I have to say, this blog has been a wild ride.
I began it with basically no “purpose” whatsoever, beyond providing a place to share my impressions of our Sovereign Grace experience. And since our experience had not involved anything particularly negative – or more importantly, anything definitively unscriptural – I had (as I’ve repeated ad infinitum) no ax to grind. I just thought there ought to be SOME place online where curious folks could read perhaps another perspective on what I thought of as Sovereign Grace’s “cultural oddities.”
But then a very surprising thing happened. This site began getting quite a few hits, and people began leaving comments about their own experiences with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Although these stories were all different as to details, most of them contained very similar trends. These trends were as follows:
- A person has a difference of opinion, a question, or a problem.
-
As he’s been trained to do, he approaches leadership with this issue.
-
Leadership is, for whatever reason, not receptive to this person’s point of view, or not equipped (in the professional sense) to deal with the person’s problem. (Here, actually, is where this process hangs on one rusty nail, like my dad would say. As satisfied SGM-ers have pointed out, oftentimes leadership IS approachable and happy to take a seemingly “negative” observation under advisement…or offers up approaches to the member’s problem that the member finds useful and acceptable. When this happens, all is well, and the rest of the steps do not occur. But when the observation is NOT well-received, or the member is NOT helped, we move on to step 4.)
-
Since leadership did not receive the question or negative observation well, or since “indwelling sin” is essentially the only counseling tool in leadership’s toolbox, leadership turns things around and offers up “observations” of its own, directed at the questioning member’s motives, heart, and eventually, sinfulness.
-
At this point, the member is left with two choices. Either he “receives” what leadership says and accepts leadership’s assessment of his sinful motives, or he holds out for his original point. Again, the SGM folks who are satisfied with their church’s structure have found themselves ending the process at this stage, if they weren’t already finished at step #3. However, if the member does NOT accept leadership’s assessment of his sinful motives, and if he does NOT choose to “repent” and give the issue a rest, then he moves on to step #6.
-
Leadership gives the member something of an ultimatum. Either the member submits to what leadership says, or the member is placed on some sort of discipline plan. Failure to submit to the discipline plan will result in step #7.
-
The member is disfellowshipped until he chooses to submit to leadership’s “restoration plan.”
After reading so many stories (stories either posted on the site or shared with me via email) that follow this same pattern, I’ve grown quite concerned that Sovereign Grace Ministries has what amounts to a “fatal design flaw” in how it handles conflicts between its members and its leadership. While I’ve sought to remain fair to SGM in everything I’ve written, I now have reached a point where I’m concerned enough to think that SGM members ought to share my alarm about their church’s discipline process and its potential to turn into a tool of spiritual abuse – since THEY (and not I) are still part of the system and could have a voice.
What’s been so interesting has been this site’s pro-SGM readers’ responses to my observations.
While I want to clearly state that many pro-SGM folks have been polite and kind and have engaged with the issues raised here, the majority have eventually turned the focus back around to either MY sinfulness or the sinfulness of the ex-SGM people who have shared their stories.
This is something that I don’t understand.
I particularly don’t understand those readers who find the site, read a few articles, and then barrel in to declare what a bad person I am, and how idiotic and sinful I must be for having a different view of their church organization than they have.
I mean, I don’t go around to pro-SGM blogs (and there are thousands out there) and leave comments about what fools they are for suffering a church structure that is so heavy on submitting to authority that it’s like a spiritual abuse train wreck waiting to happen. I don’t go looking for fights.
(But if I did…well, would I express my shock and dismay if other commenters on these “SGM Happy” sites would take exception to what I said? Would I post comments where I publicly licked my wounds and talked about what big, bad, mean people they were for daring to “fight back” and answer my accusations? No, I would not. And if I did, those pro-SGM folks would laugh me off the internet. As they rightfully should.)
Another thing that I don’t get is why the pro-SGM folks think that it is their right and their duty to offer me (and the other posters) spiritual guidance…especially when most of them barely bother to say “Hello” or “Nice to ‘meet’ you” before launching into their sermons. Again, I don’t go poking around THEIR blogs, spewing Scripture that discusses discernment, or Pharisaical tendencies, or legalism…and then expressing shocked dismay that they aren’t properly “loving their enemy” when they reject my abrupt rebukes.
I think what puzzles me most of all is, WHY is it such a big deal to these people that one tiny little blog – nestled among the thousands of pro-SGM blogs and sites out there – has been set up to provide a different view of SGM? Why is such vitriol and angst (always cloaked in “concern,” of course) directed my way? Why do I get the sense from these folks that it’s so vital that ZERO negative information be posted about Sovereign Grace? Why do these people think that their denomination – er, “family of churches” – is somehow deserving of total and unquestioning approval, with no dissent allowed?
I really don’t have the answers to these questions…except to say that possibly, the answer lies in what they’ve been taught to think the Christian life is supposed to look like. If the answer to every conflict is for the person beneath to submit and accept the point of view of the person in authority above them, and if the answer to every problem is to first of all obsess over one’s own contributing sinfulness, then I suppose I can understand the “advice” and “concern” various SGM folks have “shared” with me.
(I can’t help but wonder, though, if these people even realize how closely their responses to this blog follow the pattern that their leadership follows – as outlined through steps 1-7 above. Do they understand how their reactions and words here have served to validate and authenticate what people have described in their stories of spiritual abuse?)
Of course, according to Mahaney’s own teachings, SGM’s bottom-line answer to everything is that we’re supposed to submit to our authorities and offer them unquestioning allegiance, because this is simply our duty to make them successful in their role as leaders.
Since, following Mahaney’s logic, even Martin Luther and the other Reformers would have been “in sinful rebellion,” I guess I can understand why this blog bugs so many folks.
But it still doesn’t make much sense. Not in the real world.
I never got the "meeting" thing, either. 
January 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Dear Kris,
A little helpful sentence that we learned to use for survival in SGM was, “thank you for that observation, I will pray about that.”
One such observation was that my 8 year old child did not always make eye contact with them when they spoke to them. This was an adult in leadership, that my child really did not know. As an earlychildhood major and educator, I personally that was normal childlike behavior for that age. At the time, we were under the microscope as we were finishing our 3 years of grooming for caregroup leadership. So we were asked to go and ask several in leadership to share with us any observations they had for us that would lead one to question our “character.” Most of the people did not even have close friendships with us to even know us. They wanted to make sure we were qualified to lead a caregroup and loyal to the ministry. This was, of course, based on the Scriptures that they would always remind of us from Timothy and Titus. Funny thing, one of the same leaders later shared when we were trying to help a struggling couple, that 89% or more men struggle with Pornography. Does that disqualify one for leadership? But maybe the other 11% or less are all part of SGM. Just a guess!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hey. I like you, I really do!
:-)
That’s all I’m going to say.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Beth,
I was almost going to email you before I put up this post, because I wanted you to know that it wasn’t necessarily directed at you. You commented here in the early days, and you’ve shown your willingness to at least be a listener and express your understanding. And I’ve really appreciated that.
Thanks! :-)
January 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Freeda,
Your example is incredible. Was this a common occurance when being groomed for leadership, to have to go and seek out what amounts to nit-picking criticism? And even one’s CHILDREN were fair game?
Is there a pro-SGM person reading this who would defend this practice?
January 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
One more little thing I wanted to add, as a sort of postscript to this post…
When Sovereign Grace folks comment to express their concern, I think I’d appreciate and value it so much more if this concern were directed at working toward minimizing further abuse from leadership. As someone who is NOT a part of SGM any longer, I’m not in a position to work for change. But SGM members ARE. And it just strikes me as a lot more worth their time to strategize about things they could do to safeguard people within their own churches from inappropriate church discipline than it is for them to try to fix the folks who are posting their stories here.
Most of the ex-SG people here have established that they have moved on from their SG experiences and are involved in other churches, submitted to other, non-SG Christian leaders. So rather than directing their energies toward correcting THESE people, it seems more appropriate for SGM members to “serve their local church” by directing their correction to the processes that hurt the ex-members.
To do otherwise – to aim your corrective efforts at your church’s previous victims rather than at the processes that victimized them – is yet another one of those things I just don’t get.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Kris
You have shared this before but I think it merits repeating. Why do so many of the people from SG show so much concern about their group getting “negative press” here on this blog while at the same time so little concern or empathy for people posting on here whose lives have been negatively and some quite negatively impacted by Sovereign Grace?
It really makes me wonder.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Kris,
If you were being considered for Caregroup leadership at my particular SGM church everything was open for “examination” your parenting, your marriage, your sex life, your finances. You simply had to be above reproach! One gal’s husband was struggling with pornography, and she was told by her caregroup leader’s wife that she needed to examine her heart, as she was probably not meeting his needs. These types of invasive stepping outside the boundaries of normal accountability are completely unacceptable in my opinion. In this case, the person was not being considered for caregroup leadership, just another subject. I will try and share later some of the question we were subjected to, but I have to go to a sporting event and spend time with my family.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Steve,
I agree with you – that’s something I should have added to my post. Thanks for mentioning it.
I do understand why stories such as the ones that have been told here would be troublesome to people who can’t wrap their thoughts around the idea that the church they love has also exhibited abusive tendencies. Even more troublesome would be having to acknowledge that a structural problem is at the root of these abuses.
I said this in an email to someone yesterday, but it bears repeating here – the fact that there haven’t been MORE cases of abuse is really a testament to God’s grace and to the good character and God-honoring hearts of most SG pastors. With such an emphasis on submitting to authorities, and with how people are already so well-trained to turn all fault-finding inward and onto their own sinfulness, it could take so little for pastors to succumb to the temptation to “lord it over” their people…and for the people to have no alternative but to keep submitting.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Freeda,
I’m sure we all look forward to when you find the time to go into more detail.
I’m still curious if any pro-SGM person would defend the practice of putting leaders (and their CHILDREN) under the microscope like that.
What sort of church culture does this create, anyway?
And…no wonder so many SGM people’s first response here has been to turn their “sin detectors” on me and the other posters.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I personally think it is not a matter of rooting out “sin” in their lives, but it is a matter of seeing how far they are willing to go to be “humble” using SG’s definition we have talked about before. Meaning, “Are these people willing to say yes to and do anything we ask?” ” Are they willing to alter their lives based on a tiny bit of input?”
January 18th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hi everyone. I’m part of a SGM church, and I wanted to try and maybe explain something that Kris asked on # 4 and later on #9. I believe the question was, “Was this a common occurance when being groomed for leadership, to have to go and seek out what amounts to nit-picking criticism? And even one’s CHILDREN were fair game?
Is there a pro-SGM person reading this who would defend this practice?”
The mandate for leaders is found, as most probably know, in 1st Timothy 3. Though I would argue about the “nit-picking criticism” comment simply from the way it seems to imply that its always “nit-picking” to seek accountability, though you probably didn’t mean it to, the specific question seems to be asking why children are involved in why a leader is chosen in the church.
“If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)”
Now I don’t want to specifically respond to the instance with the child who wouldn’t look someone in the eye (because I wasn’t there), but as a whole, I believe our leaders seek to follow the principles laid out in Scripture. Because Paul found it important enough that a man’s children be respectful, the leadership would believe the same. The logic is even given: how can he manage the church if he cannot manage his children? Therefore, before he is trusted in a leadership position, his life AND his family are not “nit-picked” apart, but questions are asked, they are evaluated, etc.
I hope this clarifies somewhat what you were asking, though I don’t think a defense is needed of a practice that is so blatantly biblical.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Kris,
I would weigh in on your original post, but it would be a variation on the theme of what others have written here – save to say the fertilizer really hits the fan if/when you enter leadership.
However, I will say that your request in post 5 was brilliant. Thank you for raising the bar on how SGM members interact with those of us here. I think the measures you’ve taken here last night and today will really cut back on neighborhood hit and runs.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Hi, Janelle, and welcome to the site! :-)
Thanks for your explanation as to the “accountability” for SG leaders.
I agree with you that holding leaders to Biblical high standards is a good thing. I think I mentioned in another comment somewhere how, when we first got to our SG church, these high standards for leaders sounded SO good to us, because of a previous experience in another church where it didn’t matter how delinquent a leader’s children might be, he (and his wife) would still be accepted into leadership.
As you can imagine, my husband and I didn’t think that THAT was correct.
But in our time within SGM, I did begin to wonder who gets to define what “in order” looks like. How specific would leadership get, as they examined new potential leaders’ families for “orderliness”? Would the leader have to, for instance, insist that all his young adult children follow the courtship system?
I guess, like so much else in the Christian life, the highly Biblical concept of leaders with “orderly” families has to somehow get worked out by us frail humans. Specific procedures just seem fraught with potential for problems.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
kris
I tried to e-mail you yesterday and I did not get a response. Did you get it.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hi, b…
I just sent you an email. I did not get yours. Sorry ’bout that. :-)
January 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Thanks for the welcome Kris.
In regards who gets to “define what in order looks likes” that is a tricky question, because Scripture doesn’t get TOO specific about what it means. From what I’ve seen and experienced, if a child is in blatant rebellion than someone would not be considered for a leadership position. This “blatant rebellion” has many faces and looks, so we could only assume then that it is taken in a case-by-case, circumstantial way. The leadership team of that specific team, led by the Holy Spirits leading, makes those decisions.
What if it’s not so blatant? And what if there is no pattern of sin in the child and then, BAM! they do something rebellious? This is taken into context and consideration. Since I’m certainly not in leadership, I don’t know how specifically these problems have been treated.
The courtship question is a little random…since it’s not fundamental to the Gospel, and certainly not mentioned in Scripture, then the evaluation would be on what the child’s heart looks like, and the fathers heart as well. The PRINCIPLES are in scripture, so even if it’s not courtship per se, is the father’s persective on relationships biblical? It doesn’t matter necessarily what you call it…courtship, dating, a “purposeful friendship” or whatever, but is it biblical?
January 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
how do I know if you are getting what I am writing
January 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
b,
It should not be a problem now, if you just press the “reply” button on the email I sent you. I will be sure to be looking for your reply. Thanks.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Well hello, Janelle!
Welcome to the blog. I see the Phillips clan is out in full force. Seriously, it’s nice to see you here.
No one here is contending the importance of an overseer having children who are obedient and respectful. However, where the danger comes in is when men lay out out stringent guidelines for what constitutes respect. (Obedience is a little easier to evaluate.)
One family (like mine) may require their children to respond with “ma’am” and “sir,” whereas another family might not subscribe to that standard. Does that make my standard “higher”? Does that make my kids more “respectful” than others who answer “Okay, Mom/Dad”? Certainly not. If I were to counsel other moms that the best way for their children to demonstrate and learn respect, that would be legalistic and add an additional requirement that exceeds the more general standard that children be respectful.
I think the principle of this passage is that, overall, an overseer’s children are to be under control. If children don’t respect their father, there are some underlying issues that need to be addressed. It would be in the best interest for that man to dedicate his time and attention attending to the needs of his family before taking on additional burdens of church leadership.
But where I think Sovereign Grace Ministries tends to veer into dangerous territory is in mandating specific standards that are extra-biblical and sometimes too unrealistically high for the child’s age or maturity level. Again, in their zeal to make sure leaders are up to snuff, these broader guidelines that Paul set out become very narrow river banks that leaders and leaders-in-training are expected to stay within.
I can’t emphasize enough that many of these standards are excellent and really promote peace within the home. Children with boundaries tend to be happier and more secure. And teaching them to obey and show respect toward those in authority prepares them to one day be responsible citizens, employees, spouses, etc.
But taking general guidelines and morphing them into checklists that are to be attended to, once again, can inadvertently result in a very works-oriented system of acceptance, which carries inherent dangers. I’ve seen kids not be allowed to wear their baseball hats backwards or to the sides b/c it demonstrates pride … and kids have all of their name brand clothing taken away for a “season” for the same reason. I’ve seen kids disciplined for not smiling when they responded to a command.
I’ve also seen parents be judged for letting their kids play with Barbies, watch Sat morning cartoons, spend the night at a non-Christian’s house, go to a non-Christian’s birthday party, trick-or-treat, dye their hair, grow skater cuts (for guys), wear jeans with holes, have a MySpace page, wear makeup before the age of 16 (and who gets to set that age?), go on a non-SGM missions trip, join the military, go away for college, etc., etc.
As you can see, it’s when you start parsing out specific requirements of what exactly constitutes respect and “order” that the legalism, which tends to mark the ministry in many other areas, seeps into the area of the requirement for leaders as it pertains to their parenting.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
SGM Casualty,
Hello to you too. Tell the fam I said hi and I miss them, and if you want shoot me an email. I’d LOVE to catch up!
Okay, in regards to what you said, I agree. I especially like what you said about “sir/ma’am” and counseling other moms to do as you do as the standard. That is astute.
What I would question, as a whole, is are you referring to parenting in general in SGM or are we still talking about evaluating a father for a leadership position in the church? Your last paragraph shows me that you mostly are still referring to would be leaders, but there is an apparent disconnect. These “specific requirements” are unknown to me. What requirements are you referring to? The no “myspace” page requirement? That rules my dad out because I have a facebook page. :-) I didn’t trick or treat, though, but wait, my little sister did this Halloween…wait, I mean “Reformation Day.” That would rule him out again!! Hmm. Perhaps I misunderstand where you are going with those examples. Those seem to be general parenting examples, and not specific would be leadership examples, yet you said in your last paragraph that there are specific requirements. You also said these requirements seep into leaders requirements, yet my family has participated in some of these “specific requirements” that leaders are not supposed to participate in.
I’m serious about catching up with you over email, I’d love to. Or maybe popping in on my blog.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Janelle,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I’m curious as to your take on how a non-homeschooling family would be viewed in terms of their potential for leadership. I realize that you wouldn’t be answering in any official capacity, but since you seem to have good insights into the requirements and SG’s history, how has this been handled in the past, that you know of? Do you know of any pastors, for instance, who have never homeschooled?
January 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Kris, I can only speak for the church I am currently in. We have several homegroup leaders who do not homeschool…some are in private schools, some public schools. As for the pastors, at times a couple of the men had their kids in a private school, but the majority homeschooled.
I do know this: the question is often asked “How close is this issue/doctrine to the Gospel?” I think we can all agree that it isn’t necessarily very close in some ways…homeschooling can be a matter of personal conviction and not salvation. Again, you’re right, I can’t officially speak for anyone, but I would be EXTREMELY surprised if someone was not allowed into a pastoral position because they didn’t homeschool.
Now, if the children were not doing well, were struggling spiritually/emotionally/scholastically etc by being in a learning environment that was not at home, I believe the counsel would be given to would-be pastor/already pastor to pray and see if homeschooling would be a better situation than the one they were currently in. However, they would not be removed from said pastoral position, or discounted from leadership if they felt they should keep their kids where they are. Questions would be asked and be expected to be answered on the motivation and heart issues behind the decision as in any monumental decision. Does this mean that legalism is present b/c the pastoral team prefers to homeschool and thinks that it would be best for said children? No. That’s a HUGE assumption. Personal conviction of one person in leadership cannot trump personal conviction of another person in leadership/would be leadership. It’s absurd. In the case of keeping one another accountable (I know you all don’t like that term, oh well) and with clear standing before God, the questions would be expected to be answered! Not because they don’t trust a decision being made, but because they would want to be sure that the said pastor/would be pastor is not making an uninformed, unprayed about, seek-no-counsel-rely-on-my-own-preference-and-ability decision.
Hope that helps.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Janelle,
Thanks for your answer.
I actually have NO problem with the term “accountability,” or people being “held accountable.”
On a personal level, I’m just honestly grappling with how a person comes to a place where there is enough trust for that level of accountability. And is this level something to which the Bible actually calls us? Or have some standards been defined by men, rather than God?
And how is it possible that such accountability can work in the hands of self-proclaimed and self-acknowledged sinners? And is it a problem that the accountability circle necessarily gets narrower, the farther up the leadership pyramid one gets?
(I’m not expecting you to answer THOSE questions, mind. Those are just the things that truly puzzle me! :-) )
January 18th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Hi Janelle,
I’d love to hop on by your blog sometime! Thanks for the gracious invite. And I promise I’ll be on my best behavior and won’t disrupt your little world. ;)
Good point about my discussion kind of segueing into more general issues about parenting in Sovereign Grace. Since most of my relationships were with others in leadership, yes, most of these issues came up among leaders in the context of “spurring one another on.” The only example that didn’t come up while I was specifically in leadership was the issue of MySpace. That was post-SGM for us, but my girls knew from discussions with other leaders’ kids that it was a hot issue for a while.
I’m also not saying that ALL SGM leaders set up ALL of these guidelines. The point I was trying to make – that, admittedly, might have gotten lost in the fray – is that I’ve noticed a tendency to add extra-biblical requirements in evaluating if a potential leader’s children are deemed respectful.
Also, another point I thought of after I posted to you (isn’t that how it always is?) is that as long as there is freedom to disagree, I think healthy questioning of motives (in moderation) can be tremendously challenging for some people. Having grown up in the NE, where people tend to be a bit more “straight up,” I genuinely appreciate a shoot-straight-from-the-hip kind of communication style (which is probably why your mom and I kind of hit it off straight from the starting gate
).
So, for me, I’m not easily offended by questions about my motives as long as I feel like there is room for me to say in sincerity, “I appreciate your perspective, but I don’t agree.” And granted, if I would have had better boundaries when I was in SGM, I might have been able to say that without it causing shock waves to surge through the relationships I held dearest to me. I’ll never know. But leaders could certainly make it easier, in these debatable areas, to release people to disagree with them, understanding that the more sincere trainees (for TOTAL lack of a better term right now) will be more hesitant to defend themselves too quickly for fear of being arrogant.
Oftentimes, it has been my experience that people really don’t have that freedom in SGM and that disagreeing with these peripheral issues – what I’ve heard called “debatable issues” in other Christian circles – can be misinterpreted as lack of teachableness, arrogance, or independence. And since these are all qualities that pastors are looking for in would-be-leaders, it is very easy to get entangled in this web of legalism in the name of having your family in order.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Kris –
I particularly don’t understand those readers who find the site, read a few articles, and then barrel in to declare what a bad person I am, and how idiotic and sinful I must be for having a different view of their church organization than they have.
There is an expression in law:
If the facts are on your side argue the facts,
If the law is on your side argue the law
Otherwise pound the table
This is pounding the table. SGMers have a simple problem. Their leadership is systematically deliberately and intentionally violating biblical norms on a host of issues. They can’t argue the facts because the facts support the anti-SGM cause. They can’t argue against the structural critique because the critique is true. These systems were put in from the very top with the intention of creating these abuses. So they pound the table.
They argue that its a bad thing to be aware of reality. It interferes with reconciliation, it interferes with healing… Take it as a compliment that your original instinct three months was correct. The people attacking this blog due so not because its full of lies but because it is full of truth.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Kris,
Those are certainly hard things to grapple with. The truth is that some people just simply have a harder time being transparent and open, which can be for any number of reasons and aren’t necessarily sinful though it can sometimes be that. I’ve also been thinking about those types of things recently. How much is too much, and how little is too little? There is no clear cut answer, is there?!
SGM Casualty,
Thanks for the discussion. I’ve always appreciated how down to earth you were…looks like you haven’t changed much (in a good way!) I can see where you are coming from, but it just seems to me that you are interpreting sincere concern with legalism. Since hard questions are asked, and expected to be answered for accountabilities sake, does this mean it is legalistic? And if someone says “I politely disagree with your assessment” and this person thinks you are wrong, does this mean they meekly shut up and stop asking questions? If they truly are concerned, truly care for you, they will not stop. I’ve had so many friends/family get on my case so to speak, because I was simply blind to my sin. They were firm, loving, and all-together annoyingly loyal. They kept at me though I didn’t want to hear what they said. Why? Because I was soooo convinced I was right and they were wrong! But they were convinced THEY were right and I was wrong.
See the circle this can go in? Same thing can happen with would be leaders. Who was right, in my case? My friends and family. 99% they were right!!! They continued to ask questions, be sincere and loving, because they were concerned for my welfare.
Pastors who ask hard questions about family, children etc, are doing what concerned, loving people do. Motives are important, don’t you think? You can tell a tree by its fruit, whether you are 55 or 15. The 15 yo child reflects on the 55 yo father and his leadership ability. And the 15 yo child who is struggling with a debatable issue, say worldly dress (slouching pants, crazy hair, all black clothing, whatever) or is struggling with cussing/cursing just to name a couple, is saying something about his heart, and therefore saying something about his father.
What you said about some people having trouble with their motives being questioned is certainly true, I have friends who struggle with my straight forward way of thinking/talking/asking. That doesn’t mean I back off. Same thing with the leadership discussion! The pastors aren’t going to back off simply because some isn’t “used” to honesty and openness.
Okay, I’m done for the night. Don’t worry about being on your best behavior in my “little world.” If I cared more about what people think than what God thinks I wouldn’t blog.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
CD-Host,
Your analyses are always clear-cut. I just wish this most recent one weren’t true, if that makes sense. :-)
January 18th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Kris –
Yes it does. One of the things that I had hoped for was that the people from the Doug Phillips group came over here, I really think having people that have gone through this, particularly woman because there are some woman specific issues, would help. I know you admire C. J. on lots of thing and they went through the same process with him. They were able to extract the wheat from the chaff, but to be honest that happened once they admitted they were engaged in a salvage not a rescue operation. Moreover they found a lot less wheat then they expected, what was distinctive was mostly bad. But, for example they loved the in church discussion after the sermon.
Anyway …. I don’t think this group is there yet.
BTW expect more pounding the table. Doug’s guys did get some pretty good dirt on Jen. She took it well. Then they went after one of her kids, and that kid did not take it well.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
CD-Host said (to Kris):
“I know you admire C. J. on lots of thing and they went through the same process with him. …Moreover they found a lot less wheat then they expected, what was distinctive was mostly bad.”
Can you share a little more about what you are talking here and what this group realized about C.J. Mahaney and/or provide some links about this.
Also, I have noticed you seem to know the tricks for posting on here. Care to share those on the the blog titled “Technical Junk?” A few of us have been curious how to do that.
Thanks
January 18th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Steve,
If you google “wordpress code,” you’ll probably find some tips. I’ve learned the basics just by looking at the “code” area of my blog (like after you’ve written something, you can choose to view it as “code” or the regular view). Hope that helps. This is one case where I may actually know more than Guy the Sheriff…only I better not let him know I said that!! ;-)
January 19th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Steve –
The only trick I’m using is directly embedding HTML. Can you be more specific? BTW I’d recommend Kris or Guy do it since they can test. Its always tricky with these blogs since there are a bunch of setting that effect what will happen and this one doesn’t have a preview without admin access. But I’d be happy to answer anything specific.
As far as the question regarding C.J. you actually cut out the crucial part. It wasn’t about C.J. the analogy is to another leader Doug Phillips of vision forum, Vision Forum Ministries. He has a very wide following for a movement he calls “Patriarchy”. I keep encouraging a cross over because the anti-Patriarchy people are further along in their analysis the are the SG people, you all are just getting started while they have finished with all the basics and just hit on little details as they come up. The equivalent website to this one was Jen’s Gems though now the real activity is on True Womanhood. which has mainstream appeal among the home-schooling community.
So Jen is sort of the Kris in the analogy. There are differences though. Basically Doug uses autocratic structures to promote heresy, C.J. uses heresy to promote autocratic structures. Jen started out much closer ideologically to Doug Phillips than Kris is to C. J., C.J. is also less ideological than Doug. On the other hand Jen was much closer to Doug on how churches should be governed….
Jen from the start made her blog personal:
The subtitle used to be:
Jen’s Gems Exposing Doug Phillip’s Ecclesiastical Tyranny it morphed very quickly into a discussion of heresy however, this was a direction that surprised Jen.
Kris I think had originally wanted to explore the issue of SG culture, the blog is morphing into one on SG’s techniques of spiritual abuse . A development that I think is really good.
Another difference I should also mention that C.J. is little more mainstream then Doug. Doug’s was working with the fundamentalist right, C.J. with the fundamentalist left (TIC).
But this is close enough that I feel like I’m watching history repeat. But except for C.J. being another name in CBWM, anti-Patriarchy had little to do with C.J. There were some people who wanted to broaden the anti-Patriarchy movement to include Charismatics with the Shepherding type issues but to some extent they were never part of the “inner circle”. Most of the anti-Patrirarchy crowd have never heard of Maranatha, Later Rain….
Debbie (who seems to be gone) is responsible for me being here. An accident of fate. But a well timed one, quite frankly I’m a bit concerned about where the anti-Patriarchy movement is going, since Jen is no longer leading it.
Hope that answers the question.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:03 am
CD-Host,
I am somewhat familiar with Jen’s story. I would say that a huge difference is that Jen went through a grueling disciplinary process with Doug Phillips (whose home-grown church had about 150-200 people at its largest, if my memory serves), and her story started out as her own testimonial about what she’d gone through. Her zeal for the endeavor was fueled as much (some would probably say more) by her personal pain as by her desires to expose false teachings. If anything, it was almost like she discovered the false teachings along the way, as she worked through her residual anger with Phillips.
This blog, on the other hand, started out with essentially NO personal emotion on my part, just a sense that it was weird that I had never found a site online that discussed any of the things I’d observed in our SG church. The one site that HAD contained informative comments (on some old blog post from 2 years ago) suddenly disappeared when the dialogue seemed about to heat up, and that’s when I decided on a whim to put up some comments I’d happened to have saved in old emails and in a document.
Any emotion or passion on the site now is because of OTHER PEOPLE’S stories, not my own. If anything, our personal experience with SGM is a non-event. We had an essentially pleasant time at our church, even though we ended up deciding that we did not feel comfortable there for a number of seemingly unimportant, inconsequential reasons.
So although there would appear to be some surface similarities between this blog and “Jen’s Gems,” about the only things the two sites share would be perhaps some writings relating to patriarchal views on women, courtship, and homeschooling. But while Jen’s experience was among the “hyper-patriarchs,” Sovereign Grace draws from a broad range of people from many walks of life. Some SG folks are indeed following Patriarchal ways, even to the point of discouraging young ladies from pursuing a college education. But others within SG are not like that at all.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Janelle P,
Not that I feel like I need to defend my self but: I was raised in a Christian home and known the Lord since I was 5 years old. I am a certified school teacher who has homeschooled my children their entire life. They are currently in college and doing quite well. Back at that time they typically dressed in Lands End and Hannah Andersson dresses that I bought on clearance. They were and are very much in love with Jesus, and pretty much every where we went (and still today) people would stop and commend them on their sweet hearts and polite manners. They were raised knowing, loving and living out Biblical mandates and still do to this day. They were real and authentic in their love for the Lord, and it truly showed in all that they did. My husband had a very good job, worked hard, loved the Lord with all his heart, and had no hidden sins in his life, as some men in the movement do. He was perhaps one of the most compassionate men in our entire church, and had an amazing love for God’s people and continually sacrificed his time helping and caring for others. We have a good marriage, we manage our finances quite well, and we have a very great love for the Lord and His people. As a professional educator who has studied child behavior, I do not think that a child not looking at a stranger in the eye on the one or two occasions that this individual may have even talked to my child, would or should cause one to bring out the 1 Timothy 3 concerns. None of our children were disrespectful to the elders in our church, if anything they walked around with fear that they were going to mess up. This was because there were such high expectations for those in leadership and their children. My question to you is who and what should determine the actually ironing out of which sins are acceptable to be considered for a caregroup leadership? Do you think say a sin like pornography in the man would be less serious than an downward focused eye of a shy child?And is that really sin? Is a shy child really just prideful….who decides? Would one sin disqualify one from leadership and who decides? Just curious, why did you choose FaceBook over My Space….I was just wondering how you made that decision?
Do you think that Homeschooling is Biblical? Do you think that Public School is? We were told by our caregroup leader that homeschooling was Biblical, and that it was truly the best way. I remember my friend next to me just freezing with shock (her children were one of the 3 families in our church that were public schooled at that time.) Out of several hundred families, only 3 had their children in public schools. The only place our church advertised was the state homeschool magazine. Why?
January 19th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Oh, I just realized Janelle P, that I just jumped right in without welcoming you!! Please forgive me! I am glad that you are here and hope that you can offer much insight to our blog. If I could meet you in person, I would look you right straight in the eye and tell you welcome, fellow Sister. But since I am out here in cyberspace and don’t even know how to do smiley faces, I will just give you one of these :>) Blessings to you!
January 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Re: #7 – freeda;
“One gal’s husband was struggling with pornography, and she was told by her caregroup leader’s wife that she needed to examine her heart, as she was probably not meeting his needs”.
Whattttttttttttt?!?!!?
Sorry I don’t want to break into the flow of conservation that is going on here, but that is so shocking to me. I don’t know the context of the situation obviously but as a man I can’t pass that by without comment (and I don’t think anyone else did).
That is a pretty similar to a comment that I read Mark Driscoll make;
“At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either”.
How about men standing up and admitting responsibility and some of this so-called “headship” we are meant to have? How about holding up hands and saying “I was wrong – I blew it?”. Why are wives and women being expected to take the fall for man’s basic tendancy to sin? I am sorry – maybe I will be accused of being non-manly here – but I want to stand up and say it’s about time men stood up and took some RESPONSIBILITY for who we are and what we do! Grrr!
Sorry – I will retreat back into my quietness now. ;)
January 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Thank God for you Dan !!! Please pray for a single christian man like that my way !!!!
Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Awesome. Let your light shine !!! WHOOOYAH grr…. me too…. :>)
January 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Dan –
(in ref #7 and #35)
Not to get to explicit, but since you are saying this “as a man”, as another man I’m going to jump in. I actually think that was good and practical advice the minister was giving. There is no question interest in porn increases as frequency and intensity of marital sex decreases. What the pastor said is just a nicer version of the old saying, “Men go to whores for what they can’t get from their wives”. Its an old saying for a reason, I’d say the pastor was being honest and not political correct; i.e. giving good advice. If the wife wants to help the husband break a porn habit, easiest fastest way to do that is to spend more time in the bedroom.
As for the man taking responsibility, in the story he was addressing the wife. One of the really great things about Christianity is that it encourages people to examine and work on their parts in creating sin. Even if the blame is 80/20 him/her, she needs to focus on the 20 not the 80, and he needs to focus on the 80 and not the 20.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Freeda,
I knew that there was something I liked about you! Lands’ End, Hanna Andersson, (and LL Bean) are my favorites!
btw: to do a smile, just take the nose out of your smiley: use a colon and a capital D right next to each other, or a colon and a ), also right next to each other.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I was going to respond to Dan (telling him NOT to be quiet!!!!), when I saw your response, CD! This is one of the very few times that I have to disagree with you.
you said:
“There is no question interest in porn increases as frequency and intensity of marital sex decreases. What the pastor said is just a nicer version of the old saying, “Men go to whores for what they can’t get from their wives”. Its an old saying for a reason, I’d say the pastor was being honest and not political correct; i.e. giving good advice. If the wife wants to help the husband break a porn habit, easiest fastest way to do that is to spend more time in the bedroom.:
Interest in porn may increase as frequency and intensity of marital sex decreases, but the decrease may be actually caused by the increase in interest in porn. Porn addiction starts little by little and increases if it is not dealt with as sin. Addiction to pornography is a huge problem because it is a fantasy available 24 hours a day that no real life woman can compete with.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Kris –
Agree to everything you’ve written. I actually was trying to say the same things in fact, I probably did so poorly. Yes the analogy is not just a different church
On the fact that Jen’s was personal agreed: I mentioned Jen’s subtext, but I also commented you both experienced a shift based on readership.
I also agree that C.J. is operating to the left of Doug. Doug could assume homeschooling as a given, C. J. is arguing for it. Doug had to address with issue of whether use of single age classes constituted an intolerable sin that required a church split; I get the impression that if C.J. were addressing that his crowd would look at him like he had 3 heads. Hence my joke about fundamentalist left vs. fundamentalist right :-)
So anyway, I read your post as essentially agreeing not disagreeing with what I wrote.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Dan,
I couldn’t agree more with you. I do applaud you for putting the ball primarily where it belongs: Men are responsible for their own hearts and their own sexual proclivities! They are responsible for their own sin. And Sovereign Grace needs to put the onus of responsibility on THEM, not their wives.
I do think it’s a shame when women (and men!) just let themselves go and do not care for their physical appearance. I also agree with what CD said about women letting themselves go doesn’t make it easier on their husbands to remain faithful. But, to be quite honest with you, I’ve seen SGM husbands let themselves go FAR more than I’ve seen their wives, and they usually let themselves go first. And they don’t have pregnancy to blame it on!
As far as Mark’s words go, I heard that same sentiment over and over from leaders’ wives in women’s meetings. We were told that if we were submissive, kept ourselves attractive, and were sexually available to our husbands, they would have NO REASON to look elsewhere. That’s simply not true and puts the balk of responsibility on the wife instead of the husband.
I can tell you that if you’re married to a man with a raging porn addiction (as I was), it doesn’t matter what you do, it won’t compare to what he can get online. My husband could go months without any interest in sex, but even our kids’ computer was getting porn popups b/c he was using all of our computers to look at porn. So I asked him once what was wrong with me … if there was anything he could change about my appearance, what would it be?
He gave me 4 things (although, out of fairness to him, he was hesitant to actually be honest with me … but I insisted on getting to the bottom of his sub-zero interest in sex): get in shape, get my nails done, go to a tanning salon, and grow my hair long and dye it blond. I’m Irish and did the bottle blond thing once, and it looked ridiculous. So I told him I’d give him 3 out of the 4. I was in school at the time and had put on a little extra weight but was still thin – always have been.
However, I joined the YMCA, got a personal trainer, and within a few months was absolutely cut. I had a 6 pack for abs, no noticeable body fat, and all of the other bennies that go with being physically tone and healthy. I was also tan (even though the last place anyone should go who’s of Gaelic descent is a tanning salon!) and had beautiful nails at all times (acrylics are a beautiful thing).
I also don’t want to cross any lines in what would be considered appropriate for this blog, save to say I was also the one who was far more adventuresome in our intimate life and tried the hardest to keep things spicy. And with all of those endorphins surging through my system, I was ready to go day or night.
And guess what? My husband still had NO interest in me. And I looked exactly as I described when he walked out the door and into the arms of an old friend of his from college. And when he had to submit his financial affidavit for the divorce, I was shocked to see all of the online purchases and visits to strip clubs on there. (I’m sure he didn’t realize his wanderings would have been an issue of public record.) Other guys were noticing me left and right, and I have had no shortage of requests for dates since he left (which I have turned down!). But his heart and imagination were elsewhere – somewhere I couldn’t reach.
So I think it’s downright foolhardy that SGM completely minimizes the effect of porn on men’s souls and on marriages. Never once was there a mention that if a wife’s husband was dealing with a serious porn addiction, she should seek help – either from the church or elsewhere. There also wasn’t a mention that if her husband was dealing with sexual addictions, it really wouldn’t matter how she looked or how submissive she was or how ready she was day or night, she’s not going to compare to what he can get online with no investment of himself. Porn, in my book, is one of the most selfish things a husband can do b/c it says to his wife, “I can do better.” The Bible says that the earth trembles under three things, one of which is an unloved woman who is married (Pr. 30:21-23).
So yes, CD, I do think it’s important for both wives AND husbands to take good care of themselves. And it is totally reasonable that neglect in that area can lead to diminished sexual desire. Also, being in shape (I’m not talking about skinny but physically fit.) helps ward off depression by releasing endorphins (my one true addiction
). And endorphins can cause major spikes in sexual appetite (at least they sure did for me!). So endorphins are going to make both the husband and wife happier all around because they flood the brain with “feel good” sensations.
But, as Dan said, men are still primarily responsible for what they do when no one else is looking on (except for Jesus, of course).
January 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
First off Kris… feel free to tell us to move this conversation.
Ellie –
Well thought out point of disagreement. OK let me make it more fundamental. I think the word “porn addiction” used in 3 different ways.
a) In a secular context, it refers to a very small group of men that are aroused primarily by pornography and have little interest in woman. I would agree such men exist, but I would argue they represent less than .5% of men not counting men with physical disabilities. Most are not married since they don’t like relating to woman at all. And I would agree for this group your points are all true. The point of disagreement here is the numbers. I suspect you believe this is a larger percentage of the population than I do.
b) To represent men whose primary sexual stimulus is pornography. This is a much larger group. I’m not sure I would use the word addiction here. And I think they can fall back into 2 person sexual behavior fairly easily. They may simply be sexually bored and that is something that sex-ed for the couple can fix. So I guess here the primary disagreement is degree of intervention required.
c) To represent the vast majority of conservative Christian men that use pornography occasionally even though they claim to believe in a sexual framework which is ideologically opposed to pornography. Given their beliefs don’t correspond to their actions they often attribute them to “addiction”. I think here the problem isn’t addiction its cowardice. They claimed to believe one thing even though it contradicted the evidence they experienced on a regular basis. So they developed secret beliefs saying one thing with their mouth while believing another in their heart, rank hypocris but not addiction. The cure here is a fearless search for the truth and a through moral examination of their beliefs and their behaviors.
And yes wives can help with that, since they can point out hypocrisy in other areas as well and they can be supportive.
But if they want to leave the contradiction intact this group doesn’t really even require sex ed. The trigger is generally sexual frustration. In other words IMHO the group that is really most sinful is actually the one least addicted.
OK now that I’ve presented my framework what is yours?
January 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Freeda,
Thanks for the welcome. Some of those questions you asked seem rhetorical, so I’m not sure how to answer them. Who decides which sins are more condemning for church leadership? The porn example and the shy child example are pretty clear cut to me. So I will assume that was a rhetorical question. In general, those already in leadership study Scripture, see what emphasis is placed on leaders for certain types of behavior, study to see how much time/how many examples are placed on certain sin patterns, pray, seek the Holy Spirit, etc. and come to an informed decision.
I chose Facebook and not MySpace for several different reasons. The most obvious is that I like Facebook better. For lack of time, I’m not going to go into any other reasons.
Instead of re-writing what I’ve already written before, follow this to some thoughts I’ve had on homeschooling (I don’t know how to make it a link on wordpress, sorry)
http://janelle-marie-phillips.blogspot.com/2007/07/homeschooling.html
If you have further questions, maybe we could continue this at my blog, since you’re questions were for me specifically??
Again, thanks for your warmness!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Yay, it’s a link!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
SGM Casualty –
First off I’m sorry for your bad marriage. That is a tragic story.
Now the meat. I think you are attacking me for a quote that Marc Driscoll made not something I said. Dan was quoting Marc to me and arguing we were doing the same things. I think you should reread my original. I never said what you claim I did.
I also never said that I don’t think porn can become a substitute for sex.
Moreover, your story doesn’t refute my point it actually support it:
And I looked exactly as I described when he walked out the door and into the arms of an old friend of his from college.
I other words he had no problem dropping porn. He wasn’t particularly interested in having sex with you, for whatever reason. And I doubt it was your hair was the wrong color. IMHO (not knowing either of you) he wasn’t willing to be honest even when you gave him the opportunity. That is terrible behavior but it is not evidence of porn addiction. It is evidence of porn substitution, which is my claim.
Contrast this with say a an actual addiction like coke. People don’t give up coke for adultery. All I am saying is that porn is not in most cases an addiction.
Moreover because you aggressively attempted to deal with the problem you have far fewer doubts then if you hadn’t. Imagine for a moment if the sex had stopped, you had done nothing and then he walked out. You would have had questions for years about what you could have done and didn’t. Today your feeling is you played your hand the best you could. You still lost but that’s poker. What the pastor in freedathink did was advise the woman to do what you did.
So I’m at a loss to see how your example doesn’t support my argument.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Last night, after I’d already shut down my computer, a thought occurred to me, somewhat inspired by the disconnect between Janelle’s calm and sensible responses and the stories of others like Freeda. Freeda told of being assigned the task, in her family’s journey toward an SGM leadership role, to go around to others in leadership and ask for their (brutally!) honest feedback about any possible shortcomings that they’d observed. Someone actually gave Freeda the “observation” that her 8-year-old did not make enough eye contact during conversations.
Janelle, on the other hand, says that obviously, this is extreme and would not be something encouraged by leaders.
Since I believe they both are telling the truth (why would either of them bother to come on here and lie, after all?), I was pondering how it could be that they could both be right. If leadership is NOT sending down these types of directives for “observations,” then how is it that they are still happening, over things that are obviously ridiculously legalistic?
That’s when it occurred to me that maybe “accountability” can look VERY different in different circles, depending on the spiritual maturity of the people involved?
Perhaps in Janelle’s world, where she is surrounded by sensible and more mature believers, everybody sort of knows the “ground rules” and understands what would be legalism? Maybe these folks instinctively know what would be the “spirit of the law” versus the “letter of the law” and have an innate sense of where to draw the line?
It occurred to me that it’s possible that the sort of “accountability” that works among leadership might start to look a lot different as it trickles down through the ranks. I also think that, because there IS a great deal of desire among people in smaller churches to follow whatever comes down from “on high,” maybe these people take certain practices and directives and run with them to a degree that leadership never intended?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
CD-Host and others,
If it’s OK with you guys, I would prefer to redirect the conversation away from the porn thing? That’s one of those issues that we cannot definitely establish as something occurring within SGM. I mean, yes, there is anecdotal evidence. I myself was aware of situations along the lines of what SGM Casualty describes, even though we were only part of our SG church for a relatively brief time. So I tend to believe that it COULD be an issue worth discussing…but for every anecdote describing porn problems at SGM, someone else can come on here and say that to THEIR knowledge, there is no problem. And round and round we’d go.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Well, good thing I hit Refresh before posting. Fair enough, Kris.
But I would like to say to CD that I’m sorry if it came across like I was attacking you. I didn’t mean to attack you. In fact, there was only one sentence in your post I disagreed with. The majority of my post was directed at Marc’s quote, not what you said.
But I could have done a better job parsing my response to your post out from my much stronger response to SGM’s position on this topic.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
SGM Casualty (and CD),
We can discuss the porn issue IF there is some specific connection to official SG teachings. I don’t mean to make this confusing, but, for instance, if someone has a tape or a handout or a link to teachings where women are told to maintain their attractiveness to keep their husbands from porn, then we can talk about it. Or even, if several people can speak to a specific event where this was discussed, or specific counsel that they received from SG leadership.
I am just extremely uncomfortable getting into the subject if it’s discussed in broader, more general terms. Marc Driscoll, for all I know, has nothing to do with SGM. While I can see how his observations would be an interesting parallel to what others have said they’ve heard from SG leadership, I don’t much see the point of debating here the merits of what he said.
(I’m doing the “Moderator Tightrope Dance” this morning…sorry, guys! :-) )
January 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Janelle,
I must say I am really enjoying our little discussion. Really, truly.
Okay, I can see what you’re saying about how having persistent friends can be a good thing and had an interesting experience with two friends at work yesterday who aren’t even Christians but were the kind of TOTALLY annoying friends you described in your post. We argued for a good 10 mins at lunch about a medical test a doctor wants me to do “to be safe” that I have no interest in doing.
There was nothing refined about this interaction, and it was far from biblical per se. They were using words like “pig-headed” and “moron,” and the whole thing got pretty animated. (How’s that for avoiding more convicting biblical terms? heh heh … kidding, of course.
) But I was genuinely getting really ticked at their persistence over something that was, frankly, none of their business. I didn’t even say I wasn’t doing the test to get their opinion on the topic; I was merely stating it as fact.
Finally, the one friend started to tell a scary story about someone who didn’t have this test done, and any time I would try to interject, the other friend would just cut me off and tell me to listen. It would have been almost funny, if it hadn’t been so obnoxious. I had never seen this side of these friends. But the one friend, as it turns out, had good reason to take these tests very seriously and had shared her own very scary story. So her very real experience trumped all, and I caved in the end.
I had never had an experience like that with these friends, and we certainly are not committed to walking in “biblical fellowship.” There was also nothing forced or contrived about it. But they did get totally obnoxious out of very genuine care for me. And I may one day genuinely grateful for their “intervention.”
I still don’t agree that I should have to do this test; I’m still totally irritated that I’m perfectly healthy and constantly doing unnecessary tests b/c my sister trashed her body in every way imaginable and then died at 35 of a heart attack; I’m still angry that I keep having to use valuable PTO days for medical tests and procedures; and I’m still a little in shock to have seen this side of what seemed to be totally normal friends.
But, on some level, I am grateful that I have friends who care. And I did, in the end, see that their argument, though flawed on several points, beat my logic. And there were many hysterical moments sprinkled throughout this conversation that provided some comic relief (even if it was at my expense most times
).
I don’t know … Maybe God allowed that situation to happen to prepare me for this little interaction. Maybe He orchestrated it just to show me that there is value in truth telling in relationships, and it doesn’t have to be tainted with some of my bad experiences with “biblical fellowship” in Sovereign Grace.
I never feared that these friends were judging me or would walk away from our friendship if we didn’t get on the same page. They could also care less if I’m humble or teachable or any of that. They just thought I was making a really stupid decision. I wasn’t trying to impress them with my character (obviously), and they weren’t trying to gain the upper hand. The whole interaction was all very raw but incredibly genuine.
If you can maintain that kind of fellowship (sans the crudeness and name calling
) in friendships in SGM, I think that’s great. However, having said that, I must say that there is still, imho, very real danger in the persistence you write about, if it’s an area that’s open to interpretation. For example, you wrote:
“And if someone says ‘I politely disagree with your assessment’ and this person thinks you are wrong, does this mean they meekly shut up and stop asking questions?”
If it’s not an area that is clearly defined by Scripture (and this person isn’t your mom or dad! *ahem*
), then I would say, yes, it is most appropriate NOT to just “shut up” but to entrust that person to God and allow the Holy Spirit room to work. I do think that doggedly continuing to ask questions and pressing for a response can cross the line into judgment and abuse. If the person just doesn’t “see” this area of sin that seems to be so clear to you, you could inadvertently push that person to acknowledge something s/he doesn’t really feel genuine conviction over (to please you and/or get you off his/her freakin’ back).
See, this is where the whole idea of accountability, biblical fellowship, and correction has been presented for so long with such a controlling twist, we learn not to really question it. We’ve been programmed to think that kind of do-or-die persistence is real love. But when the person on the receiving end of this interaction does not have the option of disagreeing or calling off the hunt, I DO think there is incredible potential for legalism, control, and abuse.
That’s really my main point. When an “observation” (like you think someone’s too thin, let’s just say) transforms into an inquisition (e.g., you pile her up w/ a stack of articles on anorexia, require her to write down everything she eats, forbid her from exercising, etc.), I believe the line is crossed, and you have now taken up residence as the Holy Spirit in that person’s life.
I think – and granted, I’m not bifocals-toting theologian here – that healthy accountability operates with the assumption that your friend, who you love dearly and wouldn’t want to watch lose ground on a slippery slope of sin, loves God with all of her heart, hears from the Holy Spirit, and wants to do what is right. If that’s your starting point, your role is minimized as you seek to help her hear what the Lord is probably already convicting her of to some degree. But if you’re operating under the assumption that your friend’s heart is deceitfully wicked and looking for the first opportunity to get “off the chain” (love that slang expression!) and bolt headlong into sin, you will naturally take a much more aggressive approach that’s oriented more toward a full-blown intervention. And my experience has been that people coming to me with observations that are fueled by this kind of intensity are not willing to hear that there is SOME chance that their observations could be off. And yes, even influenced by sin in their heart.
At minimum, this kind of approach makes you feel – as I told one pastor’s wife once – that court was held, an iron-clad case was presented against you, you were declared guilty, and a sentence was pronounced … all before you even stepped into the courtroom.
But, again, I can’t emphasize enough that I DO believe that there is a place for accountability. And I will always believe that a friend who will tell you the truth about yourself out of genuine love for you is a rare treasure.
Okay, that was just fun! Really, I love to be challenged on points like this where I have to go back and chew the cud. There were times reading your post I’d think, “Crap, that’s a good point. Okay, I’ll have to sleep on that.” So bravo, friend!