scandal, they remain untouchable. It’s puzzling.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:07 am
*
*
*
I was told by a number of my CLC Pastors that time and money sent/spent/donated to non SGM churches did not count as they were not my home church or the church that God had called me to.
Reflecting on a conversation I had with an SGM Pastor, “There is nothing wrong with my church (CLC) being “Jealous” for what provision that God intends for the church that leads and feeds my family and I.”
What I find interesting is that these donations to other organizations seem to exeed the CLC “Benevolence” amount listed for the same calendar years.
I am curios as to what sort of a deal was made when Josh showed up. CJ seemed to get
publishing clout that was not there before. Josh seemed to get ownership of a very profitable business.
Both CLC and SGM re wrote their articles of incorporation at Josh’s arrival.
In this process, their member based oversight was dissolved, and replaced with pastoral elders.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Kris said:
“But you’re right, as long as they don’t get caught in any kind of sex scandal, they remain untouchable. It’s puzzling.”
It think there may be a certain psychology behind this.
For various reasons when someone is so elevated in their mind, having almost a “perfect” state, they don’t want that illusion shattered. It would destroy their perfect world. In other words, they look up to this person so much that they don’t want to admit that some of what the person teaches or does is questionable.
Also when someone has so much invested in something they don’t want to have to admit that what were involved in was wrong. Take a long time SGM Member, who has spent a number of years of their life in the group and have given so financially. Because of this investment, they don’t want to have to admit that there are problems with the group including leadership. Thus they will ignore and not want to see the problems that exist.
In one book that critiqued Bill Gothard, the author share how it is that most people don’t like to admit they are wrong even for smaller matters. Imagine how much harder that is when one has a lot invested. You have to admit to yourself, friends and family that you made a wrong investment. When one has a lot invested, it is hard to “cut one’s losses” as the phrase goes.
I also remember someone sharing an illustration from a science fiction story. It was something along the lines of the regular people protecting leaders at almost all cost since if the leaders fell it would destroy their perfect world. Maybe someone could share this. This story wasn’t about Borg but another one.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Unassimilated said:
“What I find interesting is that these donations to other organizations seem to exeed the CLC “Benevolence” amount listed for the same calendar years.”
Don’t forget that the actual amount of “benevolence” might even be lower than the line item shows. Some of SGM Churches include in the same line item honorariums given to out of town pastors that speak at their local church. Putting these two items together sure doesn’t make sense to me.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Steve said
“For various reasons when someone is so elevated in their mind, having almost a “perfect” state, they don’t want that illusion shattered. It would destroy their perfect world. In other words, they look up to this person so much that they don’t want to admit that some of what the person teaches or does is questionable.”
Excellent definition of what I would call a functional Pope. And many of us have had, or have them…instead of testing all things, we let them do the heavy lifting of telling us what to think and how to act.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Musicman
Good point about that type of thinking makes them a “functional Pope.”
It is also a lot easier and is the path of least resistance to want to just accept everything a person says without questioning vs. thinking, critiquing it, and checking it against scripture and logic. One way to put it to taking the path of least resistance.
When I was a child, one would think certain people such a teacher or your parents were like this. As you matured in age, you began to realize they didn’t know everything. It was sometimes coming to terms that someone you admired wasn’t nearly as perfect as what you once thought.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
You may be interested in going to http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com where I show conclusively that John Macarthur is on board with the Church Growth/ Purpose Driven agenda. Macarthur speaks at Harvest Bible Chapel which is a family of 44 churches all with facilitator led small groups. These are real brainwashing/mind control churches. Harvest also has Mohler and Greg Laurie speak at their conferences. What is Harvest’s “Bible” for their small group facilitator training? It is CJ Mahaney’s book “Why Small Groups” which is really Marxism cloaked as Christianity. Macarthur, Mohler, James MacDonald, Mahaney, Laurie (why this charismatic speaks with the reformed? They are building the one world church.) These men are all agents for Satan.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Hi, bob -
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
I don’t really know what to say…it seems bizarrely sweeping and completely WRONG to call these men “agents for Satan” because their churches do small groups. I’ve read about the concerns some people have had about Rick Warren’s “consensus building” type of small group, how such “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” training will ease people into expecting to set aside their absolutes and become unsure of everything in which they believe. But I don’t think you can lump all small group interactions together under one label like that. Otherwise, you could even say that if you host a dinner party (which typically features a “small group” of people), you are engaging in thought reform.
That’d be ridiculous. And so is condemning the Christian leaders you mention.
February 12th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Bob –
I never expected to defend John MacArthur anywhere, last of all places on this site, but I’d believe that CJ has long, blond dreadlocks sprouting from his bald head before I’d believe JMac is Purpose Driven.
Yep, that about says it.
Former SG Pastor
February 12th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I second what FSGP says – John MacArthur is well-known for penning Ashamed of the Gospel way back in 1993, a whole decade before Rick Warren’s 30 Days of Purpose program seemed to sweep in and take over (and, in my opinion, water down) much of Evangelical Christianity. MacArthur’s critique of the market-driven church was amazingly ahead of its time, in retrospect.
Of course…on the other hand…
MacArthur, author of the arguably more controversial Charismatic Chaos, in which he completely roasts Charismaticism, focuses on the “crazies” like Benny Hinn, and basically equates the entire movement with the money-grubbing loons, is also now sharing the stage with the likes of CJ Mahaney.
But I’m guessing CJ is the one who changed, not MacArthur.
February 13th, 2010 at 9:08 am
I read “Charismatic Chaos” and still have the copy of it.
Imagine my surprise when I realized CJ and JMac (I like that, FSGP) were working some of the same circuits.
Talk about an oxymoron!
From pages 217 & 218 of “Charismatic Chaos”…
February 13th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Three years ago John Macarthur’s singles ministries were both using Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven model. After these ministries were publicly exposed, they deleted their websites. Check out the evidence here:
http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-Grace-Church-Purpose-Driven-ministries-The-Guild-The-Foundry.html
Also, Macarthur now has ministries that are partnering with foreign governments. This is also part of Rick Warren’s communitarian agenda. Check it out here:
http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-TMAI-partners-with-foreign-governments.html
What Macarthur says and does are 2 different things.
Kris,
Do I equate a dinner party with facilitator-led groups? Warren’s church has facilitator-led groups. All in his church must participate in them. They are called Marxist dialectic sessions and Soviets. They are brainwashing groups which will result in Christians losing their faith. These groups also invoke demons which place the group members in bondage. These groups come from the Kabbalah. The dialectic process employed by these groups comes from the Kabbalah. Macarthur’s church right now has these groups. All facilitators are agents for Satan and these groups are the basis for communist mind control. Facilitators are getting group participants to serve satan rather than God. ALL CHURCHES THAT EMPLOY FACILITATOR-LED GROUPS ARE CONTROLLED BY SATAN AND ARE WORKING FOR SATAN!! These Christans are being ushered into Satan’s one world government. Read more about them here:
http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/How-small-church-groups-invoke-demons-church-growth-movement.html
All the men I mentioned are agents for Satan and the reason why Macarthur is in bed with Laurie and Mahaney is because he is an ecumenist building Satan’s one world church. Macarthur’s father was at the pinnacle of the world’s ecumenical movement. He was one of the most corrupt pastors in the US. Read it here:
http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/John-Macarthur-father-Ecumenical-movement-Fuller-Seminary.html
February 13th, 2010 at 10:43 am
bob,
So you’re saying that any group led by a facilitator is automatically wrong?
I just can’t buy that. That’s bizarre. I’m not going to publish any more of your comments.
February 13th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
In addition to the fact, Bob, that it’s just poor blog etiquette to have your first comments on someone’s blog highlight your very own blog IN THE COMMENT. It’s a bit presumptuous. It’s piggybacking on Kris’ traffic for your own purposes.
Beyond that, I find it strange that you’re trying to prove your point by essentially saying, “Yes, I’m right, and to prove it, go look at what I said.”
Weird.
I wonder: If I facilitated a group where we discussed Bob’s writings, would he still consider me a pawn of the debbil?
February 14th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Happy Valentines day….a
February 14th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Happy Valentine’s Day to you too “a” – and to my special valentine…I think you know who that is
February 15th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I’m sad for Bob. I’ve seen a lot of folks like him on the outskirts of Christian online circles. They’ll seize at a bit of Scripture, misinterpret it, and construct a whole alternate theology around it, usually concluding that most Christians are apostate. It’s distressing, and I’m praying for him.
Aw, Guy and Kris! So cute.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Good Work, Kris. It may not have happened exactly in that process as far as how they met, etc., but you have nailed the real business relationship that occurs with them blurbing each other’s books, speaking at conferences, etc.
CJ has consistently bought his way in. (I am not convinced he used soley his income from the books for this from day one)
Now, let me ask a question. Do you all think a person who has blurbed a person’s book, written a foreward calling him the right man for the right time for all the world to see in black and white would EVER publicly rebuke that person or their church organization for anything?
No way. As a matter of fact, they have a vested interest in protecting that person and their organization. This can happen in several ways but the favorite tactic of the SBC is to promote the person, his sermons and books and invite him to speak. The non verbal communication is this: We, your great ones, are showing you this guy is ok. Since you follow US instead of Christ, we expect you to behave yourselves and never say negative truths about this person.
It works! Why? Because the young minds full of mush (like Russell Moore) want to be in the inner circles and have a similar career. You are not going to have one unless you follow the party line.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
If you all thought the seeker charlatans were worshipped such as Warren, Hybels, Ed Young, etc…they have NOTHING on the reformed big guys. If you want to see heads spin just say something negative or question the deeds of any of them and see fireworks. The young guys know ST by Grudem better than they know scripture. Well, they think it IS scripture. They worship and follow Piper, Grudem, Mohler, Sproul and many others. They quote them more than Jesus Christ or even Paul.
And you all wonder why CJ wants to be accepted into the club.
BTW: I wonder if CJ was giving to Ligoneir when they were having all that trouble and lied about suing a blogger for questioning their financial accountability and lavish lifestyle? It did not help when Sprouls son was defrocked by the Presbyterians for tax number fraud, or when his grandson put on his myspace that he was inheriting the ‘family business’ and talking about his Lexus and their mansion while putting up shots of him guzzling beer.
They could not go through with suing the blogger because they could not find him. BTW: Ligon Duncan’s brother worked there as General Manager and now runs the place. Ligoneir finally fired his son in law, Tom Dick, who was totally incompetent even going on critical blogs and calling them names!
They finally got Sproul’s son to take his memoirs offline. In it, he called the woman who initially funded the Ligoneir ministry a ‘white witch’. I kid you NOT! He also talked a lot about his wild partying during those years.
It amazes me what folks will support out there. Ministry is like one big business enterprise led by wolves.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Hi, Malone -
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
I have to point out, just as a by-the-way, that I can’t take credit for piecing the financial stuff together. Dee from “Wartburg Watch” did that.
I really like how she provided documentation. The timing of CJ’s donations to Mohler’s seminary is uncanny…and totally makes sense.
And yes, you’re absolutely correct. These guys are just as much about promoting their ministries and maintaining their clout as they are about the Gospel Coalition or T4G. They’re not going to acknowledge that maybe CJ actually wasn’t “the right man for the right time,” or whatever Mohler’s book blurb said.
What’s ironic to me is that at the very time Mohler was writing those words of endorsement, CJ was overseeing a ministry/church that was at the height of its abusive practices. I do believe that with SGM’s diversification in recent years (with more franchises in more locations across the country), and with more and more people coming to SGM who are unaware of SGM’s Charismatic/Shepherding roots and expecting SGM to be “Reformed,” the more crazed situations (like Noel’s story) are less prone to happen now. But back in 2003 or 2004, when Mohler was writing his blurbs for CJ’s books and CJ was handing out his and PDI’s money to SBTS, PDI was still a relatively unknown ministry, with much more regimented, homogenous leadership behavior.
I find it ironic that the worst of the authoritarianism was in full swing right about the time Mohler was calling CJ “the right man for our times.”
February 15th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
So basically these guys decided it would be in their best interest to all come together to promote one another, protect one another, etc., etc. Hey, it worked! The first thing out of a defender’s mouth is the fact that CJ or whoever is “backed” by all the reformed big dogs.
“Together for the Gospel” is the name of the Christian conference organized by Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Ligon Duncan, and Albert Mohler. The first conference was held in April 2006 in Louisville, Kentucky and was attended by nearly 3,000 people. John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur were also speakers.
I gotta hand it to them, it’s ALL pretty ingenious. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”
It’s all very interesting when you look at the time frame in which Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Ligon Duncan, and Albert Mohler really came on the scene, gaining “celebrity status.”
Very interesting.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Of course, they’re just “coming together for the gospel” – supporting one another, encouraging one another, and holding one another *accountable*.
Yeah, right!
I guess some would argue that 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
What I can’t figure out is… (and I know what you’re thinking about right now. “One? There’s only ONE thing you can’t figure out. Honey Chile, there are dozens of things you can’t figure out!” And I’d agree. More heartily than you can imagine. There are hundreds in fact. But back to this one thing I can’t figure out.)…is, who cares what someone else says? I mean, if it isn’t God saying it, then who cares? I’m completely flummoxed why if Joe Schmo endorses you, it makes Christians more apt to listen to you? Why would they hold Joe Schmo in greater esteem than they would hold Larry Schmarry? (You see how I did that? I simply added “Schm” to the beginning of both words. I know what you’re thinking. Genius. That’s just how I roll.) Isn’t holding one person, no matter who they are, in higher esteem than another CONTRARY to the scripture where it talks about how Jesus was NOT a respecter of persons. And are we not to follow that same path?
Martin Luther wrote dozens of books in his life time. He had a gift for communicating what he believed. But by the time he was ready to pass away he realized what a complete waste all those books were. He said he’d rather see them all burned and have people only read the bible. When they read other stuff, they tend to think more highly of the author than they ought. Or rather, they tend to think about the author. Period. When, really, it’s God and our neighbors we should be thinking about.
So explain to me again why any Christian should give a rip what these guys are saying? And to be honest with you, I grew up in a home where there was full time minnistry and lay ministry going on all the time. I’m the only child in my family not married to someone in ministry, the only daughter who didn’t go to seminary with her husband (including the next generation), etc. But I’ve never heard anyone speak of the Reformmed Big Dogs in my life. I’ve never heard of anyone caring about ANYONE who was supposedly “big” in Christianity, nor did they ever acknowledge there was anyone “big” in Christianity. (There were 3 exceptions. We all knew who Billy Graham was. I had heard of Francis Shaffer, but only because either his wife or sister-in-law led my sister to Christ as a small child, then as an adult she and her husband knew them in seminary and my sister finally made the connection as to the name of the woman who led her to Christ and was able to thank her. Then there’s another one, but clearly it wasn’t important because, though it was a family connection and very personal, I can’t even remember. ha ha ha, God bless my Swiss Cheese memory.) All that said, millions of Christians go about their daily lives loving God, loving their neighbors, serving their communities, raising their families, etc, etc, without ever knowing the names of these silly “big dogs”, without caring that they even exist. So my question again is, “Who cares about what they have to say?” And more importantly, “Why?”
(Mostly I’m just hoping who ever does, just starts loving God and loving others and forgets about one person having more “status” than another.
God bless,
Stunned
February 15th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I have to admit I am slightly surprised by this blog. Kris, i have seen you repeatedly state that this site was created “as a joke” and I understand that. However, looking through the comments submitted on this site, it seems this is a bit more than a joke.
I understand that sovereign grace has its fair share of things to joke around about. Yes, there are those all so common phrases, “better than i deserve,” “such a blessing,” “season of life,” etc. that seem to salt sermons and conversations (which i think the true meanings of those phrases really do reflect biblical principals…perhaps they are just a bit overdone:-). I also understand that leadership and members with in sovereign grace have sinned against people, perhaps in very offensive ways.
However, i question the intent behind this blog. Even if sovereign grace is completely in the wrong, even if CJ is a hypocritical leader, even if everything that occurs within the ministry is not from God…is this truly the way to address your issues. Are we not called to appeal to our brothers in Christ? I know you that you may be trying to just point flaws out, but it seems like your points are aimed at slanting people’s view of sovereign grace and its leadership. Thus, slandering the names of the leadership within sovereign grace. Aren’t we called to appeal to our brothers? And if it is at the point of them being your enemies aren’t you called to pray for them? Perhaps you have been sinned against greatly…but isn’t this like the parable Jesus tells about the man who owes the King great debt and is forgiven all of it and then he turns to the man who owes him a penny and shows no mercy? Are we not called to see our sin as greater than others?
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps not record of wrongs, love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, it always protects, always trust, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails”
If you believe that CJ and Dave and Josh are Christians, shouldn’t you be patient for God to transform areas of sin in their lives? We are called to keep no record of wrongs and to not be easily angered.
I guess I’m just appealing you to consider, that if you feel sinned against and see areas of sin within the ministry, to appeal. If you have already appealed then pray. If you are praying, then continually pray. The only thing that can transform the lives of sinful people is the power of God’s word and his Holy Spirit.
February 15th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hey, “R.” -
Thanks for your comment. Welcome to the site.
Uh…now that the niceties are out of the way…
I have to say – heavy sigh.
Do people even READ here before they set out to set me straight?
I’ve never said that we started the site “as a joke.” Never. The SGM Survivors merchandise was begun as a joke, and because it kept getting misunderstood, Guy decided to remove it. But the site itself? It sort of just unfolded. It was started on a whim, because of the utter lack of what I perceived as “balanced” free speech about SGM, and then it’s since sort of evolved into what it is now.
But no – NOT a joke.
SGM has serious issues and (I believe) frequently misrepresents itself as an organization. Nothing funny about any of that.
On the other hand, though – maybe those of you who have been in that SGM mindset could enlighten me? – WHY WHY WHY does pointing out and discussing and analyzing SGM’s issues always have to come down (in some people’s minds, anyway) to the question of SIN? Or of my being WRONGED by SGM, or of my feeling anger or bitterness toward SGM?
Why can’t we just sort of dispassionately analyze SGM’s oddities and share our opinions and perceptions? Why do SGM’s issues either have to be “all in our imagination,” or then addressed as “sin”?
I don’t get this. I really don’t.
Do I necessarily have to believe that SGM is “in sin” if I believe that they do not run their organization in a way that is appropriate?
February 15th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Kris,
When folks like “R” come on the site it’s just evidence as to the nature of the beast. They’re simply the product of what SGM (or some ministry or teaching like theirs) produces.
It’s really quite amazing how consistent it all is. They all literally say the same thing. Sad.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Stunned, I totally relate to what you are saying and it is my battlecry these days. I also grew up in a ministry home and we never followed man like I see folks following man these days. Our books were commentaries on books of the Bible but we did not even remember the author’s name. The study book was the Bible. We believed the Holy Spirit taught us through the Word if we sincerely pray and seek wisdom. For some odd reason, we did not feel the need to find out what a Piper, Mohler or CJ thought about something. Of course we discussed hard passages with other believers who came for study.
Why is it that in the land of freedom with bibles laying around everywhere, the internet with free Greek lexicons, the people are so biblically ignorant? Because they believe a human being who has been successful must tell them what they read means. They have replaced the Holy Spirit with men.
Even I got sucked into this folly for a while. I lost my First Love. I replaced Jesus Christ with succesful celebrity Christians to follow. (It is sort of a version of a groupie if you think about it)
Not any more.
) I am a Berean now.
February 15th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
By the way -
I didn’t mean to direct all my confusion toward our new commenter “R.”
It’s just that SGM defenders frequently email me with thoughts along a similar vein – “Kris, if you really believe that SGM is in sin, then you should confront them and not blog about it.” Or something to that effect.
And it just bugs me, because it’s like in the SGM mindset, there is this either/or sort of thinking – either something is “sin” or it’s A-OK. And, more importantly, the assumption seems to be that only things labeled as “sin” are worthy of analysis or criticism.
I don’t get that. I really don’t.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
*
*
*
Hey “R”
One RBD seemed to have a few things to say when addressing a “Leader”.
“It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly.
Finally, it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll. In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward.” -By John MacArthur
What is your process?
Are your men not positioned for public scrutiny?
If not, why do they deserve such loyalty?
How did Christ respond to his critics??
I find it hard to believe that a man or men, who are not willing to address anything publicly are willing to lay their lives down for anything.
I am still looking for the chapters where Christ went into a cave with his critics or the Pharisees to “softly address his concerns in private.” You know, for the sake of the Gospel.
Anyway
This is my quote for the day.
R.C. Sproul: True reformation and revival within the church and the winning of our culture to Christ will come only through the power of the Holy Spirit and our clear, bold proclamation of the biblical gospel, not through joint ecumenical statements that equivocate on the most precious truths given to us. There is no other gospel than that which has already been given (Gal. 1:6–8).
For me, an interesting commentary on organizations like SGM that seem to be more about their process, covenants, and unique definition of the “Gospel.” (And how it all intertwines with their unique polity).
PS – Steve 240, I forgot about the unique use of the term “benevolence” when dealing with SGM financials. Thanks for the reminder.
February 16th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
AKS said:
“When folks like “R” come on the site it’s just evidence as to the nature of the beast. They’re simply the product of what SGM (or some ministry or teaching like theirs) produces.
It’s really quite amazing how consistent it all is. They all literally say the same thing. Sad.”
People in SGM have been so long taught SGM’s definition of what they consider “gossip” and “slander” that this becomes second nature to them and is if there is no question that what is done on these blogs is “gossip” and “slander.” In their culture, it gets to the point that questioning things is also labeled as “slander.” That is why they typically say the same thing.
These people also believe that leadership is open to correction or input. The leaders may even believe they are like this but as people report when one tries and effect legitimate change, SGM Leaders are rarely open to receiving it and at times consider the person bringing this up a “threat.” Until someone experiences this first hand then a member can still be under the illusion that leaders are approachable etc. when in fact they aren’t.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Ah, “Follow the money”.
So much easier than following the vocabulary.
Gossip = speaking the Truth
Slander = disagreeing
Gospel = ?????? (Still trying to figure that one out.)
Church = Gospel Center
(I haven’t begun and my head is already spinning)
February 17th, 2010 at 12:54 am
Wow, is this suposed to sound sinister, it sounds like CJ is a generous guy.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:21 am
Hi, Wishing –
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
I don’t know that CJ’s donations to Al Mohler’s seminary necessarily make him sound “sinister.” But “generous” isn’t exactly the word that immediately leaps to my mind, either.
Sure, CJ can donate money wherever he wants (although it’s interesting that he would also appear to be donating SGM’s money, too…without, it would seem, a whole lot of open discussion or disclosure to the members of the organization, who were the ones who ponied up that money). But none of CJ’s apologists have yet to weigh in on the questions I’ve posed. So that we can refresh our memories, here they are again:
Anyone with any sense of both Southern Baptist and SGM history would understand how odd it is that a “continuationist” like CJ skyrocketed to relative fame with “cessationists” like Al Mohler and the other Reformed Big Dogs. Ten years ago, CJ was an unknown. Almost exactly around the time of his first donation to the SBTS, Al Mohler writes an endorsement blurb for CJ’s Humility book. Within a matter of a few years, CJ has donated at least $100,000 to the SBTS, a seminary where SGM pastors cannot even go for their primary training.
I think it’s kind of naive NOT to connect the dots.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:40 am
By now it’s easy to measure and weigh the things SGM emphasizes in their teachings.
There’s:
Submission to leadership
Members: Be a joy to Pastor!
Women: Dress modestly and be submissive
Men: Lead and inspect wardrobes
The Gospel: planting SGM churches
The Gospel Truth: everything SGM says
The Cross: The main thing
The Resurrection: What’s dat?
The Ascension: Never heard of it
The Holy Spirit: The leadership is full of it
The Holy Spirit: Be like your leaders and you will be full of it, too
The Father: CJ Mahaney
The Son: Carolyn Mahaney
Family of Churches: SGM Members who are grafted into the Mahaney family
And so on…
And so as no one notices the elephant in the room, SGM emphasizes:
Pride: You’re guilty of it, look at yourself
Pride: Look at yourself so you don’t notice it in us
Humility: We’re humble, you’re not
Humility: You’re not humble, we are, so do what we say
But have you ever heard SGM teach on:
Greed?
Manipulation?
Abuse?
Control?
Cheating?
Fleecing the sheep?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Claireon, that was brilliant!
February 17th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Claireon #155 –
How about these?
“leave well” – leave when we want you to leave, if we want you to leave, and how we want you to leave; see also “yeti”, “loch ness monster”, and myth
“better than I deserve” – which is a whole letter better than YOU deserve
“greatest sinner” – I say it’s me but I know it’s you
“prophetic” – mean stuff I say about you
“gossip” – true stuff I hope you don’t say about me
“slander” – see gossip
“charismatic” – the way we were
“anonymous bloggers” – critics we fear we would lose if we tried to truly reconcile with them
Carry on,
Former SG Pastor
February 17th, 2010 at 11:33 am
the leaving well comment was the best! aha ha haha
February 17th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I’m tellin’ ya, that whole “leaving well” thing is one of the most obvious signs that SGM has cultlike characteristics.
Seriously.
It starts to almost sound like gang membership – “blood in, blood out.”
A really good question for people to ask their pastors would be this one:
Could you give us some examples of people who have left this fellowship who, in your judgment, “left well”?
I think the pastors’ answers to that question would be very revealing. If they hemmed and hawed, then the truth would be clear – there really ISN’T a way to leave SGM “well.”
February 17th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Good stuff!
February 17th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Actually Kris, I think they wouldn’t have too much of a problem pointing to people who have, in their opinion, “left well”. It’s just that their prescribed way of “leaving well” is a very narrow, little box that not all of God’s plans for many of us fit in to. Their way of leaving well is not biblical though it may be better defined as extra biblical. You know, making up rules that are not in the bible, but telling people that it is.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I can think of 10-15 people, easy, who left my SG church in about 18 months before I exited leadership. This may not seem like many people but the church was small with an average of around 60-70 members (less than 60 voted on whether or not to join SG). All the people who left did so abruptly. Not one of these people “left well” according to the senior pastor. He had one or more deficiencies to report on each.
It used to seem that the only way you could “leave well” for any church was to move or die. An acquaintance from another church (not an SG church) put in for a transfer at work, received it, and then uprooted his family to move several hours away all because he didn’t want any confrontation with church leadership. I doubt that this would fly with SGM unless you moved from SGc to SGc. Seems like the only way out is death but they are probably working on that.
Kris, you are right; it is like leaving a gang in some ways. Oy.
Been spending most our lives living in the
Gangsta’sSGM Paradise …Apologies to LL Cool J,
Former SG Pastor
February 17th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Hi folks,
Here is some thoughts from a UK observer who first saw CJ in the early 1980′s in England. He was with Larry Tomzack at Dales Bible Week with thousands of charismatics. I mainly remember them being a funny double act who were perhaps moving into bigger things with the right people. So it’s no surprise that CJ has finally made it into the ‘big time’.
One thing today especially strikes me about his web blog, and I would value comments on my thoughts. He likes to interview ‘big names’ and I get the feeling this gives him credibility by been seen, as it were, mixing with such folk. Has any one else thought this? It sure is a good way of getting publicity too and hits to his blog.
A second thought is that when he speaks he has a ponderous style which is high on pedantic emphasis and over wrought emotion. Content wise he states the obvious and I am not convinced he has the depth he is credited with. Having listened to him speak, much of what I have heard him say could be said in a far shorter time. Anyone else think this?
And then he is contradictory when he says he understands cessasionists not agreeing with his charismatic posistion, and then states very clearly that spiritual (charismatic) gifts are ‘not optional they are esential’. My take on this is that CJ has very astutley found a way to embed himself in Reformed circles by claiming to be Reformed, but apart from his quotes of Reformed men I can’t see hardly any truly Reformed depth, in the classic sense, in his church or practise. CJ is not Reformed, and it needs to be discussed and made crystal clear that he is not. But his claims to be a calvinist (He isn’t) have got him a platform right at the heart of those who like to think they are Reformed.
Finally, CJ is part of the personality cult which is sadly very much alive today. If he dressed in a suit and wore glasses (nothing wrong with either, by the way) he may not have the street cred he has. His enthuasiasm has gained him many admirers, but somehow I still find the whole such speaker cult and it’s fan base deeply disturbing. And there is far better speakers, writers and theologians worth learning from than CJ. So folks, lets’s debate not just his giving to SBTS but the other isues like these I have raised, and let’s do it without the rancour which some have shown in this thread.
Love to all my brothers and sisters in Christ,
Paul.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
“Leaving Well”
ahhh…yes….I savor the words. Because I looked in the eyes of my last SGM pastor and told him that I was NOT leaving well. That my faith was shaken to its core. That I was questioning many things and really struggling. That all of this started with the way the local apostle had handled things at our church.
What happened?
We were pretty much escorted to the door that day.
I remained in contact with some folks for some months. What happened? We lost those “friends.” Seems nobody wanted to associate with me because I didn’t know how to “leave well.”
Oh well. Today, praise God, I have reconnected with an old friend who has since left SGM. I am grateful. Not because we have left SGM and they have left SGM. But because there is someone out there who I can relate to. Who knew me back then and who still knows me today.
Thank you, Lord, for such gifts.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Hi, Paul -
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site.
I think your analysis is excellent!
February 18th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Paul,
I have to echo Kris’ comment here, I too I think your analysis is excellent!
And hear in my head another echo: (from 2 Tim 4:3) “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; ..” NASB
Ya know, scripture is full of warnings like that because, those dangers are real. AND the ear tickling teachers are from the personality cult.
Thanks Paul, I appreciate your concise analysis.
Defender
February 18th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
clarion 155, FSGP 157……
I sat here laughing at my monitor. Thanks.
“And there is far better speakers, writers and theologians worth learning from than CJ.”
Yup. Once you have tasted great Reformed teaching, CJ is just, well, boring at best.
“CJ is not Reformed, and it needs to be discussed and made crystal clear that he is not. But his claims to be a calvinist (He isn’t) have got him a platform right at the heart of those who like to think they are Reformed.”
The word “Reformed” is so broadly used any more that he actually is within the camp that calls itself by that term. People like CJ think that if you hold to the 5 solas and TULIP (or even 3.5-4 points) you fit the word. Polity is up for grabs. And I don’t think they convey a sense of the great history we are part of from the Reformation on down…..Calvin, the writers of the Confessions, Edwards and the Great Awakening, early Princeton then Machen and John Murray and WTS, men like Lloyd-Jones who held the torch against liberal ecumenicalism and so forth. It’s all about SGM as the ones “doing it right”. So cultish.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Excellent discussion….just wanted to throw in a quote from a new favorite author.
“During my college years I knew a man, before professing faith in Christ, was a notorious womanizer. James’ pattern was to seduce a woman and…lose interest and move on. When he embraced Christianity he quickly renounced his sexual escapades. He became active in Christian ministry. However, his deep idol did not change. In every class or study, James was argumentative and dominating. In every meeting he had to be the leader, even if he was not designated to be so. He was abrasive and harsh with skeptics when talking to them about his new found faith.
Eventually it became clear that his meaning and value had not shifted to Christ, but was still based in having power over others. That is what made him feel alive. The reason James wanted to have sex with those women was not because he was attracted to them, but because he was seeking the power of knowing he could sleep with them if he wanted to. Once he achieved that power, he lost interest in them. The reason he wanted to be in Christian ministry was not because he was attracted to serving God and others, but to the power of knowing he was right, that he had the truth. His power idol took a sexual form, and then a religious one. It hid itself well.
Idols of power, then, are not only for the powerful. You can pursue power in small, petty ways, by becoming a local neighborhood bully or a low level bureaucrat who bosses around the few people in the field of his authority.”
From Timothy Keller’s – Counterfeit Gods- pages 111-112 Dutton Publishing 2009
Anyway-loved the quote and thought it applied to some of what I experienced at SG.
peace-mm
February 18th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Hi Paul,
I, too, appreciated your post and I’m glad you felt free to dive into the conversation. Sounds like you’ve been around long enough to be familiar with the flux and changes that have occurred over the years and understand how certain movements and people have weathered the storms.
Are you in NFI?
Anyway, I did want to remark on what you said at the end of your post. Bear in mind, that I do so in love, without wanting to get “into it” with you, or anything. You said, “…and let’s do it without the rancour which some have shown in this thread.”
When it comes to discussing SGM – with me anyway – you will find a bit of “rancour”, as you call it. I hope you understand. You weren’t in it for over a decade like I was, either.
You mentioned a “personality cult”. I go beyond that and just say “cult”. There’s just too much information available to those leading the movement to enable them to change horses and adopt methods and teachings that are in tune with the true gospel. But they have not, and continue to practice a “form” of religion that is not in keeping with the gospel: i.e. they are a cult.
Rancour? You betcha. I feel like David when he asked, “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should taunt the armies of the living God?”
I was in SGM for way too long. It’s a harmful organization because of how it distorts the truth. There are those who remain in SGM who are comfortable there. But for those Christians who are being browbeaten by an unbiblical form of leadership which assumes headship over God’s people in place of Jesus Christ…
I ask you…
“Who are these uncircumcised Philistines that they should taunt the armies of the living God??”
Sorry, Paul…I just can’t be passive and all nice about this.
SGM needs to be brought down to the ground. Lowered. Humbled. Decapitated.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Musicman,
That was an amazing quote! Thanks for sharing it! It’s really helped me with something I’ve been thinking about in terms of CJ Mahaney…
First off, we know how good he is at creating subterfuges. For example, he talks about pride..writes the book on Humility…and then causes people to believe he’s humble.
In his youth, Mahaney was a drug pusher. People bought a substance from him that altered their reality, provided an escape, and kept them coming back for more. In order to sell drugs, he had to have an awareness of the effect drugs had on people, and knew how to keep them interested so that they would purchase more – from him.
Reminds me of the guy in your quote who got off exercising power over others. And isn’t it interesting, as well, how often CJ talks about “idols”!
You’re definitely on to something there musicman…
February 18th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
This is me throwing in a hug for 5years…
Thanks for your post #167 :-)
(((((5years)))))
February 18th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
This is also me throwing in a hug for stunned…
Thanks for your post #156 :-)
((((stunned))))
And this is also me throwing in a hug to all the survivors…
(((((((sgmsurvivors)))))))
I love you guys!
February 19th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Claireon said:
“In his youth, Mahaney was a drug pusher. People bought a substance from him that altered their reality, provided an escape, and kept them coming back for more. In order to sell drugs, he had to have an awareness of the effect drugs had on people, and knew how to keep them interested so that they would purchase more – from him.”
Claireon,
I knew about this, but I have just had an epiphany!
The way you have described C.J. has suddenly allowed me to see what’s truly going on in SGM. Instead of pushing drugs, C.J. is now pushing a deficient gospel, which isn’t the “REAL” gospel. He has created a dependency in SGMers by pushing “indwelling sin” – his current “drug” of choice. And it’s truly mind-altering!
Emphasizing ONLY Jesus’ death and not His resurrection is a HALF-TRUTH, and I believe a half-truth is always a LIE!
February 19th, 2010 at 8:34 am
I think CJ’s talk of the cross and the crucifixion seems so noble to a lot of people because in recent times, the average Evangelical church has typically neglected concepts like “penal substitution” and has shied away from straight talk about sin and the price Jesus paid.
Also, false religions like Mormonism deny the blood of Christ (symbolically, their “communion” ceremony uses bread and water). I was doing some reading about the LDS church just the other day, when I came across a quote by one of the recent Mormon presidents who was addressing the issue of why Mormon wards and temples do not display crosses. This guy totally dissed on the cross and the crucifixion, but he did it in such a way as to focus on the resurrection alone, pointing out that Jesus is no longer dead so why would we need to obsess over the cross?
When aberrant religions and even “kosher” Evangelicals would seem to make light of the cross, CJ’s grim focus can seem like a necessary correction. I totally understand why CJ’s message has garnered attention and a reputation for him.
And we have to acknowledge this – and give him credit where credit is due – before we can begin to explain how he uses his overemphasis on the cross to in effect do the very same injustices as those who de-emphasize it.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Kris,
I appreciated your comment, and you have made some excellent points! I just worry when the cross is overemphasized. It almost becomes an idol.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Claireon,
I DO so love it when you call a spade a spade!
February 19th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Claireon –
“People bought a substance from him that altered their reality, provided an escape, and kept them coming back for more.”
Absolute brilliance!! The world of CJ and SGM in a single sentence.
Thank you!!
(I am picturing all of SGMs little books and cd’s packaged in Ziplock bags.)
February 19th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Hi guys!
I’m not teaching any SGMers this year…and my anxiety level has decreased significantly, but still missed you.
I’m enjoying the conversation.
Stunned that CJ and CLC would give that much money to the SBC. What the heck? Maybe they consider it a missions field?
SGM is not reformed. SGM is SGM. Reformed churches hold to the Westminster Confession and have elder-led, congregationally-elected leadership. Congregationally chosen leaders would not put up with this garbage.
SGM is the most tightly controlled denomination around, except for perhaps the RCC.
The opposite of charismatic is not reformed. I worship in the PCA and have for decade.
SGM is simply….SGM. A hybrid–theology soup.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Sorry, bros and dudettes, I am reading through this whole post….and am slow.
Chad, my brother, you said, “Mohler, a man who brought the SBC from complete destruction, to life…”
What the heck!???
1. Only Jesus does that.
2. The SBC is a fabulous denomination, who pours their time, money and lives into reaching the world for Jesus and his gospel. They are the blood bought bride of Christ, as are all of us here.
3. If you are learning at W. Seminary that the SBC was in complete destruction, and that the proper church government is a handful of guys empowered as apostles who tell congregations who to hire and what to give, you better get your money back immediately. You are being screwed, and so will your future church.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Dear y’all:
What is Wellspring? I’m hearing that name around Richmond recently.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
RT!!
Great to “see” you again. I’ve quoted you from time to time –
February 19th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
RT -
Wellspring Church desires to do all things for the sake of the Gospel to God’s glory and our joy and proud to be a member of the family of churches known as Sovereign Grace. Our pastor is Sam Shin and we have oversight from Sovereign Grace from Pastor Steve Shank.
What are you hearing around Richmond?
Learn more about Wellspring at wellspringsg dot org.
Thank-you
February 19th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Thanks, info! I think we are talking about two different things/entities. There is a group meeting here in Richmond that is also called Wellspring. Is this connected to you?
Not to be a pill, but why does your pastor need oversight? Isn’t he trained? Wouldn’t the elders of your church be able to give him guidance, encouragement, refreshment and correction?
Secondly, a family of churches is defined by their independance of each other, but yet their mutual voluntary connection, like the Southern Baptists or the Churches of Christ.
SGM is a denomination: central leadership and appointment of pastors from a home office in Maryland. There is no central office in any of the other evangelical / reformed churches that assigns pastors to pulpits and takes them out without congregational assent.
That is an episcopal form of government, highly controlled.
Also, could you define the word “proud?” Thanks so much for your help on this! I truly desire to hear your thoughts on this!
Are you in Richmond? My impression that “our” Wellspring is not SGM related, but I might be wrong.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Kris, thanks, you make me smile!
February 19th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
This site is full of hate. How many commenters here have attended a SG church? If you are talking about Wellspring Church it must be good or you are making up more lies like this site and the SGM Refuge site likes to print. Can’t you find something more productive to do?
RT don’t you have better ways to find out information than from these bitter anonymous people? Or are you just like them?
Disgusting.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Hi Info!
Well, these sites must be somewhat entertaining, or you and I wouldn’t be on them, would we.
I have no hate, actually no emotion at all, about SGM. Only curiosity.
Instead of making ad hominem attacks and accusing people of hatred, would you do me the honor, and your church the honor, of answering my questions?
You are proud of your church, you admitted that. I merely am asking for information about your polity.
I don’t care how you do church…but am curious and asking you as a bro/dudette in Christ for clarification.
Thanks!
February 19th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Hi, “info” -
Thanks for your comments, and welcome to the site.
First of all, I think it’s good to establish that most of the commenters here have been involved with SGM in some firsthand way, and many were members for YEARS. Some spent almost all their Christian lives in SGM churches. My husband Guy and I attended our own SGM church for a little less than a year. We never became members, although we probably would have at one point, if a membership class had been offered at that time.
Secondly, since you say that this site “likes to print lies,” I’d appreciate it if you could be more specific. What here is untrue? I am particularly confused that you’d say such a thing in a comment in THIS post, as what Dee published over at the Wartburg Watch – about CJ’s donations to Al Mohler’s organization – contains documentation from the SBTS’s own financial statements.
Thirdly, who’s to say that this site is not “productive”? And, even if you think what we’re doing here is unproductive, you’re engaging in a faulty leap of logic to decide that participation in these conversations means that this is ALL we do. I personally have a very full, productive life, and I’m aware of lots that the other commenters do in their non-blogging time.
Finally – why the little dig at all us “anonymous” people? Isn’t that a bit silly of you, considering that you yourself are participating here under the handle of “info”?
I mean, unless you’re like Elvis or Cher or Madonna or some other one-name celebrity (who doesn’t even bother to capitalize his name), it seems to me that “info” probably isn’t your full legal identity.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
No “info” – the whole site isn’t full of hate….it’s just me. That’s the way I roll….
February 19th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
RT -
Why don’t you visit a Sovereign Grace church and find out for yourself what it is like? There is a Sovereign Grace church in Midlothian near Richmond that is pastored by Gene Emerson. Pastor Emerson also serves Sovereign Grace by overseeing other churches in our family of churches in that area. Try it, you might like it.
Others -
If anyone wants to know why I would be anonymous, just look back on this site and at SGM Refuge (we are a refuge) and see what happened to a commenter named Chad [Last Name] recently. This man serves at [Church Name/Location]. He was treated very badly on these sites for speaking truth. He shared observations from his heart and look how you all responded. Light shined in the dark causes discomfort to sinful eyes.
It is so easy to make fun of Pastor Mahaney, Pastor Josh Harris, and others who are doing God’s work. Why is it your concern about what Pastor Mahaney gives to further good things? Yes, I do call him CJ because he is a humble man, but I can call him Pastor out of respect. You all should do the same.
Make all the fun that you want. That is the way of the proud and arrogant.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
“info” -
It wasn’t Chad’s use of his full name that netted him the responses he got. It was simply the silly stuff that he said.
I agree with RT – it’d be great if you’d engage and actually answer her questions. Set aside your accusations of sin and your blathering about calling Mahaney “Pastor,” and deal with the issues.
Also, you should READ what people have written. It sounds kind of kooky for you to tell people to attend SGM churches when many of our commenters have spent more years in SGM churches than you likely have.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Info,
I am NOT asking about SGM churches. I know more than you do about them, and more about Gene and Kingsway than you can possibly imagine. I treasure good church government, stable theology and a well educated pastorate too much to explore SGM.
I was asking the people on this site whether anyone knew anything about Wellspring here in Richmond. It was simply curiosity, as many of the MANY people who have left Kingsway lately are going to whatever-Wellspring-is.
(Funny–our PCA women’s study is also called Wellspring, it is such a common name that I needed to ask for specifics here in Richmond.)
Why are you so intent on getting me to come to SGM? I am happily ensconced in my church. We do missions and service to the poor and tutoring for immigrants. We train our pastors for years instead of months. I like it.
Just be, my sister/brother. I wasn’t attacking you!
But I’d still love you to answer my original questions, like I have yours.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Just a thought, Info.
I suspect you are coming from a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal background, aren’t you?
People in SGM don’t call their pastors Pastor. You probably haven’t picked up on that, since I suspect you haven’t been SGM for too long?
Please forgive the conjecture, but I’m just guessing.
SGM has a very specific language that no one else in Christendom uses. I see you’ve picked up on the “family of churches” idea, but you are not a “family of churches.” You guys are more of a denomination than any denomination I know of.
Peace to you, my brother/sister. I meant no disrespect, I just thought you would be able to answer my questions.
I always ask the same questions, but never get an answer. SIGH. Maybe next time.
I feel so very sorry for you. But I won’t call you names, like you have me and my friends here.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Hi Info! Some of us are VERY familiar with the SGM church and pastor you mentioned, and participate on this site BECAUSE of long histories with said church and the “overseer”. I wish them well from the bottom of my heart and remember many wonderful things. That, however, does not excuse or correct the polity problem that, in my view, causes and enables the controlling nature of SGM.
RT — I’ve heard of the Wellspring group meeting in Richmond, on Friday nights, if I’m remembering correctly, but don’t know where. From what I understand, it is not an actual church at this point. The person who told me about it has been blessed by attending. So, RT — Stony Point, Sycamore, All Saints, West End? From what I understand, there are ex-SGM’ers in several. And former PCA’ers in K’way. Interesting.
I SOOOO appreciate your definition of denomination / family of churches. Thank you.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:53 am
info
Now, I’ve been meaning to do that for a while. Just so happens you made me run for the bucket…
Well at least T iger W oods stood up and gave somewhat of an “i’m sorry” Pastor C J s sins are worse..(he’d tell you that himself), and he is wayyyyy to humble to ever admit he’s wr…wr…wroo….wroo
WRONG. (Authur Fonzerelli from happy days…)
And as for me…stunned, you really made me cry with your post at refuge, on joining the church. Thank you for writing that out. a
February 20th, 2010 at 1:39 am
Kris -
At least Info didn’t call you dude or bro.
Info –
Come on in. Have a seat. Comfy? Good. First, as others have kindly pointed out, read a bit more here. Second, consider eliminating caffeine after noon time. Finally, read some more. You may leave now. Please don’t trip over A’s bucket on the way out.
Until next time,
Former SG Pastor
PS – Info, you don’t have to call me Former. Just so you know.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:59 am
FSGP -
Actually, I think “info” should call you Pastor Former.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:08 am
Info-
Welcome to the board…but I wonder why you’re hanging around the survivor sites?
peace-mm
February 20th, 2010 at 8:52 am
RT, it’s so good to have you back!
I’m ready for some warmer weather so my pansies can perk their little heads up and start blooming again. It’s been WAAYYY too cold here in the South!!
I’m with you. I’m guessing “info” comes from a Baptist or Pentecostal background.
FSGP, I like Kris’ “Pastor Former” suggestion.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:58 am
RT,
hiya!!!!!
good to see you!
February 20th, 2010 at 10:44 am
A, thanks for showing in pictures how I feel about this site along with SGM Rejects and Wartberg Witches. RT, FYI I’ve never been in a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church. Wellspring has many members who came to the US as young children or are 1st generation and were taught to respect pastors. This is easy to do when you have men who care for your souls. I called my pastor either Pastor Sam or PSam. Let me ask you how you would address John Piper, Mark Dever, or Ligon Duncan? Would you address them differently than you would CJ Mahaney? There may be some truth on this site but it is mixed with so many lies and so much bitterness that I don’t think any of you can tell what is real. Former SG Pretender I doubt that you were a pastor at any church. I know a real former SG pastor and he left his church quietly and honorably and he is far too classy to engage in the cry baby activity that goes on here. Don’t bother posting replies because I doubt that I will waste time coming back here. A real SGM Survivor is one who has survived the ups and downs of this life and thrived because of the wonderful family of churches and the pastors who serve them so well. You all are more like SGM Saboteurs.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 t