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 20th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Jen –
Isn’t their stance on church discipline a very typical stance for Reformed Baptists?
Nope. See my blog where I comment areas where McArthur and Dever would strongly disagree with SGM. And since we’ve been talking about Driscoll, Driscoll as well.
4) Culture of constant critiquing of other people’s moral status (probably designed to undermine self esteem).”
Lynn on the previous thread (when chuch loyalty goes to far) did a fantastic job on presenting some examples of this. Just search the thread for comments by her. Kris also when she comments about others “playing the holy spirit”.
OK now the question becomes the second clause my hypothesis as to why:
As for how this is designed to undermine self-esteem its a well known procedure in what is called de-motivational management. Humans are social and they respond to other people’s assessments of them. By creating a culture where others freely criticize a person and at the same time the recipient is supposed to be responding positively to those critiques virtually any decision they make in life will end up being attacked. That is if I make a choice someone is going to think I made the wrong choice quite frequently tell me so “as they were led by the spirit” and force me to doubt my own decision making ability.
The place you see this used most harshly (i.e. an extreme example) is in prisons with new prisoners. Guards will frequently force prisoners to do things that are ambiguous and then attack them verbally for whatever action they take.
Guard: 257319 Move to the right!
If prisoner moves to his right
Guard: My right dummy. Pay attention.
If prisoner moves to his left
Guard: Can’t you tell your left from your right!
If prisoner doesn’t move
Guard: Are you deaf! (shoves prisoner)
etc…
In the case of prisons this is designed to create a mild depression and undermine self esteem, thereby reducing the likelyhood of violence and increasing the level of obedience. SGM seems to be using a similar technique on a longer time frame. Because they use multiple people in their system each person is just “following the holy spirit” so even the “guard” doesn’t really understand what he is doing. It happens automatically without any further input from the top leadership. Even further they have developed an ideology of humility so that any attempt to point what’s going on or object will also meet with social disapproval.
____
, I am finding that most young people who were brought up in patriarchy are rebelling because they want to be their own person and they don’t want all the rules of patriarchy to be forced down their throats. This same principle, then, would extend to fundamentalism, for sure, and those within evangelicalism who embrace rules over grace.
Your explanation is interesting. Its sort of like how French kids don’t have highschool/ college drinking binges since they were drinking wine since they were very little. So in your analogy is it the church or the parents that are creating the problem?
January 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Hey again!
Kris said in post 62:
[quote]I’d rather spend my time focusing on what God wants me to DO rather than focusing on what God does NOT want me to do. [/quote]
I think that’s a very good point and what has sort of been in the back of my mind. I would think that keeping our focus on ‘indwelling sin’ would be more of a stumbling block than anything. Instead, if our thoughts are more focused to doing God’s Will then everything else falls into place without us having to worry about if we are sinning or not. (and no need for Junior Holy Spirits in regards to others either :-p) I think it’s a more healthy focus and also goes along with what scripture tells us to do. (Philipians 4:8) Our hearts become more geared towards wanting to serve God rather than the fact that we’re horrible, sinful creatures.
mr freedathink (post #59), the whole thing about there being 2 different paradigms was a good way to explain it. Even speaking as an outsider, I’ve noticed that too but couldn’t define it so well. Even the way both paradigms define certain things are vastly different. I wonder how that happens on things that seem to be pretty much black and white issues.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am
If there are two juxtaposed paradigms within SG, and they have to do with the fact that there are a lot of external rules in SG, but there is also a lot of immorality and divorce, then I would think that examining how those are juxtaposed would be a legitimate topic of conversation for this blog. SG sounds extremely fundie to me and I am only explaining a common phenomena within fundamentalism, so I think this should be examined. Kris, if you don’t see how this directly corresponds to SG, then just say the word and I’ll back off.
CD, regarding constantly critiquing others’ moral status, again it seems as if we are describing exactly what I just left, so I think I can speak to this as well. Is it designed to undermine self esteem like they did when I was in Army basic training? I don’t think so, but it is interesting that you would see it that way. I think you were more correct when you stated that even others did it without it being mandated from the top.
In these types of churches, of which I’m quickly getting a picture of what an SG church is like, obedience to God is paramount. And verses such as Matthew 18 and Gal. 6:1 are elevated to a position God never intended them to be. Many of these types of fundies feel it is their responsibility to confront another believer with their perceived sin every time they do something with which they disagree. They can usually take some Scripture out of context to support that. It is a very degrading atmosphere and I always felt like I could never measure up, no matter what I did.
I will give you one example which really happened, so you can see that this goes way beyond the moral. A group of us ladies were standing around talking and one woman attempted to say, “baklava.” She stumbled over the word several times and it was obvious that she didn’t know how to pronounce it correctly, so after several tries, I simply said the word. Several weeks later, she came to me and told me that she needed to confront me in the spirit of Matt. 18 and told me how offended she was by that. I soon saw that this happened on a fairly regular basis.
I’m curious. In the SG church, does this kind of thing happen mostly with the women or do the men do this to each other as well? In my patriarchy church, this was only done to the women, to “put us in our place” and to keep us submissive, while the men were never questioned because they were treated as little gods.
CD, you asked if I thought the church or the parents are creating the problem. Both. If the outward pressure from a fundie church is on rules, rules, rules, oftentimes the parents who go to those churches will also own those rules and pass them down to their own children. Let’s take courtship, for example, since our topic is sexual immorality. It sounds to me as if courtship is strongly encouraged in SG, although I’m not sure to what degree. That would be an external constraint emphasized by, and perhaps enforced in, the church. If the parents did not enforce it, the children might date outside of the church, but that is going to be probably rather rare. So the parents are almost forced to go along with it as well. Can the courtship model cause problems later in marriage? Yes, but I’ll save that for later. Does it always cause problems in marriage? Absolutely not. But if a teenager is feeling constrained by all the rules of courtship and decides to do things “his” way, virginity is probably one of the first things to go.
CD, I like your parallel example of drinking in France. Exactly. I could think of a ton of examples along that line.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Freeda, I totally agree with what you said about leaders, especially post #52. We are told from the pulpit over and over again that care group leaders are chosen because they are humble, godly and stand up to biblical standards. It is like what Kris said about cognitive dissonance, or whatever that term was, as you climb the ranks of leadership, you find out that the requirements for leadership are not as touted. It really comes down to being a “Yes” man, like I said in post 10.
Kris and Freeda’s hubby, I agree that it is almost impossible to have a discussion with people that hold so strongly to the SG way of thinking, especially young people raised in the church.
There was a time when I enjoyed the intellectualizing of religion and SG was a breath of fresh air. I’ll use submission as an example: I was all for women submitting to their husbands “as unto the Lord”, no matter the cost. Meaning even if it sucks or is silly what he requires of me, I will do it for the Lord. One day I realized I utterly hated life, every single thing in my life was not what I would have chosen and was laborious. Is this the way God wants me to live? Hating every day, but pretending like I don’t? Common examples of women submitting to their husbands that I have seen in SG are:
* having children when they don’t think they can handle more
* having to Home school when they don’t want to
* having to wear unflattering clothes (really looking like a boy) so that other men don’t look their way
* having to wake early to do all the cooking/cleaning, home school all day, stay up late to be available for their husbands and then get up with the baby all night, all with no help. (talk about triggering an auto-immune disease)
* having to buy their and their children’s clothes from a thrift store, while their husband bought nice clothes (for his job of course)
All of these things don’t seem bad in themselves, but when combined, it makes life pretty miserable. So while it is easy to intellectualize Christianity and say things should be such and such way in our lives, when real life happens, balance and grace is needed more than black and white rules.
IMHO, men love the chase and they love having wives who are interesting, fun, have their own lives and can think for themselves. Maybe that is why so many of Sovereign Grace’s young men look for wives outside of the church as Kris mentioned. If you take submission too far, you basically end up being another child that your husband has to deal with.
This is just one example of intellectualizing Christianity and taking it to extremes that I have seen in SG.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
LML,
I agree with you about how “intellectualizing Christianity” can get in the way of true grace.
Like the whole hang-up with Titus 2. If you just give Titus 2:3-5 a straight reading, it can seem like home-keeping is supposed to be ALL women’s end-all goal in life. If you take this passage and focus on it to the exclusion of every other instance of women’s roles in the Bible, it is easy to grow dogmatic about whether or not women should ever work, even as singles.
You could see this happening within SG, where it sometimes seems like ALL of what the Bible has to say about women had to be funneled through Titus 2. I recently read an article off of Carolyn McCulley’s website, in which she explained how single gals could still be “keepers of the home” – almost like offering them some sort of consolation prize so they didn’t have to miss out on their “true calling” as women, just because they were single.
This all seems so silly and contrived, if you think about how the instructions in Titus 2 were written for MARRIED WOMEN. Paul wasn’t necessarily saying that ALL women were ONLY to be “keepers at home.” That was just what he was telling the older married women to teach the younger married women. (Obviously the Proverbs 31 woman, for instance, had a lot of other things going on besides cooking and laundry!)
Yet Carolyn McCulley took that one directive for married women and wrote a whole piece about how single gals should make home-keeping their main priority, despite their current single status and whatever careers they may have.
Obviously, there’s nothing WRONG with home-keeping, and if you’re in that stage of life, being at home is a good thing. But elevating one small passage into an entire doctrine about ALL women – especially when this passage was for MARRIED women – is a great example of this intellectualizing that you refer to, “LovingMyLord.”
January 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Jen –
OK. Your baklava example seems consistent with my position. I.E. if you didn’t help her out maybe another woman has a Matt 18 discussion with you about not being loving enough. I don’t follow where you see a contradiction, can you expand on it?
I agree with your model regarding the parents following the church in the courtship example. OK so now we have agreed:
1) We have doctrine X
2) The church teaches X
3) The parents enforce X
4) X produces result A more commonly than doctrine Y does
5) A is considered the desirable outcome
Why does it not follow then that
c) By holding doctrine X and not Y the incidence of A decreases. That is doctrine X reduces the frequency of A
If you agree with (c) then you are basically agreeing with me. French parents don’t have to worry about binge drinking because there kids don’t have all sorts of “forbidden fruit” attitudes towards alcohol. That is if you are attempting to reduce the incidence of binge drinking following the french model is the correct one. Choosing to follow the American one is to deliberately increase the incidence of binge drinking among teens. Now, there may be reasons for this. The American model results in a decrease in alcohol usage among adults and in a driver society that might be a trade off worth making. But what’s key is there is a real trade off.
Being a moral actor is taking responsibility for your actions and frankly admitting: as a society we have chosen an alcohol policy to increase binge drinking among teens so as to make our roads and highways safer.
Now apply the exact same model to courtship & no sex ed. And what you get is:
As a society SGM has chosen to increase the sexual disfunction and incompatibility leading to higher rates of adultery and divorce so as to decrease the level of premarital sex and limit adult sexual expression.
And let me take it one step further. And really assume that C. J. knows precisely what he is doing.
As a society SGM has chosen courtship as a means to substantially increase the level of marital discord across the membership so as to better isolate individuals and make them easier to control.
And that’s perfectly consistent with the sorts of mind control and abuse he seems fond of.
Now that may sound extreme. But if you think about it we did the same kind of analysis on Doug. Doug is more of an ideologue than a totalitarian. Abuse and control for him is a means to an end not an end in itself. So what we ended up with was:
Doug is utilizing courtship so as to disempower woman and empower fathers.
One last comment:
for example, since our topic is sexual immorality.
I don’t agree that was the topic. In fact from the beginning that’s what I’ve been arguing that by looking at sexual behavior through a lens of morality rather than amorality you end with an inconsistent and ineffectual disease model. That is you are assuming the point under debate: were we discussing sexual immorality or were we really discussing sexual disfunction and sexual incompatibility.
Anyway I like drinking better. We have the same conversation and the whole thing doesn’t have to happen while walking on egg shells.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Hello Jen,
Welcome to the blog! I am very glad to have you and your testimony to help us through this process of taking a closer look at the internal workings of SGM. Please don’t go! We can really glean from your experiences and wealth of insight. I went to your blog late last night and read until I got to “church #5″, and then I just had to go to bed. Can I just say, that I am shocked and so heartbroken that you had to walk through such a degrading and dehumanizing journey. I am surprised you just didn’t move to another country to start afresh under the witness protection plan….if only that were available. But you stayed put and faced it all head on, and are using it all to help others.:D I am so sorry that the church, of all places, has probably bought so much pain to you and your family. I am glad that is not God’s heart.
CD Host,
Once again, I so appreciate your insight! Can you refresh me as to which blog decribes who you are and how you got involved in all of this?
What is your professional background, as you seem to have done quite a bit of research.
“As for how this is designed to undermine self-esteem its a well known procedure in what is called de-motivational management. Humans are social and they respond to other people’s assessments of them. By creating a culture where others freely criticize a person and at the same time the recipient is supposed to be responding positively to those critiques virtually any decision they make in life will end up being attacked. That is if I make a choice someone is going to think I made the wrong choice quite frequently tell me so “as they were led by the spirit” and force me to doubt my own decision making ability. ”
THIS IS IT!!! That is EXACTLY what they did!! OMG!!! I just never had a name for it…de-motivational management! Wow!! And to think it is used with prisoners, is almost eeerrrieeee! Because that is often how it felt, as though you were trapped in a prison of “performance based acceptance.” And the terrible thing is, Christ came to set the captives free. Please know CD, that none of this type of management represents the Christ that I know and love, and who is very real and personal in my life.
OK, here are some personal examples of de-motivational management used in my SGM experience:
One day after church I was coming out of serving in Children’s Ministry lugging a huge plastic crate, a C.D. player, paper work, my purse and my Bible. I felt like my back was going to break, so I bent over to set a few things down. I was wearing linen capris with a knit top…..very modest and stylish. When I bent over, my knit top rode up about 2 inches or less up my back and my skin was exposed. The same lady that had addressed my child’s downward eye glance, ran over and pulled my shirt down, winked and made a very sweet comment about not wanting to expose myself. Now one may think that this was no big deal, but if you couple that incident with sermons on modesty, check list on modesty, talks on modesty, certain leadership families being held up as examples of modesty, Titus 2 lectures, and comments coming from both parents and teens such as…” you mean you are going to ‘wear THAT’”, and “we don’t want to lead the men or our brothers in Christ in our church into temptation.”
I have many examples like this, but I don’t have time, as I do have a life.
Jen,
With regards to your question:
“I’m curious. In the SG church, does this kind of thing happen mostly with the women or do the men do this to each other as well? In my patriarchy church, this was only done to the women, to “put us in our place” and to keep us submissive, while the men were never questioned because they were treated as little gods.”
(Mr. Think takes the Key Board briefly)
Sorry to say this Jen, but the men are only “allowed” to be little gods (The marriage support group used the term “King”) in their homes, because the whole SGM church/culture experience is sooo emasculating. In general, I would agree with the previously cited hypotheses of De-Motivational Management and the Need for Affirmation being applied in a systematic manner against the participants. In our little “speck on the mold spore called SGM” (new term) people’s behaviors and contributions were acknowledged in two manners: some were honored on stage with some sort of dialogue and applause, and some were corrected for being prideful in attempting to contribute to the process/effort. The combination was brutal.
I’ll generically describe a repeated situation in our relationship with SGM. Assume for a moment that we really are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and He is omnipotent and fully capable of motivating us to pursue God’s will and expectations for us. ( I personally do believe that the Holy Spirit is active in our lives.) In that capacity, you are motivated to reach out and “care” for a struggling single mom, friend, or couple. It may be that you are pursuing God’s desire for compassion for that situation and that natural sense of peace moves you forward to provide that care or need, but in the eyes of a “competing leader or member”, who risks not receiving recognition for this same act of service, you are now treading on their turf. While the person that you helped is grateful, and the Holy Spirit gives you a sense of peace, your colleague corrects you for your pride and need to intrude in others’ lives. It is a huge emotional conundrum that gradually builds until you find yourself struggling with seemingly obvious decisions on caring and responding to the needs of others.
This situation repeated itself in dialogues with Pastors on caring for non-believers, responding to a phone call in the middle of the night, helping single mothers in difficult times, organizing a service project, and even assembling maps for a field trip. You want to get behind what God is doing to care for the hurting, but the cost of caring for them will often be hostility, correction for your compassion, and increased accountability for your pride and self centered behaviors. I even saw this occur when a general question was asked at a men’s meeting about the definition of the Gospel. A colleague (care group leader) responded by citing a common definition consistent with one of John’s epistles (perhaps even John 3:16) , but the Pastor wanted the definition “the Story of Christ” and he publically rebuked the man for not knowing the definion of the Gospel. The man was right, but now he was publically proclaimed in front of his peers to be the “village idiot”. (No good deed goes unpunished.)
The emotional consequences of these repeated confrontations build until you find yourself unable to make seemingly simple decisions regarding both moral and practical issues without the intrusion of other leaders into your life/family. Is a need to tighten the family budget a natural response to the rising cost of gasoline or a reprimand of your wife’s home economic skills or a condemnation of your capability as A MAN to provide for your family ? All three, if you’re lucky! Plus it comes with the added bonus of more time spent with your friends examining your latte budget and inadequate contributions to the building fund. but I digress…
I general I agree with the hypotheses presented by CD Host of “De-Motivational Management” and “the Need for Affirmation” being applied in a systematic manner against the participants.
New hypothesis … the use of Pornography is a psychiatric response to the absence of control in your own life and the need to control something. (Not my issue, but just a thought.
)
Mr. Think signs off now.
January 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Freedathink –
Can you refresh me as to which blog decribes who you are and how you got involved in all of this? What is your professional background, as you seem to have done quite a bit of research.
Well my blog is called Church Discipline. CD-Host is for Church Discipline Host. I’ve had a lot of jobs. Mathematician, System Architect, manager of an artificial intelligence group, 3D visualization systems, …. I’m currently the director of the research arm of an advertising agency.
I’m glad my description of what was being done to you helped you! Your husband’s description of what it did to him is excellent. He described the effects of the mild depression perfectly in his case. May I have his permission to use it as a quote on the blog, since I’m thinking I’m going to write this up? Anyway, going further you can see why creating the mental state your husband describes is useful in running a prison or a totalitarian church? Because frankly that’s the next stage admitting that SGM is not a good church with a few flaws but a bad church. And I know I’m asking a lot here are you ready to do you agree with me that C. J. knows what he is doing?
BTW what your husband described with the rewards for service is also part of the technique. Generally when accomplishes something meaningful they start to feel pride and earn admiration. So they get attacked. Conversely, other people are chosen essentially at random to be elevated so everyone is always insecure. What he experienced as essentially random punishment and reward for the same activity is a technique that Pavlov developed called “learned helplessness”. He showed that by using this technique he was able to make a dog unwilling to take any action to physical pain (i.e. they would lay prostrate on an electric plate), or a rat unwilling to stay afloat in water. Very effective de-motivation.
And your example was excellent. If you hadn’t put the box down and physically exhausted yourself and been at 1/2 performance then somebody would have been guided to “help your heart” as to the cause of your lack motivation.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
CD, my baklava example was intended to show that while I agree with you that this kind of behavior does indeed demoralize the troops, and definitely puts one in a lose-lose situation — damned if I do, damned if I don’t — that it goes way beyond just the moral. If we were to think of modesty and courtship and any type of sexual situations (I consider porn to be immoral, which is why I chose the term), then my example of the baklava was intended to show only that it goes far beyond morality. In general, most Christians would agree that we should confront another believer who is choosing immorality of any sort. However, all I am saying is that extreme fundamentalism can go beyond that and every area of life becomes an opportunity to confront another.
CD: “I agree with your model regarding the parents following the church in the courtship example. OK so now we have agreed:
1) We have doctrine X
2) The church teaches X
3) The parents enforce X
4) X produces result A more commonly than doctrine Y does
5) A is considered the desirable outcome”
Hmm. We’re not quite agreed on #4. I would state it thus:
4) Although X is intended to produce result A more regularly than doctrine Y does, this theory has not yet been proven and, in fact, can have a backlash effect of being more extreme by resulting in C which is actually worse than the dreaded effect B that doctrine Y produces.
OK, that is too abstract for me, so I will break it down, continuing to use courtship as an example. I am making a lot of assumptions here about SGM, based upon what little I’ve heard and comparing them to what I personally experienced in patriarchy, so if my example doesn’t line up, you can blame Doug Phillips! ;-)
Courtship is the preferred, and enforced, method by both church and parents. Courtship is intended to culminate in purity at the wedding altar, with possibly this being the first kiss for both bride and groom, and sometimes it even being the first time they have touched someone of the opposite sex – at all, save for their parents and siblings.
However, courtship is not a rule in a vacuum and generally comes along with a very long list of other rules as well. Considering that nearly all teens go through several years of trying to find their own identity in life, the more rules that are seemingly shoved down their throats by both church and parents, the more they tend to pull away from that restrictiveness and desire freedom. Freedom is one of the strongest pulls in the life of a teenager and many will do almost anything to achieve it.
In today’s sex-saturated culture (sorry, but this really is what most teens turn to), virginity then is often one of the first ideals of the church/parents that teens reject and give up. But it doesn’t stop there. Often, teens in these highly restrictive atmospheres will go to the opposite extreme and live extremely immoral lives, often far more so than the typical teen (and I should include young adults in this as well) in your mainstream church. So, while the dating atmosphere of the church often ends up in one losing their virginity, I have seen more extremism in those who go from the tight restrictiveness of the courtship model to rebellion.
So, while I agree with your example of French drinking, that is only one tree in a very big forest, and each tree does not necessarily directly correspond to its counter opposite in rules and regulations. I guess what I am trying to say is that while courtship can lead to an extreme backlash of immorality, so can just having a long list of rules, courtship or not. I’m looking at a broader picture right now.
CD: “As a society SGM has chosen courtship as a means to substantially increase the level of marital discord across the membership so as to better isolate individuals and make them easier to control.”
I would like to ask the others here if this is really what you see CJ doing. I would have to very seriously question if this is indeed his motivation, but I’ll wait to give my views on that until I see if this is what is happening. If so, why would anyone really want to attend SG churches? It seems that there are many who absolutely love the church, so this doesn’t seem to make sense. Of course, I realize that it doesn’t HAVE to make sense, but I want to check on the validity of this one first.
CD: “Doug is utilizing courtship so as to disempower woman and empower fathers.”
Likewise, I would say that this was never his original intention, although it has proved useful to promote his agenda. When BCA, and even VF, first started, the people who were attracted to them already held the belief of courtship. Doug was able to use that to his advantage and he become ever more extreme in his teachings in that area, but I don’t think he set out to use it that way.
Freedathink, regarding that witness protection plan? It has been suggested to me rather seriously. :-) Thanks for the encouragement to be here. Although I come from a different perspective, I’ve already seen that we may be able to help each other understand the hows and whys of these types of churches. I want you to know that I understand perfectly your modesty example, although wearing capris would have been considered the height of immodesty for us! ;-)
Mr. Think, thank you for those examples. I understand them well. A couple questions. Is this kind of behavior across the board in SGM or do you think it had more to do with the personality of your particular church? Do you think it was intended to set up an insider’s group vs. an outsider’s group? Do you think this could have been more a matter of pride on the leadership’s part? Do you think they were trying to set the example? IOW, do you think they truly thought they were more “sanctified” and better able to lead those who weren’t as far along in their walk? Although your examples are different from what I’ve experienced, the results were the same, so I can empathize. May I ask what drew you there in the first place and did things change over time or did you just not see all this at first? Or perhaps you were once an insider and then fell out of disfavor? Just trying to get some perspective here.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Wow, Jen, you and CD could have your own show. Perhaps these more general conversations would be better taken up on your own blogs? :-)
While I definitely see some tangential relationships between the experiences you had with Doug Phillips and the patriarchal world, much of that only applies to just a subset of SGM’s population. We had some “dresses only” types at our SG church, for instance, but the majority hadn’t bought that deeply into patriarchy. There were a few families who apparently were part of the “Quiver-full” movement, but most families had just 3 or 4 kids spaced a tidy 2 years apart.
Where I saw the most similarities between SGM’s type of “quasi-patriarchy” and the Doug Philips type was in how “Biblical Womanhood” would have been described. But even there, SGM exhibited a LOT more wiggle room. Although the couples in leadership all tended to be the same (with breadwinning husband and submissive, at-home wife), many SG members on the perimeter were women who had careers. I think you’d agree that that would never have been tolerated in Doug’s church.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Kris,
I must confess I’ve never heard of Doug Phillips, and I was tightly woven into the Sovereign Grace fabric, so to speak. I don’t know about others, but I have sort of gotten lost in the discussion here.
But one thing I can say is, as much as I disagree with a lot of Sovereign Grace’s underpinning doctrines and prescribed methodologies, I sincerely do not believe that CJ is purposely concocting schemes to keep people subdued, as has been questioned here in this blog on a number of occasions. I believe that he genuinely loves God with all of his heart and really wants to lead Sovereign Grace Ministries in integrity before God.
I was just telling a friend earlier today about how I think one of the most remarkable scriptures in the Bible (imho) is 1 Kings 14: 8. God says about David in a rebuke to Jeroboam, “I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, DOING ONLY WHAT WAS RIGHT IN MY EYES.”
David was gone; his life was over. And this is how God summed up his life. The boy blew it big and had to roll with some serious divine punches. But his sins were separated as far as East is from West, and clearly God remembered them no more.
There were so many lives devastated in David’s wake. Could you imagine how Bathsheeba’s husband’s family might have felt if they had read this? He was so loyal to David, and David engaged in unspeakable acts of treachery to cover his sin. And after he took the census, even though he was challenged on it by Joab, 70,000 people died in one plague alone.
By our standards, David would have been considered a total loser. Yet God saw a man after His own heart and used him as a measuring stick in Jeroboam’s life.
My take on the apostolic team – and particular CJ’s role – is that people have suffered and will suffer as a consequence of their error. Even though God loves me and loves my family, we weren’t exempt. And though I’m NOT relegating all of the responsibility for our demise on the apostolic team (not even close!), we did suffer b/c of some of SGM’s more dangerous doctrines and practices. And, as they say, wrong doctrine leads to wrong living. Period. And I believe that CJ and company, on some level, will have to give an account for the bad fruit that has come from some of their wrong doctrines. I pray that God, in His timing, will extend grace to them so that they will see the error in some of their pet doctrines and practices and that He will grant the gift of repentance where He deems necessary.
I don’t mean this in a corrective way at all to anyone (especially since I’m preaching to the choir on this one!), but I think we have to be careful to keep our hearts as pure as possible and not hypothesize too much on the motives of men’s hearts. We can be, as they say in SGM, “fruit inspectors” and passionately point out bad fruit to warn others of potential pitfalls that could befall them, but only God knows their motives.
That’s why I’ve posted so much of my story here … in hopes that others, who may be caught up in similar, unhealthy accountability relationships or in a marriage crisis and not getting the help they need, will evaluate the fruit they’re seeing a little more closely and get help.
However, if God could look at David’s life – with the incredible suffering so many of his own people had to endure b/c of his poor leadership – and call him a man after His own heart who only did what was right in His eyes, how much more grace can He extend to CJ and the team leading Sovereign Grace Ministries?
January 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Side Note: In my last sentence, I meant to write “b/c of his poor leadership AT TIMES.” I wasn’t saying David was a poor leader in a general sense.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
SGM Casualty,
Thanks so much for posting this! Sometimes, since I was NOT “tightly woven into the SG fabric” (great phrase, by the way) in the way that you were, it’s easy for me to lose sight of how CJ gained such a loyal following in the first place. I mean, Sovereign Grace people – to speak in generalities – are some pretty educated folks, and every single one that I’ve met has had a genuine passion to live a holy life for God, to His glory. Therefore, I cannot imagine that CJ (and the rest of the apostolic team) would have been able to rally so many of these dedicated and educated people around themselves if they themselves hadn’t been genuine in their passion to honor God.
As a relative outsider, someone who had never listened to CJ preach in person, someone who saw SGM just for what it has become right now, it’s easy to slip into that “speculation” mode, where identifying trends and patterns of apparent abusive behavior can make me wonder what sinister motives lie beneath. Probably the truth of the matter is nothing nearly so organized or sinister.
I would agree with you that speculating about the hearts of men is pretty much a waste of time. Only God knows the heart.
(That, by the way, is one of the major reasons why the SGM-style “corrections” that focus on people’s “sinful motives” have struck me as HIGHLY unbiblical. But perhaps that’s another subject entirely…)
January 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Well, Kris, I have enjoyed the interaction here, and I tried to stay on topic, but I think this blog has a very tight focus and I’m just not going to fit into that mold. Sometimes it is necessary to have a tight focus, absolutely, but I wish we could have explored the issues together some more. However, I understand that perhaps I just wasn’t relating to what you are talking about. If I ever do go to a SG church, I shall keep this conversation in mind. Thanks for the interaction!
January 20th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Kris –
OK we’ll take this elsewhere. I think Jen and I were discussing SG but its your blog.
Anyway now that you have an expert (and a woman) the contact has been made.
I’ll check in, once in a while. See ‘ya all.
Jen –
I owe you a response on your blog. May be a day or two but I’ll send it off.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Thanks, guys! It was great having you. CD, I particularly appreciated your analysis of CLC’s membership covenant. Blessings!
January 20th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Hey Kris,
I think part of why you have a hard time seeing CJ and Marc being “connected”…and before I start, to all who point this out to me, I know I’m blatantly creating a straw man here…but I don’t care at least I’m admitting it :-)
1) I think YOU guys have created, at times, a straw man as far as Sovereign Grace culture goes…I’m sure some of the jabs you’ve taken are true about some churches. I’m sure some churches have singles who never talk to each other, girls who are Little House on the Prarie clones, wear dresses and spin yarn all day as the guys play video games and discuss the finer points of Star Wars. But I haven’t seen it. SGM Cas. could tell you, the girls at our church…well….they’re definitely don’t wear plaid dresses and bake cookies together…the last time my friends hung out, it was at an 18+ club (karyoke night oh baby) and having spent 9 months at CLC, I can tell you it’s very similar to my church…so, yes, Mars Hill is a different culture then SGM, and it might be something that CJ would bring up (who knows) but it’s not something that would be a hindrance to their friendship.
2) There are two very distinct groups within the Emergent Church. It seems to me that when you think of Emergent Church, you think McClaren. Which is fine, he’s very influential within a large group of the Emergent Church. Driscoll is on the “other side of the fence” so to speak. Doctrinally, he is very similar to Mahaney/Piper/Grudem. In fact, after John McArthur gave a public critique of some of Driscolls methods (casual cursing during messages etc.) Driscolls reply was “I guess I’m in.”
If anyone who’s smart sees something wrong w/ what I said, let Kris know before she agrees w/ me :-).
And if that’s not what you think Kris, burn the straw man. Of course that would make you the Wicked Witch of the West…
(easy guy behind the scenes that was a joke :-)
Oh and as long as I’m making this post way too long, thanks for your sweet comments last post Guy…you should talk more. Post more. Whatever.
Peace
January 21st, 2008 at 12:18 am
I guess what I find puzzling about CJ and Driscoll is that the whole point of cultural things like courtship and homeschooling is that they are ways for Christians to LIVE OUT their doctrine.
That was both our big attraction to SGM (at first) and then later one of the things that made us uncomfortable. I mean, when every little pickin’ thing (like hair color, for instance, or whether or not your kids get to visit Santa) takes on a moral significance, that can lead to some pretty high-stress living.
This “living out one’s doctrine” is practically a doctrine in itself, if that makes sense. For instance, it’s at the heart of why the majority of “Reformed” people reject public education – because they take literally the verse, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,” and they believe that since public education does NOT have the fear of the Lord as its foundation, there can be no true “knowledge” within public educaiton.
In other words, as one of my college professors used to say, “Ideas have legs!”
While I’ve said in many places here that different SGM churches have different “feels” to them (and I’d venture to guess that your church might be one of the “hipper” ones out there), I think it’s pretty safe to assert that a CORNERSTONE belief that simply defines ALL Sovereign Grace churches is the notion that “right doctrine leads to right behavior.”
So…my shock over CJ’s association with Driscoll comes down to, since a major SGM distinctive is its stance that doctrine shapes our daily lifestyle decisions (whether that manifests in homeschooling, or women who only wear dresses, or rejecting “dating” for courtship, or people like yourself who have thoughtfully chosen to engage in karaoke nights :-) ), I have a difficult time seeing how CJ could lend his approval or credibility to someone who does NOT appear to hold this view of what it means to live a “doctrinally correct” life.
Because, the notion that right doctrine will manifest itself in right living (i.e., not cussing while preaching, since the Bible tells us not to let any corrupt speech proceed out of our mouths?) IS yet another doctrine.
Does that make sense?
January 21st, 2008 at 12:47 am
Hello Kris and everyone else on this blog! I hope you don’t think I’m rudely interrupting your conversations but I couldn’t help but jump in. Hope that’s OK.
You probably don’t remember me because I only contributed once to one of your blogs entitled “What Would It Take?” It was dated December 18, 2007. Anyway, I introduced myself in that last entry as someone who had worked as an administrative assistant for Larry and other male leaders when SG was still PDI back in 1988 and C.J. was my senior pastor. At CLC, my husband and I were being groomed to become caregroup leaders and, like so many of you said here, were subject to extreme scrutiny. Because I took great care to keep up with appearances and taught my kids to be very respectful (or else they would “get it” at home), we passed their tests and were welcomed into the inner circles.
I don’t know what drove me to come back to your site today (I haven’t been back since last month) but I decided to see what other conversations you’ve been having about SG, more out of curiosity, and I’ve been reading with avid interest what people have been saying on this particular blog (there was a little smile on my face when people were going back and forth about whether or not it’s a wife’s job to look attractive enough for her husband so he does not get hooked on pornography…uhm….I think I’ll just leave that one alone).
Anyway, I like what SGM Casualty had to say in post #111
“My take on the apostolic team – and particular CJ’s role – is that people have suffered and will suffer as a consequence of their error. Even though God loves me and loves my family, we weren’t exempt. And though I’m NOT relegating all of the responsibility for our demise on the apostolic team (not even close!), we did suffer b/c of some of SGM’s more dangerous doctrines and practices. And, as they say, wrong doctrine leads to wrong living. Period. And I believe that CJ and company, on some level, will have to give an account for the bad fruit that has come from some of their wrong doctrines.”
I also liked what CD-Host said in post #57:
“…legitimate leadership would be interested in finding out: who, when, where, why… and making sure that sort of thing didn’t happen again. Moreover they would have systems in place that this happens automatically.”
Amen and amen. It is truly my hope that these good-intentioned men realize the error of some of their ways and repent accordingly, before more people get damaged. I think they especially need to take a good look at the way they have treated women in the past within the movement.
Kris, first of all, I just want to thank you for even having these blogs. What may have seemed like a mild interest back then for you–just to see who else might have had some “weird vibes” from their SG experience–has certainly turned into something else which you never imagined. But I do believe it’s God.
By reading everyone’s comments, you have all helped to heal me of some really deep-seated wounds stemming from what I consider serious spiritual abuse by my male bosses and spiritual mentors. One way I was really damaged was that I was made to believe (back in my 20′s) that my greatest contribution to the Body of Christ was to be the best wife, mother and home-schooler I could be. Never mind if my husband was abusive; I had no idea what being a “good mom” really was at the young age of 23 except a woman who had “perfect children” who never misbehaved; and I really didn’t think homeschooling was for everyone.
Prior to having kids, when I was “allowed” to work at the offices of PDI, my greatest contribution was to be the best assistant and secretary I could be (Larry once left his electric razor at a hotel after a speaking engagement and I had to spend my whole afternoon tracking it down). Never mind that I graduated magna cum laude from George Washington University with a degree in Economics and Finance and was already being offered two jobs–one in a bank and one in an investment firms. (My husband told me that working for PDI would be like working for God.) I truly believed at that time that this was where God was leading me because everyone around me made me think that way.
My husband also loved the authority he was given by our church to spank our children with a wooden spoon (he kept breaking them as he whacked their little butts with it) and he had permission to read all my books to censor them because “women are so easily influenced” (yes, actual words of our caregroup leader). That would have been OK, I guess, if my husband didn’t have an abusive background growing up and later (because his out-of-control anger was never addressed by anyone at the church as I so carefully hid it from everyone) he learned to start physically abusing me. Che’s wife (my pastor’s wife at Abundant Life Church here in L.A.–CLC’s sister church) told me not to show the cops my bruises because it would bring shame to the family (she was my husband’s sister) and disgrace to the whole church. When we finally divorced in 1996, I was told I would forever be out of God’s will and was ostracized by the church leaders, some of whom were my close friends. I was eventually asked to leave the church that same year (it was the BEST thing they could have done).
I mentioned in my last entry that I am now part of a healthy, stable church here in Los Angeles (it’s called Christian Assembly)– and am one of the main leaders for our Skid Row outreach to the homeless (which just continues to grow and I’ve had the joy of seeing so many saved through our efforts in the last 2 years). We have two female pastors and have several women in our church staff who hold key leadership positions who are doing phenomenal work for the Lord and are receiving 100% support from our male senior pastor (Mark Pickerell). I just finished my Master’s in School Leadership and Administration in December and have felt God’s calling to change the public school system from the inside out. After 10 years of teaching History and Economics in public school, I am currently seeking a position as a principal/ assistant principal so I can continue to help bring the gospel to so many lost kids here in L.A. through the secular classroom.
My ex-husband is no longer as abusive and controlling and has gotten help because of court-mandated anger management courses and counseling. We now have a more healthy relationship and he continues to have a close relationship with my three kids who are now teen-agers and have forgiven him of his past abusive behavior (something that would NOT have happened had we stayed married, stayed within the SG system, and had he not been forced to get help by the secular court systems). My kids still love the Lord and follow Him–but they do it their way (like listening to their own brand of Christian music…and yes, they have MySpace and so does their youth pastor).
I am now re-married to a godly man who wholly supports my dual callings to the homeless and to the youth here in L.A. I truly believe that I am living my Christian life as authentically and as real as I can. No, my church is not perfect. My marriage is not perfect. My kids are not perfect. My relationship with God is not perfect. I am not perfect. But I no longer live in shame and secrecy. I no longer live with my potentials overlooked by my church simply because I am a woman. And the idea of absolute obedience and blind submission to either my husband or any of the church leaders above me is something we would all laugh about. (As a History teacher, I can look back and see the dangerous path SG has taken and can liken it to the road that some of the past and existing Third World countries’ dictators have also taken. No kidding.)
In my “new life in Christ”–my input is valued; my leadership is encouraged; and my eternal worth as a humble soldier in Christ is upheld and esteemed.
Folks, truly the harvest is ripe…the workers are few. How very sad that because of wrong doctrines and wrong focus, the ones who could never “just get their act together”–like the drug addicts, the prostitutes, the homeless, the rebellious tattooed teen-agers (who may have given their lives to Christ at one point but keep backsliding) are simply not being reached because too many Christians in churches like SG are so “hung-up” on appearances and are concentrating so hard on what they’ve been taught as being “right and wrong”–that they are burning out, trying to perform for their leaders and trying to get their approval, while all these lost ones continue to wander around the city in pain.
“Sovereign Grace” is not a name. It is a truth. It is God’s sovereign grace that covers a multitude of sins. I never could quite “cut it” as a PDI/CLC/ALCC woman, no matter how hard I tried…no matter how I made my kids suffer, feverishly following their doctrines and practices…no matter how much of “me” I had to give up and lose in the process.
I once was lost…but now I am found. It was grace that first brought me to Christ. It is grace that eventually brought me home again. Not a single act of working for man did me any eternal good. It was when I accepted my “sinner status”–as a scandalous divorcee who could no longer keep up with appearances–that I started to see eternal fruit come forth in my life.
I think someone in this blog asked if the errors committed by the SG leaders is similar to the errors committed by many churches in the Body. I can’t answer that, I can tell you though that if, by reading these conversations, you are starting to wonder if SG’s errors are more serious than you thought and perhaps there are healthier churches for you to attend, I can say a resounding YES! I thank God I found one. My prayer is that you find yours. Your very destiny in Christ could depend on it.
The irony is that I first joined “People of Destiny International” (PDI) because I knew I had a destiny in Christ and was determined to find out what it was and live it to the fullest! I didn’t know I had to leave PDI to do it.
Good night, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, may God’s Sovreign Grace be yours always…
Pia
January 21st, 2008 at 7:40 am
Hi all,
I’ve only made one post so far on another thread…but since it was a little one and long ago I hope it is ok to jump in here. My experience with SG was relatively good. Wonderful pastor, care group leaders, etc. I think we are a lot like Kris—overall a good experience but just disagreements with the “church culture” or whatever you want to call it.
I’m trying to catch/read every single post and comment. The thing I just purely don’t understand is the accountability thing. I just don’t get it.
Our personal relationship with the Lord is first and foremost right? Once we are saved the Holy Spirit comes to live in us. Yes, our hearts are deceitful. However, if we are going before Him daily, laying our lives open before Him, is He not faithful to convict of sin? Isn’t that His job? I have to say I have been a christian for many many years, and He has been the one who has convicted me of things. He leads us into truth, convicts of sin, He does these things in my life. There have been times when I have unknowingly walked in sin….and since I would be coming to Him every day He might be working on something else in my life. Then lo and behold one day I see this sin that I have been unknowingly guilty of. It is His job to reveal the sin to us and you know what? He is really good at it!
I’m not against accountability. But let Him reveal my sin to me, and then I will come to you for help in walking out what He has shown me. If someone is truly seeking the Lord daily and walking with Him, He will show them their sin. It has nothing to do with them being deceived by their sin, it has everything to do with the Holy Spirit doing His job. It is like they forget about the importance of our relationship with the Lord …..what do we need a relationship with Him for if we can have others to point out our sin and tell us how we need to change?
Sorry, I just don’t get it, and could only hold back for so long. ;)
January 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Dear Whew!,
Welcome back and please don’t leave, as you have such great words to point us all back to God. You are right on! It truly is the Holy Spirit who brings about real heart change, at least change that is real. “People pleasing conviction” often just allows one to continue hiding a sin that has a stronghold in their life. I am sad to say that I have been guilty on both sides! God forgive me!
January 21st, 2008 at 9:38 am
Dear Pia,
I just scrolled back up and read your blog, and my heart just jumped! You are an example to us all of God’s amazing Grace and love. I am just undone at how He has walked you through a very abusive experience, and turned it in to, yet, another amazing testimony of the abundant healing work of the life of Christ in one of his precious children. You have brought so much healing to my soul from your testimony, and I felt the same way when I read your previous blog. I feel so inspired this morning… I can’t even tell you.! I am going to let my children read your blog, because it is truly a “freedom writer” story. I hope you post more, because God is so speaking through you to my heart. I love you, dear Sister!!!
January 21st, 2008 at 10:00 am
Dear Pia,
I’m back, after reading it with my older daughter. She just said, Wow!!!
“In my “new life in Christ”–my input is valued; my leadership is encouraged; and my eternal worth as a humble soldier in Christ is upheld and esteemed.”
This one statement had me singing my old Baptist roots song to myself…”Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War.” Don’t ask my why, but it just gave me such strength in remembering my secure identity in Christ!
And this statement…
“Folks, truly the harvest is ripe…the workers are few. How very sad that because of wrong doctrines and wrong focus, the ones who could never “just get their act together”–like the drug addicts, the prostitutes, the homeless, the rebellious tattooed teen-agers (who may have given their lives to Christ at one point but keep backsliding) are simply not being reached because too many Christians in churches like SG are so “hung-up” on appearances and are concentrating so hard on what they’ve been taught as being “right and wrong”–that they are burning out, trying to perform for their leaders and trying to get their approval, while all these lost ones continue to wander around the city in pain. ”
Well, that one just hit the nail on the head!! You just summed up an entire blog for me with that one statement! I mean it with all seriousness!!! I am also glad that you and Whew!, brought it all back to God’s true amazing grace, and I pray that all of us on the blog keep it there as we share our hearts.
Kris,
Isn’t God so just waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cool!!!!
SGMCas,
See how God is using you!!!!
Onward Christian Soldiers!!!
Gotta love it!!!
January 21st, 2008 at 11:12 am
Pia, Thank you for your testimony. I think it gives many reading here hope that there is a powerful Christian life to be lived after Sovereign Grace. Thanks!
January 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Pia,
Thanks for coming back and for sharing more of your story. It really is an amazing one. I am so glad that you’ve reached a better place in your life with the Lord. What strikes me the most about your story is how obvious it is in your testimony that there is room in God’s kingdom for a variety of gifts and experiences, not just an extremely narrow view of the “Titus 2 woman.” My pet phrase/mental picture these days of what I observed of SGM’s views on women is, “They take the ‘whole counsel of God’ as revealed in what the Bible tells us about women’s roles, and they strain simply EVERYTHING through the funnel of Titus 2.”
I’m NOT saying that homemaking isn’t important, or that our families shouldn’t be our first “ministry” priority. I believe that they should. But I find it so confusing to hear people like Nicole Whitacre (the Mahaneys’ married daughter) write about how homemaking is simply ALL women’s “highest calling” based upon Titus 2:5…that even when we are single, our first focus should be on cultivating a love of home within ourselves. Carolyn McCulley writes essentially the same thing in an article for singles on her blog.
Don’t they SEE that Titus 2:5 was clearly written to women who were ALREADY MARRIED? After all, how could they be taught to “love their husbands” if they did not already have husbands?
Once again, just to be clear, I am not denying the importance of “home-keeping.” I happen to be in a phase of my life right now where homemaking is my focus.
But my point is, home-keeping is merely ONE of my callings. It’s an important one (I’d say THE most important one right now), but it’s not the only thing that defines me. And if I were still single, I’m sorry, but “home-keeping” would simply NOT be a huge priority for me. I don’t believe the Bible commands single women to view it as such. In fact, Paul writes, in the passage about how it’s better to remain single, that a married woman’s first desire is to please her husband, while a single woman’s first focus is on pleasing the Lord.
Trying to shoe-horn one’s personality and one’s gifts into a tight little mold based upon Titus 2:5 strikes me as foolish. It’s unnecessarily restrictive (in a way God never intended) and puts pressure on women to all be exactly the same. Pia, I’m glad that you have found a “broad place” where your gifts can be used…where in addition to ministering to your family at home, you can also minister to others.
Whew,
I’m glad you decided to add your voice to the conversation. I’m TOTALLY with you regarding the “observation” thing. I can see how the notion of “accountability” started off as a good concept. I can even see how it could work well between two people on a “level playing field,” where two close friends, perhaps, MUTUALLY AGREE to open up their lives (and their hearts) to each other in that way.
But where there are such OBVIOUS, inherent dangers (in my opinion) is when this type of accountability has no boundaries. Or when people in positions of authority (such as Care group leaders) feel free to go around confronting people about things like the motivations of their hearts. Don’t they see how risky this is? Don’t they understand that, by virtue of their positions of authority, the “playing field” is not level at all? That the person in the “lower” position basically has no choice but to accept whatever observation the “authority” brings to them?
I mean, no matter what the “authority” might like to think, that imbalance of power is going to color everything. For instance, if one is a member of a family higher up in leadership, one’s “observations” are automatically going to carry more weight with the underlings than if one were, well, an underling. How likely is it that one of your friends will feel emboldened enough to stand up to your “correction” and say, “No! That is NOT the motivation of my heart, and would you please quit suggesting to me that it is!”
And if the underling WERE to stand up to you, what would your first reaction be? I may be wrong, but if one is in a position of even PERCEIVED “authority” (like a member of a well-respected family in leadership), one is simply not used to a reaction like that. One’s first response to such a protest would be to assume that your “correctee” was simply being prideful. If one were fairly convinced that one was correct in one’s assessment of the friend, one would probably continue to pursue the “correction.” And what would probably happen eventually? How likely would it be that one’s friend would continue to refuse the correction?
I simply do not believe that the practice of “accountability” can work well between two people of unequal authority status, real or perceived. That would be my number one objection to the SGM-style “accountability.” I’d be willing to bet that more often than not, when “correction” appears to be well-received, it is mostly because the person in the “lower” position feels he has no choice but to receive it meekly or be judged as proud or “unteachable.”
The other componant of “accountability” that I find fraught with danger is the notion that ANY ONE of us is equipped to know another person’s motives and heart enough to question them. I think that being in an environment where this type of “motive-challenging” occurs with any sort of regularity will run the risk of turning most Christians into Pharisees after awhile. Unless one is uniquely mature in one’s walk with the Lord, it’s just too easy to slip into a mindset where one thinks it’s one’s responsibility to go around pointing out others’ areas of weakness.
Perhaps SGM needs to refine its teachings on the practice of “accountability” so that it primarily takes place within very well-defined and limited parameters? Perhaps the practice of “correction” should be limited to taking place between the member and just one or two of the member’s very close friends, who have all mutually agreed to the practice? And who are all of equal “status” within the church society?
Otherwise, like Nancy Drew or Lynn said awhile back, they run the risk of all thinking of themselves as “junior Holy Spirits” or something! :-)
January 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Hi Pia,
I remember your post back in December! I was hoping that you would come back sometime.
Please do drop back in more often, it is encouraging to read what God has done in your life. I also think knowing more of the history of SGM/PDI is helpful to figuring out some of these problems.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Kris said:
“And if the underling WERE to stand up to you, what would your first reaction be? I may be wrong, but if one is in a position of even PERCEIVED “authority” (like a member of a well-respected family in leadership), one is simply not used to a reaction like that. One’s first response to such a protest would be to assume that your “correctee” was simply being prideful. If one were fairly convinced that one was correct in one’s assessment of the friend, one would probably continue to pursue the “correction.” And what would probably happen eventually? How likely would it be that one’s friend would continue to refuse the correction?”
My son was told by the youth pastor that he was being prideful about something. (He talked with his father and I later about the incident and we both thought it was a misperception by the YP. I do know when my son is full of himself and this was not one of those times.) My son respectfully disagreed with the YP and explained the situation to him. The YP decided that his motives were indeed prideful and continued to (as my son said) “go on and on and on”. My boy then decided that there was no sense in trying to explain himself any further and when the YP was done talking, simply agreed with him so the YP would stop “talking at him”.
This concerned me because my son has always been respectful to adults and would always listen respectfully if one of the guys in leadership (or any adult really) would have something to talk to him about that concerned them. I explained to him that he was to listen respectfully to someone if they brought a concern to him but he was NOT to agree with the person just to get them to stop talking. If he would ever be questioned by someone in authority about a crime (that he had no involvement with) and agreed to something just to get the authority to stop talking at him, he could be in big trouble. There have been incidences of kids convicted of crimes because they just wanted their interrogator to leave them alone and they just agreed with the interrogator to get them off their back.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hi All,
I think this whole accountability/submission to authority issue needs to be well defined. Let’s take a look at some unbiblical terms and concepts.
Senior Pastor
Associate Pastor
Youth Pastor
Pastor in Training
Pastor’s College
Care Gropur Leader
The Bible teaches us that “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain than build it” If the foundation is faulty, the whole building is in danger. The noun Pastor is found only ONE time in the entire NT. There is no such thing in God’s word as a SENIOR Pastor or any other adjective to describe this position. I have said this before, But I think it is worth repeating.
Where is the prophet in this authortiy leadership structure of the church? The word PROPHET is mentioned about 50 times in the NT as opposed to ONE time for PASTOR. Everyone knows who their Pastor is, but ask someone who their PROPHET is! 1 Cor 12:27 -31 says 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.
The PASTOR is not even mentioned here!!! So where is all of this so called pastoral authority that we need to be submitting to? Where, oh where, oh where? Jesus said: “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men…”
January 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Correction – should read Care GROUP Leader
January 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Something I could add to my original post here (“Things I Don’t Get”) is, when pro-SGM folks defend their ideas of “accountability,” I don’t understand why they don’t acknowledge that there are at least SOME potential pitfalls or areas of danger in this practice.
From Ellie’s example above, and from numerous other stories told here, it seems absolutely clear to me that quite often, “correction” takes place in a relationship where there is an obvious imbalance of power or status. How many times does this imbalance of power – and NOT the “observation” itself – prompt a repentant response? How many times do people “submit” to the “observation” just to get the “observator” off their backs?
I’m reminded once again of the story that CJ told in his “Modesty” sermon, about the lady who brought an “observation” to Carolyn about one of Carolyn’s blouses. Although Carolyn took the observation “under advisement” and sought CJ’s input and the input of two other friends, the ultimate end of this was that Carolyn determined that her blouse actually was NOT immodest. (Thank God! :-) )
(Sorry for the cheek…but it’s what I wanted to shout at my computer as I listened to CJ’s telling of this story!)
Anyway, can you imagine how automatically different a confrontation like this would have gone if it would have been CAROLYN who had offered up the “observation”? If Carolyn Mahaney came to you and told you that your blouse might be inappropriate, would it even cross your mind to summon an outside panel of judges to evaluate whether or not she was right? But let’s imagine the unimaginable and say you actually did have the self-esteem to do so. If your outside panel said that Carolyn was wrong, would you then have the utter moxie to take it up with Carolyn again, and tell her how wrong she was (which is what CJ said Carolyn did at the conclusion of the blouse observation)?
No! And if anyone tells me you’d do this, I’d respectfully submit to you that you’re probably deceiving yourself…unless you’re Carolyn’s biological sister or one of her daughters, or someone who knew her BEFORE she grew into her role of authority.
I believe it’s far more likely that you would take the blouse and immediately donate it to Goodwill. You’d be so crushed and so embarrassed at the very site of it hanging in your closet that you’d want it GONE.
So, by this very example, I would suggest that when “correction” takes place between two people of unequal status, it’s HIGHLY unlikely that it will produce the type of repentance or “spurring on to holy living” that SGM leaders would like to think it produces. Rather, it’s going to prompt the receiver to either pay lip service to agreeing with the corrector (which is total hypocrisy), or it’s going to produce condemnation in the correctee…or both.
Are these desirable and, more importantly, BIBLICAL, outcomes? If not, then why is this practice encouraged or even tolerated? How can anyone defend it?
January 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hey ‘Whew! I’m not alone’.
I noticed your post 120 on accountability. As I’ve said previously I did not go to an SGM church, so I’m not exactly sure how accountability worked there. (while I’ve seen the stories posted here that really boggle my mind about people pointing out sin) I agree with you in that we each have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us in our daily lives. Like I’ve said before and Kris mentioned again, we don’t need “junior Holy Spirits.” That’s not how I see real accountability though. I think it comes from verses such as Prov 27:17, 1 Cor 12, & Thess 5:11. The kind of accountability I’ve known isn’t just someone pointing out sin. Someone who holds you accountable also encourages you, prays with you, and stuff like that. I can’t imagine taking heed from someone who is just simply pointing out my sin, that would seem odd to me. Obviously a person who holds you accountable is someone you know & trust and not just any Joe or Mary in the church.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Dennis,
just to tell you – I’ve told my husband (and a few others) that there is only one time in the NT that the word pastor is mentioned. He was surprised, lol!
January 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I think there are alot of people in some of the Sovereign Grace churches where the legalists (whether in leadership or not) are, that just fly under the radar on purpose. After all, there is no perfect church as we say. And I guess to some of us, the alternative of a different church where people didn’t do the good things that SG churches do was unappealing. I know of some ladies who said, oh we’re not like THOSE (meaning the legalists). And when you would find someone like that, it was great.
But when you can’t fly under the radar or you just can’t deal with some of the “rules”, you’re in trouble…
January 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hi Ellie,
I was shocked also when I started researching THE PASTOR. Who was THE PASTOR at Corinth? Rome? Ephesus? Galatia? etc. No mention of such a title or position! Wouldn’t Paul have addressed this very important position in his letters to the churches? How come Paul never says to “submit to your Pastor”? He tells us to submit “ONE to ANOTHER”! We all have gifts and callings to build up the body of Christ! Why all of this attention and focus on this so called “lead man”?
It is all a bunch of man made tradition that started with the “priesthood” in the Catholic church. The reformers still thought we needed some sort of “lead man”, even though the NT does not teach such a concept for the church. This whole “church government” issue is such an unbiblical mess! Most of it is “lording it over those in their charge”. Ask someone to show you a verse in the NT that speaks of the Pastor’s authority in the local church! There is none!
January 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Dennis,
Who did Paul send his letters to? Not who was his audience, but who did he actually deliver the letter to? Who was supposed to read the letter first?
January 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Dennis:
If you read Titus 1:5 Paul instructs ” appoint elders in every city as I directed you.”
In the early days of the church, my understanding is that the elders were what are now called pastors.
I hope this helps.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Hi Lawrence,
From what I understand, these letters of Paul were passed from house to house. They did not have a single location or building where the entire city of Christians met and these letters were read aloud to all the Christians of that city.
In his letters, Paul greets certain people and the “church that meets in their house”. In his greetings, he never mentions PASTOR BOB or PASTOR BILL.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Kris said:
Kris
You make a lot of good points here. As a lot of others have said, accountability within SG seems to go only one way: downhill. It doesn’t travel uphill.
One additional item that concerns me is what appears to be the high number of times that people in SG report being held accountable. Some correction is necessary if one is blatantly doing something but wonder what the purpose is for the higher number and what affect that must have on members. Just a thought.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Hi Steve,
ELDERS were men who were simply mature men who were older in the Lord and were able to instruct and oversee the fellowship. Elders could be ANYONE, whether a prophet, apostle, teacher, evangelist, or any other men who had the qualifications mentioned in Titus. Titus does not say to appoint PASTORS.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
For Steve and anyone who is interested, here is the link to a 71 page article about what an ELDER is.
http://www.ptmin.org/documents/straight.pdf
January 21st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I realize that we have people all over the spectrum here in their opinions about what “church” is supposed to look like.
Just the other day, “Guy” and I were discussing how much easier it would have been if God had CLEARLY specified just how He wants church to look…like where should we meet, what should we do during the services, how should we be governed, and so forth.
The fact that God did NOT give His people very specific directions for church suddenly struck as quite interesting.
At the risk of sounding like I’m some sort of “universalist” (which I’m NOT!), I kind of think that God’s relative lack of specifics for how church is supposed to look was probably intentional…because God loves variety. I don’t believe that there is necessarily just ONE right way to “do church,” as long as the Gospel stays the same.
I also believe that all kinds of foolishness have been perpetrated in the interest of “restoring us to the New Testament church.” Why, after all, are we so convinced that something needs restoring? Isn’t God big enough (or SOVEREIGN enough!) to follow through with what Jesus said, which is that He will build His church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her? Can’t we look at the last 2,000 years of history and see that God’s hand has been there all along, even through the times of the Dark Ages?
Moreover, can’t we trust that since the majority of Christians out there have somehow arrived at the conclusion that a man (or men) functioning in the role of “pastor” ought to lead a church, that if God wanted it some other way, He would have made that clear by now? Would God really allow us to muddle on for hundreds of years in total crazy foolishness if this were not part of His plan?
I guess I just take a bit of the historical point of view on this, which is that God is big enough and sovereign enough to work through history, to guide what His people (who are earnestly desiring to honor Him) will do, so that ultimately, despite some missteps here or a glitch there, the overall picture is something that pleases God and is…His CHURCH.
And I’m of the opinion that that most likely includes pastors as we know them.
(Sorry, Dennis! :-) )
January 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Lawrence said -
ha…I believe that’s the first time I’ve been called sweet…at least from somebody other than Kris
I don’t get to talk/post as much as I’d like…I’m too busy catching cattle rustlers and general ne’er do wells out in the blogosphere. Maybe one of these days I’ll write something meaningful…
January 21st, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Greetings everyone -
I was amazed to find a “Sovereign Grace Uncensored” blog! As I have been in the Sovereign Grace World for just short of a year, I have been baffled by the lack of criticism of the movement on the web. I am grateful that this blog is not geared toward “bashing” Sovereign Grace, but I am relieved that there is a discussion ensuing on areas of potential danger in the movement.
I would like to submit a few general impressions (or observations) of my own, as I have entered the SG Culture:
1) The SG culture has many elements that remind me of Mormon culture. The focus on homemaking for the women/girls, homeschooling, gender roles, and even the tone of many of the “meetings.”
2) I found it very interesting that often when a Pastor is getting prepared to preach, instead of saying he is preaching on Sunday, he will specifically state that he is speaking. You will find this same lingo in Mormonism.
3) The SG embrace of “the local church” makes it very easy to refer to the local congregation as “the church.” Mormons are known to speak of their organization as “the church,” as if it is the only “true church.”
4) Sovereign “Gracers” pride themselves (in humility, of course) in their families. The cohesive “family unit” which is presented to outsiders is very attractive to the evangelical who has never experienced such a strong church culture.
5) The focus on happy, all smiles, “brady bunch” family units, spreads to the rest of the congregation. This can make the SG culture a bit uncomfortable for a single or someone not in an already established unit.
6) There is such a strong “network” from church to church. There are family “names” that are known in the Sovereign Grace circles as almost revered. People seem to marry into families… everyone seems intertwined. Again, for someone entering the SG culture, this unique aspect of the culture can be appealing, and also frightening.
7) I have seen that the SG culture tends to attract a white, upper-middle class base. Those that aren’t upper middle class, at least have the appearance of being so. I have been a bit concerned by the lack of racial and socio-economic diversity in the SG movement.
Finally, I would like to say that as I have been involved in the Sovereign Grace movement over the last year, I have met some incredible people with a devotion to our Lord that is commendable. My faith has been encouraged in many, many ways.
Nevertheless, I do have some apprehension on this journey. I do not want to succumb to an elitist mentality, which I fear can take root if Sovereign Grace Leadership does not actively resist being conformed to a culture rather than Christ.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
haha..I meant sweet as in “cool” not “aw that’s sweet”…just to clarify :-)
January 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
yeah – I knew what you meant. I’m just pulling your little SG Chain
January 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
[COMMENT DISCLAIMER: before any SGM-ers get riled up at me, I am NOT saying that SGM has ANYTHING in common with Mormonism's TEACHINGS or extra-biblical doctrines - I want to make that clear!]
Greetings, Mahaz, and welcome to the site! :-)
Your observations really struck a chord with me, because I’ve done a considerable amount of research into Mormonism, and you are EXACTLY CORRECT in what you’ve said.
In fact, I’ve been planning on putting up some links to a site where former Mormons have told their stories of leaving Mormonism, because when I read several of the ex-SG people’s stories, I kept feeling like there was something so familiar to much of what they were saying. It finally hit me that they reminded me of stories from the ex-Mormon site. Particularly, certain elements of the SG ladies’ experiences are VERY similar to those of some Mormon women.
Mahaz, I think you’ve touched on all the major similarities. I’d probably disagree with you about homeschooling, however, as the majority of Mormon families still have their children in public schools. But everything else is exactly right.
I, too, have even remarked here before about how SG will not call its services “services,” but refers to them as “Mee-Tings” or “Gatherings.” This is no big deal, of course, but it seems like yet another way (and an unnecessary way) for SG to differentiate itself from the rest of traditional Proptestant Christianity.
And you’re correct, just like with Mormonism, there IS something SO appealing to the tight SGM world! There is something very attractive about all cozy families, the submissive wives, the focus on homemaking for women, the hyper-strict morals, and yes, the extreme warmth and friendliness.
Something interesting is, Mormonism also has theological roots for its views on women as “lesser” than men. Whereas CJ Mahaney’s “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” partner, Wayne Grudem, says that women are not full-fledged “image-bearers” in the manner that men are (because woman was made out of man, while man was made in the image of God), Mormonism teaches (when you get more deeply into it) that MEN are the ones who actually enable women to go “behind the veil” and into the third (and highest, and the only desirable) level of heaven.
Which reminds me of another striking similarity between Mormonism and SG. Many on this site have talked about how there are different “levels” to the knowledge of what SGM is all about. When you’re new to SG, or if you spend your time hanging around on the perimeter, barely getting your toes wet, you will be allowed a considerable amount of freedom and probably won’t experience any serious level of “accountability” or “correction.” But if you get more deeply into the SGM world, and if you’re headed to leadership, you will discover a whole other level of “higher standards.”
Likewise, with Mormonism, most people within the religion remain at least somewhat unaware of what their church actually teaches about some key things. Many of them have no clue how their faith differs from traditional Christianity.
Again, I am NOT saying that SGM shares ANY of Mormonism’s false teachings. But definitely, there are many similar elements to the two organizations’ cultures. I can’t help but wonder why that is.
I’m going to go hunting to find those ex-Mormon stories and put up some links in a bit.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hi Kris,
I am not so concerned with what church is suppose to look like. After all, we ARE the church! But if there were not problems with HOW we meet, then this blog would not be here. Jesus is building HIS church, regarless of how we meet! Shall we validate the Catholic Church and their preisthood and nuns as an acceptable form of church?
This is NOT about variety. It is about what is oppressive, domineering, and authoritarian church government. This is the rotten fruit produced by SGM. The ministries are meant to EQUIP thw saints, not POLICE the saints and “lord it over them.”
The Sunday morning meetings in most churches is nothing more than a spectator sport. After singing a few songs, the only functioning member is the PASTOR, while everyone else sits muted for an hour or more. What VARIETY is there in that? 99% of churches today function the same way. What happened to letting 2 or 3 prophets speak as 1 Cor 14 exhorts, and each one having a song, or each one having a teaching?
When Paul spoke in Acts until the wee hours of the morning, the Greek word used is where we get our english word DIALOGUE. It was not a MONOLOGUE! It was a 2 way communication. I am not talking about RESTORATION. I am talking about dismanteling man made traditional nonsense that is causing atrophy and depression in the body of Christ, just as is testified on this web site. It goes much further that just SGM!
January 21st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Okay, I know I’m jumping in here REALLY late, but I just have to give a major shout out to Pia!!
Pia,
I was so hoping you’d post again! I had read your heart-breaking story shortly after coming here. But, alas, you were already in the wind and back on the streets of LA being Jesus’ hands and feet.
I’m SO sorry for all that you went through and all that you lost in your time with PDI! I was especially stricken by the pressure you also dealt with to keep your husband’s secrets, i.e., his abusive behavior. I don’t know how much you know of my story, but I was also isolated in that way and “assigned” only two people whom I was “allowed” to talk to.
(My story can be found in posts 151 and 159 under “Your Questions and Concerns,” if you’re so inclined to read it.)
The first of these woman I was “allowed” to talk to was my pastor’s wife, and she was almost completely unavailable b/c her many responsibilities with ministry and her four kids (three of which she was home schooling, of course). The other was a single girl in the church who was chosen for me primarily b/c she was the church secretary and, therefore, available to the pastor for updates.
This woman had been a close friend, but I didn’t feel like a single woman was equipped to help me walk through really deep and serious marital issues. AND I was told I couldn’t talk to her about my husband’s sin (even though it was his sin, obviously, that catapulted us into a discipline process); I was only to talk about my own sin as I walked through this process. Can you even imagine how ridiculous that looks? I could, for example, talk about how angry I was (and she saw it up close and personal on one occasion), but I couldn’t talk at all about WHY I was so angry this one night in particular.
At one point, my pastor’s wife confronted me about something this other friend had told the pastor about me. So this story went from me to my friend to the pastor to his wife and back to me. When it got back to me, I felt the thing I was reported to have said (which was fairly accurate) was taken out of context. I questioned my friend later about how the story had gotten so twisted. I never questioned her integrity or felt like she’d purposely misrepresented what I had shared. This friend had one of the closest, most intimate walks with the Lord of anyone I’ve ever known. (And that’s not flattery; she was incredible.) And we had always enjoyed really genuine fellowship before this. But when you play whisper down the lane like that, this kind of communication breakdown is bound to happen.
She told me that she did not feel comfortable being questioned about what she told the pastor (which I could, on some level, understand) and told me that anything I told her could be shared w/ the pastors b/c that was her “role in the process.” I felt this arrangement was really unfair and unproductive, and it ultimately put a strain on our friendship. After my pastor’s wife told me about all of the other crises in the church that were also consuming their time, I just stopped talking to both of them altogether, save to answer their questions, if they asked.
I sort of felt like I was being told that they were busy with other more pressing crises, and I wasn’t the center of the universe. Yet they never release people to get help outside the church or talk to a trusted and mature friend who DOES have time to help. My pastor’s wife also explained how, to some degree, isolation is an important part of a discipline process and explained how they were isolated so much more when they walked through a really intense discipline process (which I had also heard from others). Basically, all of their close friends, who were in leadership of some sort, were told to stay away from them until they “broke.”
Anyway, I’ve made this point before, but it’s worth repeating. When you’re walking through a really difficult crisis and being told to keep all these secrets (for the sake of “keeping the circle tight”), it can become a breeding ground for really significant damage, especially within the context of a marriage. I wholeheartedly believe that if my husband and I would have ditched the irresponsible and extreme counsel we were getting and gotten help from a mature Christian counselor, our marriage would have survived the iceberg that was dead ahead. After all, he confessed his sin to a pastor b/c his conscience was smitten and wanted to get help. Instead of getting the help he needed, he was browbeaten in a heavy-handed discipline process that completely lacked structure or boundaries. And when he asked our pastor when this process would be over (four months into it), he was told when the pastor “felt” that he had adequately dealt with the sin issues in his heart. That’s a lot of power for one man to carry and, I believe, usurps the role of the Holy Spirit.
Again, the reason I share so much of our story is for the benefit of those who may read this blog and find themselves (or their marriage) in a similar crisis. Don’t naively believe, like we did, that if you submit to your pastors’ counsel, keep all the secrets they tell you to keep (which COULD also be more motivated by a desire to protect the church’s reputation than protecting your marriage from shipwreck), and follow all of their steps of their man-made “restoration processes,” God will protect you from all harm. It’s not quite that easy.
As they say in Sovereign Grace Ministries (and I believe), wrong doctrine leads to wrong living … and I would add bad (but sometimes disastrous) fruit. Gal 6:1 lays out clear guidelines (or doctrine?) for how a restoration process should look, and – first and foremost – it should be carried out with a “spirit of gentleness.” Instead of modeling my husband’s process on that scripture, our pastor frequently quoted the much more extreme verse, Ps. 141:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20141:5&version=31), which was one of his favorite verses and might have been his “life verse,” if I remember correctly. It basically says to let a righteous man “strike” you and receive it as “kindness” and to embrace his “rebuke” as oil on your head that you should not “refuse.”
There’s no latitude with that verse for disagreeing with how a discipline process is being carried out and no room to question the absence of a “spirit of gentleness.” Just one of the dangers of entrusting yourself to a discipline process that doesn’t have clear guidelines up front, is that it affords the pastor leading the process the prerogative to conveniently cherry pick scriptures that would protect THEM from scrutiny. After all the one being disciplined is clearly in no position to argue with how a process is being carried out as that would most certainly be interpreted as resisting the process.
And when you’re in the midst of a discipline process like this, it feels like encountering an invisible, electric fence – like they use to keep dogs pent in and unwanted visitors out. It’s not readily apparent when you start the process, but try to penetrate to the inner sanctum that lies just on the other side of it, and you’re sure to get zapped.
Anyway, Pia, I’m encouraged to see how God has restored so much for you! The first time I read your story and how you wandered away from the Lord for a while, in your own devastation (a temptation I can certainly understand and had to deal with myself!), I thought of what Jesus told Peter BEFORE he fell, which was:
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32). That’s what you’re doing now: strengthening your brothers on the streets of LA. And what a joy it must be to your Heavenly Father to watch! I can only imagine how much He must brag about his little girl in Heaven. (I just always ask God to please avoid bringing me to Satan’s attention like he did Job! heh heh …
) Seriously, I know I’ve been strengthened just reading your story and seeing your courage in how you walked through your own crises and hardship.
Bless you, friend! And thank you, again, for stopping by!
January 21st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Kris,
Thanks for your response on the SG/Mormon culture parallel. I want to echo your comments that I have seen very little in the SG “canon of doctrine” that parallels Mormonism. In fact, one of the things that attracted me to Sovereign Grace was the focus on “sound doctrine.” Having been a part of many movements that have placed little to no emphasis on doctrine, I was glad to see a scholarly pursuit and “application” of the more intellectual aspects of Christianity.
As one who has had first-hand experience in the Mormon culture, I have found the parallels striking. As I began my journey into Sovereign Grace, I made many comments to friends like:
” Outside of the Mormon church, I have never seen such a strong ‘church culture’ as I have seen in Sovereign Grace. I certainly have never seen an ‘evangelical church’ culture that so closely resembles the Mormon system. ”
Of course, as I have made comments like that, I have made them positively. There are aspects of the Mormon culture and the Sovereign Grace culture that serve our society well. When taken to an extreme, however, they place a “box” on humanity, and people strive to conform to a culture, assuming that the culture models Christ.
Does Christ call us to fellowship with each other in love, encouraging each other’s faith? Absolutely.
However, Christ does not call us to impose extra-biblical, culturally-specific, values in order to live a life submitted to Him. A life submitted to Him is a life submitted to His word of life and truth, and the fruit of our submission to his Spirit is manifested, often, in ways outside of the cultural norms.
I have increasingly seen that Sovereign Grace places a heavy emphasis on marriage. Ah, marriage is wonderful! It is certainly holy, and a wonderful to believers of our marriage to the lamb of God. It should be celebrated and cherished. Couples should find help within the context of the church to work through periods of difficulty.
However, I have seen a pressure within Sovereign Grace geared toward singles, with an unspoken emphasis that finding a mate is of primary importance. It is as if there is such an emphasis on courtship and marriage that the very “natural progression” of “falling in love” loses its “naturalness,” for lack of a better word. The very understanding of the sovereignty of God in relationships seems to be compromised by a system of rules and methods. I have seen great hurt as a result of this. Could this possibly be an extra-biblical emphasis? Again, this strikes a close parallel to the Mormon culture, that places the “eternal nature” of marriage at the core of its “gospel.” Those who are not married, specifically older adults, seem to have a “mark” upon them.
Regards,
Mahaz
January 21st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
SGM Casualty Said:
Casualty
I think you put that correctly “one man.” Originally the leadership was set up more along the lines of a group of men sharing power vs. one man at a church having a lot of power (such as the senior position). I understand that some of the SG churches only have one pastor at them.
It use to be taught the need for plurality of leadership etc. I wonder how much Sovereign Grace getting away from this plurality model has contributed to the problems they are now seeing that people comment on this blog.
Just a thought.
Mahaz
Welcome to this blog. Interesting comments you have made so far.
One person told me a long time ago that many religions such as Mormonism realized that most people are born into a religion vs. converting to it. Thus the leaders are apt to find ways to promote the birth of more people into their religion. Perhaps this is another similarity? On the other hand, having more children could just be a byproduct of their emphasis on family.
You might also want to check out my blog where I discuss the pros and cons or groups/courtship:
I Kissed Dating Goodbye: Wisdom or Foolishnesst is a link to a page on
the World Wide Web.
Feel free to leave comments there also.