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.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Dear Kris,
A little helpful sentence that we learned to use for survival in SGM was, “thank you for that observation, I will pray about that.”
One such observation was that my 8 year old child did not always make eye contact with them when they spoke to them. This was an adult in leadership, that my child really did not know. As an earlychildhood major and educator, I personally that was normal childlike behavior for that age. At the time, we were under the microscope as we were finishing our 3 years of grooming for caregroup leadership. So we were asked to go and ask several in leadership to share with us any observations they had for us that would lead one to question our “character.” Most of the people did not even have close friendships with us to even know us. They wanted to make sure we were qualified to lead a caregroup and loyal to the ministry. This was, of course, based on the Scriptures that they would always remind of us from Timothy and Titus. Funny thing, one of the same leaders later shared when we were trying to help a struggling couple, that 89% or more men struggle with Pornography. Does that disqualify one for leadership? But maybe the other 11% or less are all part of SGM. Just a guess!
January 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hey. I like you, I really do!
:-)
That’s all I’m going to say.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Beth,
I was almost going to email you before I put up this post, because I wanted you to know that it wasn’t necessarily directed at you. You commented here in the early days, and you’ve shown your willingness to at least be a listener and express your understanding. And I’ve really appreciated that.
Thanks! :-)
January 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Freeda,
Your example is incredible. Was this a common occurance when being groomed for leadership, to have to go and seek out what amounts to nit-picking criticism? And even one’s CHILDREN were fair game?
Is there a pro-SGM person reading this who would defend this practice?
January 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
One more little thing I wanted to add, as a sort of postscript to this post…
When Sovereign Grace folks comment to express their concern, I think I’d appreciate and value it so much more if this concern were directed at working toward minimizing further abuse from leadership. As someone who is NOT a part of SGM any longer, I’m not in a position to work for change. But SGM members ARE. And it just strikes me as a lot more worth their time to strategize about things they could do to safeguard people within their own churches from inappropriate church discipline than it is for them to try to fix the folks who are posting their stories here.
Most of the ex-SG people here have established that they have moved on from their SG experiences and are involved in other churches, submitted to other, non-SG Christian leaders. So rather than directing their energies toward correcting THESE people, it seems more appropriate for SGM members to “serve their local church” by directing their correction to the processes that hurt the ex-members.
To do otherwise – to aim your corrective efforts at your church’s previous victims rather than at the processes that victimized them – is yet another one of those things I just don’t get.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Kris
You have shared this before but I think it merits repeating. Why do so many of the people from SG show so much concern about their group getting “negative press” here on this blog while at the same time so little concern or empathy for people posting on here whose lives have been negatively and some quite negatively impacted by Sovereign Grace?
It really makes me wonder.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Kris,
If you were being considered for Caregroup leadership at my particular SGM church everything was open for “examination” your parenting, your marriage, your sex life, your finances. You simply had to be above reproach! One gal’s husband was struggling with pornography, and she was told by her caregroup leader’s wife that she needed to examine her heart, as she was probably not meeting his needs. These types of invasive stepping outside the boundaries of normal accountability are completely unacceptable in my opinion. In this case, the person was not being considered for caregroup leadership, just another subject. I will try and share later some of the question we were subjected to, but I have to go to a sporting event and spend time with my family.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Steve,
I agree with you – that’s something I should have added to my post. Thanks for mentioning it.
I do understand why stories such as the ones that have been told here would be troublesome to people who can’t wrap their thoughts around the idea that the church they love has also exhibited abusive tendencies. Even more troublesome would be having to acknowledge that a structural problem is at the root of these abuses.
I said this in an email to someone yesterday, but it bears repeating here – the fact that there haven’t been MORE cases of abuse is really a testament to God’s grace and to the good character and God-honoring hearts of most SG pastors. With such an emphasis on submitting to authorities, and with how people are already so well-trained to turn all fault-finding inward and onto their own sinfulness, it could take so little for pastors to succumb to the temptation to “lord it over” their people…and for the people to have no alternative but to keep submitting.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Freeda,
I’m sure we all look forward to when you find the time to go into more detail.
I’m still curious if any pro-SGM person would defend the practice of putting leaders (and their CHILDREN) under the microscope like that.
What sort of church culture does this create, anyway?
And…no wonder so many SGM people’s first response here has been to turn their “sin detectors” on me and the other posters.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I personally think it is not a matter of rooting out “sin” in their lives, but it is a matter of seeing how far they are willing to go to be “humble” using SG’s definition we have talked about before. Meaning, “Are these people willing to say yes to and do anything we ask?” ” Are they willing to alter their lives based on a tiny bit of input?”
January 18th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hi everyone. I’m part of a SGM church, and I wanted to try and maybe explain something that Kris asked on # 4 and later on #9. I believe the question was, “Was this a common occurance when being groomed for leadership, to have to go and seek out what amounts to nit-picking criticism? And even one’s CHILDREN were fair game?
Is there a pro-SGM person reading this who would defend this practice?”
The mandate for leaders is found, as most probably know, in 1st Timothy 3. Though I would argue about the “nit-picking criticism” comment simply from the way it seems to imply that its always “nit-picking” to seek accountability, though you probably didn’t mean it to, the specific question seems to be asking why children are involved in why a leader is chosen in the church.
“If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)”
Now I don’t want to specifically respond to the instance with the child who wouldn’t look someone in the eye (because I wasn’t there), but as a whole, I believe our leaders seek to follow the principles laid out in Scripture. Because Paul found it important enough that a man’s children be respectful, the leadership would believe the same. The logic is even given: how can he manage the church if he cannot manage his children? Therefore, before he is trusted in a leadership position, his life AND his family are not “nit-picked” apart, but questions are asked, they are evaluated, etc.
I hope this clarifies somewhat what you were asking, though I don’t think a defense is needed of a practice that is so blatantly biblical.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Kris,
I would weigh in on your original post, but it would be a variation on the theme of what others have written here – save to say the fertilizer really hits the fan if/when you enter leadership.
However, I will say that your request in post 5 was brilliant. Thank you for raising the bar on how SGM members interact with those of us here. I think the measures you’ve taken here last night and today will really cut back on neighborhood hit and runs.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Hi, Janelle, and welcome to the site! :-)
Thanks for your explanation as to the “accountability” for SG leaders.
I agree with you that holding leaders to Biblical high standards is a good thing. I think I mentioned in another comment somewhere how, when we first got to our SG church, these high standards for leaders sounded SO good to us, because of a previous experience in another church where it didn’t matter how delinquent a leader’s children might be, he (and his wife) would still be accepted into leadership.
As you can imagine, my husband and I didn’t think that THAT was correct.
But in our time within SGM, I did begin to wonder who gets to define what “in order” looks like. How specific would leadership get, as they examined new potential leaders’ families for “orderliness”? Would the leader have to, for instance, insist that all his young adult children follow the courtship system?
I guess, like so much else in the Christian life, the highly Biblical concept of leaders with “orderly” families has to somehow get worked out by us frail humans. Specific procedures just seem fraught with potential for problems.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
kris
I tried to e-mail you yesterday and I did not get a response. Did you get it.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hi, b…
I just sent you an email. I did not get yours. Sorry ’bout that. :-)
January 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Thanks for the welcome Kris.
In regards who gets to “define what in order looks likes” that is a tricky question, because Scripture doesn’t get TOO specific about what it means. From what I’ve seen and experienced, if a child is in blatant rebellion than someone would not be considered for a leadership position. This “blatant rebellion” has many faces and looks, so we could only assume then that it is taken in a case-by-case, circumstantial way. The leadership team of that specific team, led by the Holy Spirits leading, makes those decisions.
What if it’s not so blatant? And what if there is no pattern of sin in the child and then, BAM! they do something rebellious? This is taken into context and consideration. Since I’m certainly not in leadership, I don’t know how specifically these problems have been treated.
The courtship question is a little random…since it’s not fundamental to the Gospel, and certainly not mentioned in Scripture, then the evaluation would be on what the child’s heart looks like, and the fathers heart as well. The PRINCIPLES are in scripture, so even if it’s not courtship per se, is the father’s persective on relationships biblical? It doesn’t matter necessarily what you call it…courtship, dating, a “purposeful friendship” or whatever, but is it biblical?
January 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
how do I know if you are getting what I am writing
January 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
b,
It should not be a problem now, if you just press the “reply” button on the email I sent you. I will be sure to be looking for your reply. Thanks.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Well hello, Janelle!
Welcome to the blog. I see the Phillips clan is out in full force. Seriously, it’s nice to see you here.
No one here is contending the importance of an overseer having children who are obedient and respectful. However, where the danger comes in is when men lay out out stringent guidelines for what constitutes respect. (Obedience is a little easier to evaluate.)
One family (like mine) may require their children to respond with “ma’am” and “sir,” whereas another family might not subscribe to that standard. Does that make my standard “higher”? Does that make my kids more “respectful” than others who answer “Okay, Mom/Dad”? Certainly not. If I were to counsel other moms that the best way for their children to demonstrate and learn respect, that would be legalistic and add an additional requirement that exceeds the more general standard that children be respectful.
I think the principle of this passage is that, overall, an overseer’s children are to be under control. If children don’t respect their father, there are some underlying issues that need to be addressed. It would be in the best interest for that man to dedicate his time and attention attending to the needs of his family before taking on additional burdens of church leadership.
But where I think Sovereign Grace Ministries tends to veer into dangerous territory is in mandating specific standards that are extra-biblical and sometimes too unrealistically high for the child’s age or maturity level. Again, in their zeal to make sure leaders are up to snuff, these broader guidelines that Paul set out become very narrow river banks that leaders and leaders-in-training are expected to stay within.
I can’t emphasize enough that many of these standards are excellent and really promote peace within the home. Children with boundaries tend to be happier and more secure. And teaching them to obey and show respect toward those in authority prepares them to one day be responsible citizens, employees, spouses, etc.
But taking general guidelines and morphing them into checklists that are to be attended to, once again, can inadvertently result in a very works-oriented system of acceptance, which carries inherent dangers. I’ve seen kids not be allowed to wear their baseball hats backwards or to the sides b/c it demonstrates pride … and kids have all of their name brand clothing taken away for a “season” for the same reason. I’ve seen kids disciplined for not smiling when they responded to a command.
I’ve also seen parents be judged for letting their kids play with Barbies, watch Sat morning cartoons, spend the night at a non-Christian’s house, go to a non-Christian’s birthday party, trick-or-treat, dye their hair, grow skater cuts (for guys), wear jeans with holes, have a MySpace page, wear makeup before the age of 16 (and who gets to set that age?), go on a non-SGM missions trip, join the military, go away for college, etc., etc.
As you can see, it’s when you start parsing out specific requirements of what exactly constitutes respect and “order” that the legalism, which tends to mark the ministry in many other areas, seeps into the area of the requirement for leaders as it pertains to their parenting.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
SGM Casualty,
Hello to you too. Tell the fam I said hi and I miss them, and if you want shoot me an email. I’d LOVE to catch up!
Okay, in regards to what you said, I agree. I especially like what you said about “sir/ma’am” and counseling other moms to do as you do as the standard. That is astute.
What I would question, as a whole, is are you referring to parenting in general in SGM or are we still talking about evaluating a father for a leadership position in the church? Your last paragraph shows me that you mostly are still referring to would be leaders, but there is an apparent disconnect. These “specific requirements” are unknown to me. What requirements are you referring to? The no “myspace” page requirement? That rules my dad out because I have a facebook page. :-) I didn’t trick or treat, though, but wait, my little sister did this Halloween…wait, I mean “Reformation Day.” That would rule him out again!! Hmm. Perhaps I misunderstand where you are going with those examples. Those seem to be general parenting examples, and not specific would be leadership examples, yet you said in your last paragraph that there are specific requirements. You also said these requirements seep into leaders requirements, yet my family has participated in some of these “specific requirements” that leaders are not supposed to participate in.
I’m serious about catching up with you over email, I’d love to. Or maybe popping in on my blog.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Janelle,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I’m curious as to your take on how a non-homeschooling family would be viewed in terms of their potential for leadership. I realize that you wouldn’t be answering in any official capacity, but since you seem to have good insights into the requirements and SG’s history, how has this been handled in the past, that you know of? Do you know of any pastors, for instance, who have never homeschooled?
January 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Kris, I can only speak for the church I am currently in. We have several homegroup leaders who do not homeschool…some are in private schools, some public schools. As for the pastors, at times a couple of the men had their kids in a private school, but the majority homeschooled.
I do know this: the question is often asked “How close is this issue/doctrine to the Gospel?” I think we can all agree that it isn’t necessarily very close in some ways…homeschooling can be a matter of personal conviction and not salvation. Again, you’re right, I can’t officially speak for anyone, but I would be EXTREMELY surprised if someone was not allowed into a pastoral position because they didn’t homeschool.
Now, if the children were not doing well, were struggling spiritually/emotionally/scholastically etc by being in a learning environment that was not at home, I believe the counsel would be given to would-be pastor/already pastor to pray and see if homeschooling would be a better situation than the one they were currently in. However, they would not be removed from said pastoral position, or discounted from leadership if they felt they should keep their kids where they are. Questions would be asked and be expected to be answered on the motivation and heart issues behind the decision as in any monumental decision. Does this mean that legalism is present b/c the pastoral team prefers to homeschool and thinks that it would be best for said children? No. That’s a HUGE assumption. Personal conviction of one person in leadership cannot trump personal conviction of another person in leadership/would be leadership. It’s absurd. In the case of keeping one another accountable (I know you all don’t like that term, oh well) and with clear standing before God, the questions would be expected to be answered! Not because they don’t trust a decision being made, but because they would want to be sure that the said pastor/would be pastor is not making an uninformed, unprayed about, seek-no-counsel-rely-on-my-own-preference-and-ability decision.
Hope that helps.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Janelle,
Thanks for your answer.
I actually have NO problem with the term “accountability,” or people being “held accountable.”
On a personal level, I’m just honestly grappling with how a person comes to a place where there is enough trust for that level of accountability. And is this level something to which the Bible actually calls us? Or have some standards been defined by men, rather than God?
And how is it possible that such accountability can work in the hands of self-proclaimed and self-acknowledged sinners? And is it a problem that the accountability circle necessarily gets narrower, the farther up the leadership pyramid one gets?
(I’m not expecting you to answer THOSE questions, mind. Those are just the things that truly puzzle me! :-) )
January 18th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Hi Janelle,
I’d love to hop on by your blog sometime! Thanks for the gracious invite. And I promise I’ll be on my best behavior and won’t disrupt your little world. ;)
Good point about my discussion kind of segueing into more general issues about parenting in Sovereign Grace. Since most of my relationships were with others in leadership, yes, most of these issues came up among leaders in the context of “spurring one another on.” The only example that didn’t come up while I was specifically in leadership was the issue of MySpace. That was post-SGM for us, but my girls knew from discussions with other leaders’ kids that it was a hot issue for a while.
I’m also not saying that ALL SGM leaders set up ALL of these guidelines. The point I was trying to make – that, admittedly, might have gotten lost in the fray – is that I’ve noticed a tendency to add extra-biblical requirements in evaluating if a potential leader’s children are deemed respectful.
Also, another point I thought of after I posted to you (isn’t that how it always is?) is that as long as there is freedom to disagree, I think healthy questioning of motives (in moderation) can be tremendously challenging for some people. Having grown up in the NE, where people tend to be a bit more “straight up,” I genuinely appreciate a shoot-straight-from-the-hip kind of communication style (which is probably why your mom and I kind of hit it off straight from the starting gate
).
So, for me, I’m not easily offended by questions about my motives as long as I feel like there is room for me to say in sincerity, “I appreciate your perspective, but I don’t agree.” And granted, if I would have had better boundaries when I was in SGM, I might have been able to say that without it causing shock waves to surge through the relationships I held dearest to me. I’ll never know. But leaders could certainly make it easier, in these debatable areas, to release people to disagree with them, understanding that the more sincere trainees (for TOTAL lack of a better term right now) will be more hesitant to defend themselves too quickly for fear of being arrogant.
Oftentimes, it has been my experience that people really don’t have that freedom in SGM and that disagreeing with these peripheral issues – what I’ve heard called “debatable issues” in other Christian circles – can be misinterpreted as lack of teachableness, arrogance, or independence. And since these are all qualities that pastors are looking for in would-be-leaders, it is very easy to get entangled in this web of legalism in the name of having your family in order.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Kris –
I particularly don’t understand those readers who find the site, read a few articles, and then barrel in to declare what a bad person I am, and how idiotic and sinful I must be for having a different view of their church organization than they have.
There is an expression in law:
If the facts are on your side argue the facts,
If the law is on your side argue the law
Otherwise pound the table
This is pounding the table. SGMers have a simple problem. Their leadership is systematically deliberately and intentionally violating biblical norms on a host of issues. They can’t argue the facts because the facts support the anti-SGM cause. They can’t argue against the structural critique because the critique is true. These systems were put in from the very top with the intention of creating these abuses. So they pound the table.
They argue that its a bad thing to be aware of reality. It interferes with reconciliation, it interferes with healing… Take it as a compliment that your original instinct three months was correct. The people attacking this blog due so not because its full of lies but because it is full of truth.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Kris,
Those are certainly hard things to grapple with. The truth is that some people just simply have a harder time being transparent and open, which can be for any number of reasons and aren’t necessarily sinful though it can sometimes be that. I’ve also been thinking about those types of things recently. How much is too much, and how little is too little? There is no clear cut answer, is there?!
SGM Casualty,
Thanks for the discussion. I’ve always appreciated how down to earth you were…looks like you haven’t changed much (in a good way!) I can see where you are coming from, but it just seems to me that you are interpreting sincere concern with legalism. Since hard questions are asked, and expected to be answered for accountabilities sake, does this mean it is legalistic? And if someone says “I politely disagree with your assessment” and this person thinks you are wrong, does this mean they meekly shut up and stop asking questions? If they truly are concerned, truly care for you, they will not stop. I’ve had so many friends/family get on my case so to speak, because I was simply blind to my sin. They were firm, loving, and all-together annoyingly loyal. They kept at me though I didn’t want to hear what they said. Why? Because I was soooo convinced I was right and they were wrong! But they were convinced THEY were right and I was wrong.
See the circle this can go in? Same thing can happen with would be leaders. Who was right, in my case? My friends and family. 99% they were right!!! They continued to ask questions, be sincere and loving, because they were concerned for my welfare.
Pastors who ask hard questions about family, children etc, are doing what concerned, loving people do. Motives are important, don’t you think? You can tell a tree by its fruit, whether you are 55 or 15. The 15 yo child reflects on the 55 yo father and his leadership ability. And the 15 yo child who is struggling with a debatable issue, say worldly dress (slouching pants, crazy hair, all black clothing, whatever) or is struggling with cussing/cursing just to name a couple, is saying something about his heart, and therefore saying something about his father.
What you said about some people having trouble with their motives being questioned is certainly true, I have friends who struggle with my straight forward way of thinking/talking/asking. That doesn’t mean I back off. Same thing with the leadership discussion! The pastors aren’t going to back off simply because some isn’t “used” to honesty and openness.
Okay, I’m done for the night. Don’t worry about being on your best behavior in my “little world.” If I cared more about what people think than what God thinks I wouldn’t blog.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
CD-Host,
Your analyses are always clear-cut. I just wish this most recent one weren’t true, if that makes sense. :-)
January 18th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Kris –
Yes it does. One of the things that I had hoped for was that the people from the Doug Phillips group came over here, I really think having people that have gone through this, particularly woman because there are some woman specific issues, would help. I know you admire C. J. on lots of thing and they went through the same process with him. They were able to extract the wheat from the chaff, but to be honest that happened once they admitted they were engaged in a salvage not a rescue operation. Moreover they found a lot less wheat then they expected, what was distinctive was mostly bad. But, for example they loved the in church discussion after the sermon.
Anyway …. I don’t think this group is there yet.
BTW expect more pounding the table. Doug’s guys did get some pretty good dirt on Jen. She took it well. Then they went after one of her kids, and that kid did not take it well.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
CD-Host said (to Kris):
“I know you admire C. J. on lots of thing and they went through the same process with him. …Moreover they found a lot less wheat then they expected, what was distinctive was mostly bad.”
Can you share a little more about what you are talking here and what this group realized about C.J. Mahaney and/or provide some links about this.
Also, I have noticed you seem to know the tricks for posting on here. Care to share those on the the blog titled “Technical Junk?” A few of us have been curious how to do that.
Thanks
January 18th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Steve,
If you google “wordpress code,” you’ll probably find some tips. I’ve learned the basics just by looking at the “code” area of my blog (like after you’ve written something, you can choose to view it as “code” or the regular view). Hope that helps. This is one case where I may actually know more than Guy the Sheriff…only I better not let him know I said that!! ;-)
January 19th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Steve –
The only trick I’m using is directly embedding HTML. Can you be more specific? BTW I’d recommend Kris or Guy do it since they can test. Its always tricky with these blogs since there are a bunch of setting that effect what will happen and this one doesn’t have a preview without admin access. But I’d be happy to answer anything specific.
As far as the question regarding C.J. you actually cut out the crucial part. It wasn’t about C.J. the analogy is to another leader Doug Phillips of vision forum, Vision Forum Ministries. He has a very wide following for a movement he calls “Patriarchy”. I keep encouraging a cross over because the anti-Patriarchy people are further along in their analysis the are the SG people, you all are just getting started while they have finished with all the basics and just hit on little details as they come up. The equivalent website to this one was Jen’s Gems though now the real activity is on True Womanhood. which has mainstream appeal among the home-schooling community.
So Jen is sort of the Kris in the analogy. There are differences though. Basically Doug uses autocratic structures to promote heresy, C.J. uses heresy to promote autocratic structures. Jen started out much closer ideologically to Doug Phillips than Kris is to C. J., C.J. is also less ideological than Doug. On the other hand Jen was much closer to Doug on how churches should be governed….
Jen from the start made her blog personal:
The subtitle used to be:
Jen’s Gems Exposing Doug Phillip’s Ecclesiastical Tyranny it morphed very quickly into a discussion of heresy however, this was a direction that surprised Jen.
Kris I think had originally wanted to explore the issue of SG culture, the blog is morphing into one on SG’s techniques of spiritual abuse . A development that I think is really good.
Another difference I should also mention that C.J. is little more mainstream then Doug. Doug’s was working with the fundamentalist right, C.J. with the fundamentalist left (TIC).
But this is close enough that I feel like I’m watching history repeat. But except for C.J. being another name in CBWM, anti-Patriarchy had little to do with C.J. There were some people who wanted to broaden the anti-Patriarchy movement to include Charismatics with the Shepherding type issues but to some extent they were never part of the “inner circle”. Most of the anti-Patrirarchy crowd have never heard of Maranatha, Later Rain….
Debbie (who seems to be gone) is responsible for me being here. An accident of fate. But a well timed one, quite frankly I’m a bit concerned about where the anti-Patriarchy movement is going, since Jen is no longer leading it.
Hope that answers the question.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:03 am
CD-Host,
I am somewhat familiar with Jen’s story. I would say that a huge difference is that Jen went through a grueling disciplinary process with Doug Phillips (whose home-grown church had about 150-200 people at its largest, if my memory serves), and her story started out as her own testimonial about what she’d gone through. Her zeal for the endeavor was fueled as much (some would probably say more) by her personal pain as by her desires to expose false teachings. If anything, it was almost like she discovered the false teachings along the way, as she worked through her residual anger with Phillips.
This blog, on the other hand, started out with essentially NO personal emotion on my part, just a sense that it was weird that I had never found a site online that discussed any of the things I’d observed in our SG church. The one site that HAD contained informative comments (on some old blog post from 2 years ago) suddenly disappeared when the dialogue seemed about to heat up, and that’s when I decided on a whim to put up some comments I’d happened to have saved in old emails and in a document.
Any emotion or passion on the site now is because of OTHER PEOPLE’S stories, not my own. If anything, our personal experience with SGM is a non-event. We had an essentially pleasant time at our church, even though we ended up deciding that we did not feel comfortable there for a number of seemingly unimportant, inconsequential reasons.
So although there would appear to be some surface similarities between this blog and “Jen’s Gems,” about the only things the two sites share would be perhaps some writings relating to patriarchal views on women, courtship, and homeschooling. But while Jen’s experience was among the “hyper-patriarchs,” Sovereign Grace draws from a broad range of people from many walks of life. Some SG folks are indeed following Patriarchal ways, even to the point of discouraging young ladies from pursuing a college education. But others within SG are not like that at all.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Janelle P,
Not that I feel like I need to defend my self but: I was raised in a Christian home and known the Lord since I was 5 years old. I am a certified school teacher who has homeschooled my children their entire life. They are currently in college and doing quite well. Back at that time they typically dressed in Lands End and Hannah Andersson dresses that I bought on clearance. They were and are very much in love with Jesus, and pretty much every where we went (and still today) people would stop and commend them on their sweet hearts and polite manners. They were raised knowing, loving and living out Biblical mandates and still do to this day. They were real and authentic in their love for the Lord, and it truly showed in all that they did. My husband had a very good job, worked hard, loved the Lord with all his heart, and had no hidden sins in his life, as some men in the movement do. He was perhaps one of the most compassionate men in our entire church, and had an amazing love for God’s people and continually sacrificed his time helping and caring for others. We have a good marriage, we manage our finances quite well, and we have a very great love for the Lord and His people. As a professional educator who has studied child behavior, I do not think that a child not looking at a stranger in the eye on the one or two occasions that this individual may have even talked to my child, would or should cause one to bring out the 1 Timothy 3 concerns. None of our children were disrespectful to the elders in our church, if anything they walked around with fear that they were going to mess up. This was because there were such high expectations for those in leadership and their children. My question to you is who and what should determine the actually ironing out of which sins are acceptable to be considered for a caregroup leadership? Do you think say a sin like pornography in the man would be less serious than an downward focused eye of a shy child?And is that really sin? Is a shy child really just prideful….who decides? Would one sin disqualify one from leadership and who decides? Just curious, why did you choose FaceBook over My Space….I was just wondering how you made that decision?
Do you think that Homeschooling is Biblical? Do you think that Public School is? We were told by our caregroup leader that homeschooling was Biblical, and that it was truly the best way. I remember my friend next to me just freezing with shock (her children were one of the 3 families in our church that were public schooled at that time.) Out of several hundred families, only 3 had their children in public schools. The only place our church advertised was the state homeschool magazine. Why?
January 19th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Oh, I just realized Janelle P, that I just jumped right in without welcoming you!! Please forgive me! I am glad that you are here and hope that you can offer much insight to our blog. If I could meet you in person, I would look you right straight in the eye and tell you welcome, fellow Sister. But since I am out here in cyberspace and don’t even know how to do smiley faces, I will just give you one of these :>) Blessings to you!
January 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Re: #7 – freeda;
“One gal’s husband was struggling with pornography, and she was told by her caregroup leader’s wife that she needed to examine her heart, as she was probably not meeting his needs”.
Whattttttttttttt?!?!!?
Sorry I don’t want to break into the flow of conservation that is going on here, but that is so shocking to me. I don’t know the context of the situation obviously but as a man I can’t pass that by without comment (and I don’t think anyone else did).
That is a pretty similar to a comment that I read Mark Driscoll make;
“At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either”.
How about men standing up and admitting responsibility and some of this so-called “headship” we are meant to have? How about holding up hands and saying “I was wrong – I blew it?”. Why are wives and women being expected to take the fall for man’s basic tendancy to sin? I am sorry – maybe I will be accused of being non-manly here – but I want to stand up and say it’s about time men stood up and took some RESPONSIBILITY for who we are and what we do! Grrr!
Sorry – I will retreat back into my quietness now. ;)
January 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Thank God for you Dan !!! Please pray for a single christian man like that my way !!!!
Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Awesome. Let your light shine !!! WHOOOYAH grr…. me too…. :>)
January 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Dan –
(in ref #7 and #35)
Not to get to explicit, but since you are saying this “as a man”, as another man I’m going to jump in. I actually think that was good and practical advice the minister was giving. There is no question interest in porn increases as frequency and intensity of marital sex decreases. What the pastor said is just a nicer version of the old saying, “Men go to whores for what they can’t get from their wives”. Its an old saying for a reason, I’d say the pastor was being honest and not political correct; i.e. giving good advice. If the wife wants to help the husband break a porn habit, easiest fastest way to do that is to spend more time in the bedroom.
As for the man taking responsibility, in the story he was addressing the wife. One of the really great things about Christianity is that it encourages people to examine and work on their parts in creating sin. Even if the blame is 80/20 him/her, she needs to focus on the 20 not the 80, and he needs to focus on the 80 and not the 20.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Freeda,
I knew that there was something I liked about you! Lands’ End, Hanna Andersson, (and LL Bean) are my favorites!
btw: to do a smile, just take the nose out of your smiley: use a colon and a capital D right next to each other, or a colon and a ), also right next to each other.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I was going to respond to Dan (telling him NOT to be quiet!!!!), when I saw your response, CD! This is one of the very few times that I have to disagree with you.
you said:
“There is no question interest in porn increases as frequency and intensity of marital sex decreases. What the pastor said is just a nicer version of the old saying, “Men go to whores for what they can’t get from their wives”. Its an old saying for a reason, I’d say the pastor was being honest and not political correct; i.e. giving good advice. If the wife wants to help the husband break a porn habit, easiest fastest way to do that is to spend more time in the bedroom.:
Interest in porn may increase as frequency and intensity of marital sex decreases, but the decrease may be actually caused by the increase in interest in porn. Porn addiction starts little by little and increases if it is not dealt with as sin. Addiction to pornography is a huge problem because it is a fantasy available 24 hours a day that no real life woman can compete with.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Kris –
Agree to everything you’ve written. I actually was trying to say the same things in fact, I probably did so poorly. Yes the analogy is not just a different church
On the fact that Jen’s was personal agreed: I mentioned Jen’s subtext, but I also commented you both experienced a shift based on readership.
I also agree that C.J. is operating to the left of Doug. Doug could assume homeschooling as a given, C. J. is arguing for it. Doug had to address with issue of whether use of single age classes constituted an intolerable sin that required a church split; I get the impression that if C.J. were addressing that his crowd would look at him like he had 3 heads. Hence my joke about fundamentalist left vs. fundamentalist right :-)
So anyway, I read your post as essentially agreeing not disagreeing with what I wrote.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Dan,
I couldn’t agree more with you. I do applaud you for putting the ball primarily where it belongs: Men are responsible for their own hearts and their own sexual proclivities! They are responsible for their own sin. And Sovereign Grace needs to put the onus of responsibility on THEM, not their wives.
I do think it’s a shame when women (and men!) just let themselves go and do not care for their physical appearance. I also agree with what CD said about women letting themselves go doesn’t make it easier on their husbands to remain faithful. But, to be quite honest with you, I’ve seen SGM husbands let themselves go FAR more than I’ve seen their wives, and they usually let themselves go first. And they don’t have pregnancy to blame it on!
As far as Mark’s words go, I heard that same sentiment over and over from leaders’ wives in women’s meetings. We were told that if we were submissive, kept ourselves attractive, and were sexually available to our husbands, they would have NO REASON to look elsewhere. That’s simply not true and puts the balk of responsibility on the wife instead of the husband.
I can tell you that if you’re married to a man with a raging porn addiction (as I was), it doesn’t matter what you do, it won’t compare to what he can get online. My husband could go months without any interest in sex, but even our kids’ computer was getting porn popups b/c he was using all of our computers to look at porn. So I asked him once what was wrong with me … if there was anything he could change about my appearance, what would it be?
He gave me 4 things (although, out of fairness to him, he was hesitant to actually be honest with me … but I insisted on getting to the bottom of his sub-zero interest in sex): get in shape, get my nails done, go to a tanning salon, and grow my hair long and dye it blond. I’m Irish and did the bottle blond thing once, and it looked ridiculous. So I told him I’d give him 3 out of the 4. I was in school at the time and had put on a little extra weight but was still thin – always have been.
However, I joined the YMCA, got a personal trainer, and within a few months was absolutely cut. I had a 6 pack for abs, no noticeable body fat, and all of the other bennies that go with being physically tone and healthy. I was also tan (even though the last place anyone should go who’s of Gaelic descent is a tanning salon!) and had beautiful nails at all times (acrylics are a beautiful thing).
I also don’t want to cross any lines in what would be considered appropriate for this blog, save to say I was also the one who was far more adventuresome in our intimate life and tried the hardest to keep things spicy. And with all of those endorphins surging through my system, I was ready to go day or night.
And guess what? My husband still had NO interest in me. And I looked exactly as I described when he walked out the door and into the arms of an old friend of his from college. And when he had to submit his financial affidavit for the divorce, I was shocked to see all of the online purchases and visits to strip clubs on there. (I’m sure he didn’t realize his wanderings would have been an issue of public record.) Other guys were noticing me left and right, and I have had no shortage of requests for dates since he left (which I have turned down!). But his heart and imagination were elsewhere – somewhere I couldn’t reach.
So I think it’s downright foolhardy that SGM completely minimizes the effect of porn on men’s souls and on marriages. Never once was there a mention that if a wife’s husband was dealing with a serious porn addiction, she should seek help – either from the church or elsewhere. There also wasn’t a mention that if her husband was dealing with sexual addictions, it really wouldn’t matter how she looked or how submissive she was or how ready she was day or night, she’s not going to compare to what he can get online with no investment of himself. Porn, in my book, is one of the most selfish things a husband can do b/c it says to his wife, “I can do better.” The Bible says that the earth trembles under three things, one of which is an unloved woman who is married (Pr. 30:21-23).
So yes, CD, I do think it’s important for both wives AND husbands to take good care of themselves. And it is totally reasonable that neglect in that area can lead to diminished sexual desire. Also, being in shape (I’m not talking about skinny but physically fit.) helps ward off depression by releasing endorphins (my one true addiction
). And endorphins can cause major spikes in sexual appetite (at least they sure did for me!). So endorphins are going to make both the husband and wife happier all around because they flood the brain with “feel good” sensations.
But, as Dan said, men are still primarily responsible for what they do when no one else is looking on (except for Jesus, of course).
January 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am
First off Kris… feel free to tell us to move this conversation.
Ellie –
Well thought out point of disagreement. OK let me make it more fundamental. I think the word “porn addiction” used in 3 different ways.
a) In a secular context, it refers to a very small group of men that are aroused primarily by pornography and have little interest in woman. I would agree such men exist, but I would argue they represent less than .5% of men not counting men with physical disabilities. Most are not married since they don’t like relating to woman at all. And I would agree for this group your points are all true. The point of disagreement here is the numbers. I suspect you believe this is a larger percentage of the population than I do.
b) To represent men whose primary sexual stimulus is pornography. This is a much larger group. I’m not sure I would use the word addiction here. And I think they can fall back into 2 person sexual behavior fairly easily. They may simply be sexually bored and that is something that sex-ed for the couple can fix. So I guess here the primary disagreement is degree of intervention required.
c) To represent the vast majority of conservative Christian men that use pornography occasionally even though they claim to believe in a sexual framework which is ideologically opposed to pornography. Given their beliefs don’t correspond to their actions they often attribute them to “addiction”. I think here the problem isn’t addiction its cowardice. They claimed to believe one thing even though it contradicted the evidence they experienced on a regular basis. So they developed secret beliefs saying one thing with their mouth while believing another in their heart, rank hypocris but not addiction. The cure here is a fearless search for the truth and a through moral examination of their beliefs and their behaviors.
And yes wives can help with that, since they can point out hypocrisy in other areas as well and they can be supportive.
But if they want to leave the contradiction intact this group doesn’t really even require sex ed. The trigger is generally sexual frustration. In other words IMHO the group that is really most sinful is actually the one least addicted.
OK now that I’ve presented my framework what is yours?
January 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Freeda,
Thanks for the welcome. Some of those questions you asked seem rhetorical, so I’m not sure how to answer them. Who decides which sins are more condemning for church leadership? The porn example and the shy child example are pretty clear cut to me. So I will assume that was a rhetorical question. In general, those already in leadership study Scripture, see what emphasis is placed on leaders for certain types of behavior, study to see how much time/how many examples are placed on certain sin patterns, pray, seek the Holy Spirit, etc. and come to an informed decision.
I chose Facebook and not MySpace for several different reasons. The most obvious is that I like Facebook better. For lack of time, I’m not going to go into any other reasons.
Instead of re-writing what I’ve already written before, follow this to some thoughts I’ve had on homeschooling (I don’t know how to make it a link on wordpress, sorry)
http://janelle-marie-phillips.blogspot.com/2007/07/homeschooling.html
If you have further questions, maybe we could continue this at my blog, since you’re questions were for me specifically??
Again, thanks for your warmness!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Yay, it’s a link!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
SGM Casualty –
First off I’m sorry for your bad marriage. That is a tragic story.
Now the meat. I think you are attacking me for a quote that Marc Driscoll made not something I said. Dan was quoting Marc to me and arguing we were doing the same things. I think you should reread my original. I never said what you claim I did.
I also never said that I don’t think porn can become a substitute for sex.
Moreover, your story doesn’t refute my point it actually support it:
And I looked exactly as I described when he walked out the door and into the arms of an old friend of his from college.
I other words he had no problem dropping porn. He wasn’t particularly interested in having sex with you, for whatever reason. And I doubt it was your hair was the wrong color. IMHO (not knowing either of you) he wasn’t willing to be honest even when you gave him the opportunity. That is terrible behavior but it is not evidence of porn addiction. It is evidence of porn substitution, which is my claim.
Contrast this with say a an actual addiction like coke. People don’t give up coke for adultery. All I am saying is that porn is not in most cases an addiction.
Moreover because you aggressively attempted to deal with the problem you have far fewer doubts then if you hadn’t. Imagine for a moment if the sex had stopped, you had done nothing and then he walked out. You would have had questions for years about what you could have done and didn’t. Today your feeling is you played your hand the best you could. You still lost but that’s poker. What the pastor in freedathink did was advise the woman to do what you did.
So I’m at a loss to see how your example doesn’t support my argument.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Last night, after I’d already shut down my computer, a thought occurred to me, somewhat inspired by the disconnect between Janelle’s calm and sensible responses and the stories of others like Freeda. Freeda told of being assigned the task, in her family’s journey toward an SGM leadership role, to go around to others in leadership and ask for their (brutally!) honest feedback about any possible shortcomings that they’d observed. Someone actually gave Freeda the “observation” that her 8-year-old did not make enough eye contact during conversations.
Janelle, on the other hand, says that obviously, this is extreme and would not be something encouraged by leaders.
Since I believe they both are telling the truth (why would either of them bother to come on here and lie, after all?), I was pondering how it could be that they could both be right. If leadership is NOT sending down these types of directives for “observations,” then how is it that they are still happening, over things that are obviously ridiculously legalistic?
That’s when it occurred to me that maybe “accountability” can look VERY different in different circles, depending on the spiritual maturity of the people involved?
Perhaps in Janelle’s world, where she is surrounded by sensible and more mature believers, everybody sort of knows the “ground rules” and understands what would be legalism? Maybe these folks instinctively know what would be the “spirit of the law” versus the “letter of the law” and have an innate sense of where to draw the line?
It occurred to me that it’s possible that the sort of “accountability” that works among leadership might start to look a lot different as it trickles down through the ranks. I also think that, because there IS a great deal of desire among people in smaller churches to follow whatever comes down from “on high,” maybe these people take certain practices and directives and run with them to a degree that leadership never intended?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
CD-Host and others,
If it’s OK with you guys, I would prefer to redirect the conversation away from the porn thing? That’s one of those issues that we cannot definitely establish as something occurring within SGM. I mean, yes, there is anecdotal evidence. I myself was aware of situations along the lines of what SGM Casualty describes, even though we were only part of our SG church for a relatively brief time. So I tend to believe that it COULD be an issue worth discussing…but for every anecdote describing porn problems at SGM, someone else can come on here and say that to THEIR knowledge, there is no problem. And round and round we’d go.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Well, good thing I hit Refresh before posting. Fair enough, Kris.
But I would like to say to CD that I’m sorry if it came across like I was attacking you. I didn’t mean to attack you. In fact, there was only one sentence in your post I disagreed with. The majority of my post was directed at Marc’s quote, not what you said.
But I could have done a better job parsing my response to your post out from my much stronger response to SGM’s position on this topic.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
SGM Casualty (and CD),
We can discuss the porn issue IF there is some specific connection to official SG teachings. I don’t mean to make this confusing, but, for instance, if someone has a tape or a handout or a link to teachings where women are told to maintain their attractiveness to keep their husbands from porn, then we can talk about it. Or even, if several people can speak to a specific event where this was discussed, or specific counsel that they received from SG leadership.
I am just extremely uncomfortable getting into the subject if it’s discussed in broader, more general terms. Marc Driscoll, for all I know, has nothing to do with SGM. While I can see how his observations would be an interesting parallel to what others have said they’ve heard from SG leadership, I don’t much see the point of debating here the merits of what he said.
(I’m doing the “Moderator Tightrope Dance” this morning…sorry, guys! :-) )
January 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Janelle,
I must say I am really enjoying our little discussion. Really, truly.
Okay, I can see what you’re saying about how having persistent friends can be a good thing and had an interesting experience with two friends at work yesterday who aren’t even Christians but were the kind of TOTALLY annoying friends you described in your post. We argued for a good 10 mins at lunch about a medical test a doctor wants me to do “to be safe” that I have no interest in doing.
There was nothing refined about this interaction, and it was far from biblical per se. They were using words like “pig-headed” and “moron,” and the whole thing got pretty animated. (How’s that for avoiding more convicting biblical terms? heh heh … kidding, of course.
) But I was genuinely getting really ticked at their persistence over something that was, frankly, none of their business. I didn’t even say I wasn’t doing the test to get their opinion on the topic; I was merely stating it as fact.
Finally, the one friend started to tell a scary story about someone who didn’t have this test done, and any time I would try to interject, the other friend would just cut me off and tell me to listen. It would have been almost funny, if it hadn’t been so obnoxious. I had never seen this side of these friends. But the one friend, as it turns out, had good reason to take these tests very seriously and had shared her own very scary story. So her very real experience trumped all, and I caved in the end.
I had never had an experience like that with these friends, and we certainly are not committed to walking in “biblical fellowship.” There was also nothing forced or contrived about it. But they did get totally obnoxious out of very genuine care for me. And I may one day genuinely grateful for their “intervention.”
I still don’t agree that I should have to do this test; I’m still totally irritated that I’m perfectly healthy and constantly doing unnecessary tests b/c my sister trashed her body in every way imaginable and then died at 35 of a heart attack; I’m still angry that I keep having to use valuable PTO days for medical tests and procedures; and I’m still a little in shock to have seen this side of what seemed to be totally normal friends.
But, on some level, I am grateful that I have friends who care. And I did, in the end, see that their argument, though flawed on several points, beat my logic. And there were many hysterical moments sprinkled throughout this conversation that provided some comic relief (even if it was at my expense most times
).
I don’t know … Maybe God allowed that situation to happen to prepare me for this little interaction. Maybe He orchestrated it just to show me that there is value in truth telling in relationships, and it doesn’t have to be tainted with some of my bad experiences with “biblical fellowship” in Sovereign Grace.
I never feared that these friends were judging me or would walk away from our friendship if we didn’t get on the same page. They could also care less if I’m humble or teachable or any of that. They just thought I was making a really stupid decision. I wasn’t trying to impress them with my character (obviously), and they weren’t trying to gain the upper hand. The whole interaction was all very raw but incredibly genuine.
If you can maintain that kind of fellowship (sans the crudeness and name calling
) in friendships in SGM, I think that’s great. However, having said that, I must say that there is still, imho, very real danger in the persistence you write about, if it’s an area that’s open to interpretation. For example, you wrote:
“And if someone says ‘I politely disagree with your assessment’ and this person thinks you are wrong, does this mean they meekly shut up and stop asking questions?”
If it’s not an area that is clearly defined by Scripture (and this person isn’t your mom or dad! *ahem*
), then I would say, yes, it is most appropriate NOT to just “shut up” but to entrust that person to God and allow the Holy Spirit room to work. I do think that doggedly continuing to ask questions and pressing for a response can cross the line into judgment and abuse. If the person just doesn’t “see” this area of sin that seems to be so clear to you, you could inadvertently push that person to acknowledge something s/he doesn’t really feel genuine conviction over (to please you and/or get you off his/her freakin’ back).
See, this is where the whole idea of accountability, biblical fellowship, and correction has been presented for so long with such a controlling twist, we learn not to really question it. We’ve been programmed to think that kind of do-or-die persistence is real love. But when the person on the receiving end of this interaction does not have the option of disagreeing or calling off the hunt, I DO think there is incredible potential for legalism, control, and abuse.
That’s really my main point. When an “observation” (like you think someone’s too thin, let’s just say) transforms into an inquisition (e.g., you pile her up w/ a stack of articles on anorexia, require her to write down everything she eats, forbid her from exercising, etc.), I believe the line is crossed, and you have now taken up residence as the Holy Spirit in that person’s life.
I think – and granted, I’m not bifocals-toting theologian here – that healthy accountability operates with the assumption that your friend, who you love dearly and wouldn’t want to watch lose ground on a slippery slope of sin, loves God with all of her heart, hears from the Holy Spirit, and wants to do what is right. If that’s your starting point, your role is minimized as you seek to help her hear what the Lord is probably already convicting her of to some degree. But if you’re operating under the assumption that your friend’s heart is deceitfully wicked and looking for the first opportunity to get “off the chain” (love that slang expression!) and bolt headlong into sin, you will naturally take a much more aggressive approach that’s oriented more toward a full-blown intervention. And my experience has been that people coming to me with observations that are fueled by this kind of intensity are not willing to hear that there is SOME chance that their observations could be off. And yes, even influenced by sin in their heart.
At minimum, this kind of approach makes you feel – as I told one pastor’s wife once – that court was held, an iron-clad case was presented against you, you were declared guilty, and a sentence was pronounced … all before you even stepped into the courtroom.
But, again, I can’t emphasize enough that I DO believe that there is a place for accountability. And I will always believe that a friend who will tell you the truth about yourself out of genuine love for you is a rare treasure.
Okay, that was just fun! Really, I love to be challenged on points like this where I have to go back and chew the cud. There were times reading your post I’d think, “Crap, that’s a good point. Okay, I’ll have to sleep on that.” So bravo, friend!
January 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ellie and SG Casualty we can this to email if you want. My email is
cd DOT host AT gmail DOT com . I’m fine either way though. I don’t claim any particular knowledge on porn addiction I was just throwing in my $.02 that I thought the pastor was right and then got drawn in to defending my position….
January 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Janelle,
Good Morning,
Relative to sin issues and potential care group leaders, in the church where we attended and served as care group leaders, there were some great husband and wife teams who loved the Lord and demonstrated His love for many hurting people. But, this is not the criteria that you are discussing. The issue that you are defending is SGM’s emphasis on applying 1 Timothy 3 and assuring that a leader is above reproach by examining his management of his family. You suggested that I consider the following: “see what emphasis is placed on leaders for certain types of behavior, study to see how much time/how many examples are placed on certain sin patterns, pray, seek the Holy Spirit, etc. and come to an informed decision”.
At the church that we attended, the standard implied in 1 Timothy 3 was frequently not applied in the promotion and retention of people to care group leadership positions. In the same church that was concerned about my shy child’s downward glance, there were five separate care group leaders who bear noting to support this assertion:
(1) one had a shoe shop develop a leather paddle to better spank her child, which was such a big hit with the other ladies in their circle that the shoe shop stopped production when they found out how it was used;
(2) one, with his wife, neglected their children such that they were significantly developmentally delayed, physically and intellectually;
(3) one struggled with porn, routinely lost his job, and had an affair;
(4) one was caught completing an indecent act in public; and
(5) one had one child run away because he hated his controlling family and a second child get a girl pregnant (and initially deny his responsibility to save face within the church).
Of those five men, only one lost his position as a care group leader and one became a pastor (for a period).
The underlying element in promotion within (at least this church) was not the sin life of these individuals or their ability to manage their households, but their relative submission and cozy relationships with their superiors, the senior pastors. If you were cozy with the pastors, then significant sins could be dismissed and covered up. Why would these recurring sins by leaders be dismissed and covered up? Did covering up these sins, really assure that these leaders were “above reproach” as Paul (and God) intended, or did covering up these sins serve to place these people “above reproach” as these pastors intended?
Oh, btw, this my husband above speaking!!! I stepped away for a cup of coffee, and he took over, but I just submitted and let him have his way! He is a much better writer than I am.
Something that I wanted to add (wife again):
Shortly after we left, we ran into one of these caregroup leaders. We love this man dearly, and are sad to have lost them as friends. Since we left, none of them really call us or have much to do with our family. Anyway, when we had this interlude his words to us were roughly, ” you guys, I am so sad to see you leave “the church”, but I can understand why. I am the kind of person that needs someone watching me, telling me what to do , what to read, and how to think, otherwise I don’t know what would become of me.You guys aren’t like that at all, and I respect that.”
I so appreciated what he said, because he was right on. Perhaps SGM is a church for people like this dear man. It is not a place for everyone, but the point is we have a right to choose what church we go to, what we consider good leadership, whether we use FaceBook or MySpace, whether we let our daughter wear a tank top in the summer, whether our children watch movies like “Little Women” or ” MissCongeniality” which have “romance”, whether our children can trick or treat, whether our girls play with Barbies, whether we home school or not, and similar items that could take too much time to list. Yes, we were never told that you couldn’t do certain things, but a obvious “group think” would be implied from leadership. It was all in the subtle undertones of the little responses you would get like….” I’m sorry we don’t let our children play with Barbies at ‘our house’”. “Oh, you are letting your children watch that…we don’t watch that in “our house.”
This blog is clearly representing that SGM is not for everyone. It is not a debate club. Some of us clearly do not like SGM, and others do, and frankly there are others who were born and raised in this movement and know nothing outside of it. I think it would be hard for someone in the last category to really be able to understand the paradigm of the first. But to not acknowledge actually happenings and occurences of people that were once a part of this movement is like trying to take away someone’s freedom of speech. These things happened and exist.
I am so grateful that since being a Christian since I was 5 year old, I have been a part of a Baptist Curch, Methodist Church, Catholic Church, Lutheran church, Orthodox Church, and now a plain ole nondenominational Christian church ( my father’s job and my husband’s required a lot of moving). And through them all I have seen the love of Christ at work in so many amazing ways, and yes, many of them had problems. But I an honestly say I have never felt so spiritually abused leaving a church or having to move from a church, as I did my SGM experience. You really should watch the movie “The Village.”
January 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
All right, I’m truly falling off my tightrope and landing on both sides of an issue this morning!
Please forgive my double-mindedness and seeming confusion over whether or not the porn issue is one of the subjects that we are “allowed” to discuss here.
It’s just that, in a conversation with my sister just now, she made a REALLY good point that I’d like to throw out here. And yes, it absolutely does have to do with SGM, if there truly are teachings where women are exhorted to remain attractive and 100% available.
My sister said that, rather than safeguarding a man from being interested in porn, a wife’s continual availability and eagerness for sex will actually have the OPPOSITE effect, because – and here’s her really great observation – PORN AND STRIP CLUBS ARE NOT ACTUALLY ABOUT SEX!
I mean, think about it. Think about a strip club. Is the act of going to a strip club even remotely like having marital relations with one’s spouse? No, by its very nature, it is not. If marital relations are like a well-cooked and beautifully presented meal shared over a quiet, candle-lit table for two, going to a strip club is like paying a major amount of money to enter a buffet restaurant for the “privilege” of being allowed to stroll up and down the buffet line, look at the food, smell it, have it waved in front of one’s face, and then, in the end, walking out without ever having a bite to eat.
So what’s the lure of the strip club? By its very structure, a strip club is all about the forbidden. You can look, but you can’t touch. Pay even more money, and you can get an even closer look…but you still can’t get any satisfaction. (Mick Jagger begins to play in the background of my thoughts :-) )
Online porn is the exact same thing, only even more disconnected, more unavailable.
So telling a wife to make herself more attractive and MORE available to prevent her husband from being interested in porn is the most ridiculous and asinine advice ever. It’s sort of like (to use another food analogy) force-feeding someone macaroni and cheese (working under the assumption that the person is hungry) when what the person is struggling against is a perverse desire to put red pepper flakes on his tongue.
The more available the wife makes herself to a man who finds himself drawn to the forbidden, the more his porn addiction will grow, if he’s already allowing himself to go down that path. Because strip clubs and porn are not about the act of sex. They are about the lure of what you already know you won’t get, about the thrill of the perpetual chase that will never end in satisfaction.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I’m wondering what folks like Freeda and SGM Casualty (and others) think of my comment #46. Do you guys think what I wrote there could be a possibility?
January 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Hi Kris,
Freeda is fried for the day….so I will get back with you.
In His Grip!!
January 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
My sister read my comment #53 and then called me with one additional observation. She said:
Isn’t my sister smart? I love her! :-)
January 19th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Kris –
It occurred to me that it’s possible that the sort of “accountability” that works among leadership might start to look a lot different as it trickles down through the ranks. I also think that, because there IS a great deal of desire among people in smaller churches to follow whatever comes down from “on high,” maybe these people take certain practices and directives and run with them to a degree that leadership never intended?
Its a nice theory. The problem its inconsistent with other acts. Just to pick an example I know my article on Covenant Life’s church covenant and how the system was designed to facilitate abuse. That covenant didn’t come from a trickle down problem it came from the top. Moreover when they were notified 3 different ways there was no response. Moreover, Josh Harris deleted the link blatant censorship. And this is not exceptional for SGM, it seems to be the norm. That’s not what you would expect from leadership unaware there are abuses. You see that kind of behavior from churches that either:
a) Are perfectly aware there are abuses and are attempting to cover them up (for example the Catholic Church with their child molestation by priests issues)
b) Are perfectly aware there are abuses and are encouraging them (for example in the Jehovah’s witnesses problems with questionable secondary disfellowships)
I’ve talked to lots of church leaders about abuse claims. And when I’ve talked to other church leaders about claims of abuse they are very interested and very concerned. They are anxious to determine:
where the actions in accordance with policy and doctrine
was the negative consequences a result of policy and doctrine
are there other ways these types of issues could have been handled
etc… Basically if someone believes the pastor is abusing them a week after getting disciplined that’s to be expected. If someone believes it a decade after the underlying sin has long since passed and they’ve joined other churches and moved on then something went wrong. Presbyterian churches by definition have to have appellates to examine disciplinary actions and/or claims of leadership abuse. Xenos (a mini denomination that practices church discipline) requires leadership oversight and hen has a standing grievance board. They burdon of proof is always on the leadership not on the membership, that is they have a policy of always trying to err on the side of the member.
They don’t ask question to the people reporting the abuse like “I know that some of you have tried, but I encourage you to keep trying. I believe they will eventually answer if you you truly come with a soft heart.” Legitimate church leaders aren’t interested in determining if people who complain have a soft or a hard heart. They want to determine if there was misconduct down the chain or not.
Or to pick another example. Morning Star International had an out of control problem with discipling programs. They conducted a full inquest into what went wrong and wrote revised guidelines. They (at this point Every Nation) then checked if those guidelines had accomplished the goal. When they determined they didn’t they informed membership of what those guidelines were and encouraged them to report abuse up. I know personally that someone from International Leadership (in the Philippines) reviewed a complaint by a nobody in America to make sure that the problems were not systematic in nature. They didn’t say “I don’t got bad advice from my mentor…”
Sos sure Jeanelle P isn’t told the same stupid nonsense that say SGUncensored was, but so what? A 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.
And no I don’t have a soft heart.
January 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
SGM Cas,
I’m enjoying this too. You write better than I do, so I may not come across as eloquent, or smart or anything like you do. There’s really only one thing I would like to say in response.
There’s a time to be understanding with your friends, there’s a time to have fun with your friends, and there’s a time to just chill and relax with your friends. There’s a time to pray for them, to encourage them, to trust them, to be honest with them…and to know that they’re sinners just like you are, saved by grace. Sure, intellectually we know we want to please the Lord, seek the HS’s counsel, and glorify God in all we do. We hope and trust this in our saved friends, as well. But we’re sinners and by default we sin. So do they. We also know this.
Will we always see it the way our friend does? No. Are we always right? No. Do we give them the option of disagreeing? Yes. Because they do, do we stop? NO. If I think my friend is in true deceit then I will continue to press on. This dogged determination doesn’t mean I bring it up every time I’m around them. It means I continue to pray for that specific situation, I continue to seek God and Scripture, and when the time calls for it, I bring it up with them with the HS prompting.
There have been times I’ve had to stop beating a dead horse. A friend(s) can only take so much, you’re right. My heart breaks for these circumstances, b/c the majority of the time I am just one person who sees this sin pattern, but am one of the only ones to bring it up b/c everyone else who saw it either a) didn’t know the person all that well or b) had fear of man. Since I know this person people come to ME instead of to THEM, which is redundant, to ask me if I see this or that. My encouragement is to take this to the person you specifically have a question or observation for (as we say, I’m not part of the solution:-D) So much more gets accomplished this way.
There are times where the relationship was severed or wasn’t quite the same. These things happen. Is this always a bad thing? No. Do I still care for these people? Yes. What I don’t do is completely forget it, leave them to their devices and live my life. This isn’t true friendship. A friend loves at ALL times.
The long and short of it is, I know my friends want to please God, and I know that they are sinners who are often deceived just like I am. I want them to confront me in my sin, I want them to bring observations to ME and not anyone else with few exceptions. Am I wrong to assume they want they same thing? If I am, what is the point of a one-sided accountability relationship? It will become clear to me very early on in a friendship what the boundaries are. An accountability friendship will look very different than a “let’s hang out” friendship.
An accountability friendship is two sided, not one sided. Open interpretation in Scripture is often deciphered and confirmed by more than one person. My conviction to not smoke is held by many Christians, though not all (including Spurgeon who smoked his cigar to the glory of God:-D) But if one of my friends starts smoking, do I say “The Bible doesn’t specifically talk about smoking, only about our body being the temple of God, so I won’t say anything.” What does a friend do? Talk to them and question their motives! I believe that smoking is harmful and stupid, let alone Biblical. When they ignore me, turn the conversation onto my sin, or just plain tell me to shut up, I won’t. I’m truly concerned for them, think they are deceived, and so therefore pray for them and continue to confront them.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
HI
Freedathink’s husband again….
RE your post at #46, I would look at it a bit differently, than you are defining the issue. Imagine for a moment a village of people who have lived all of their lives with a one foot ruler (measuring stick) that was only 10″ long. If we tried to buy an 8′ board from this village, we would say that we have been short changed; while if we were to send them an 8′ board, they would think that we are not capable of accurately counting to 8 while measuring a piece of wood. Every time we would communicate with this village and discuss issues requiring a clear definition of the one foot measurement, the discussion would be confused, because we are wandering in a world where one foot equals 12″ and they are wandering in a world where one foot equals 10″. We commonly call this disparity a difference in paradigms.
Here we find ourselves on this blog attempting to discuss concepts like accountability, the appropriate qualifications for leadership, mens’ and womens’ roles, sexuality v modesty v pornography, acts of abuse of committed on women, parenting styles and discipline, home schooling, elements of salvation, the full breadth of the gospel, doctrinal differences, and other key issues, while we are living in AT LEAST TWO different paradigms.
Thinking the best of CJ and the people around him, I would hope that they are accurately assessing and honestly discussing the issues that are affecting their walks with the Lord. However, as seen from my paradigm, I have personally witnessed aggregious behaviors and now read on this blog independent testimony of similar events occuring in multiple churches within this movement all at the same time. From my paradigm, the events that occured and behaviors that are discussed are inappropriate. It remains to be seen if people in other paradigms believe that these issues are problematic. Lastly, the Lord is looking down and clearly sees all of these events for what they are; and his eyes are clear of the confusion that we have brought through our paradigms. May his loving grace care for the women and kids and marriages that have been wounded through this movement.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The only question I have in regards to SGM and porn would be to wonder how the leadership addresses real life issues such as these.
Is real help for real issues really available?
Do people know who they can go to for specific help about specific sins?
How well trained are the pastors to deal with the complexity of these issues?
Are some of the pastors specifically trained to counsel parishioners in areas like addiction and recovery?
If no one on the pastoral staff is specifically trained to address certain problems, do they refer them to professional counselors for help?
And lastly, what is SGM’s success rate? Is there any way of knowing how well they are doing besides just being told how awesome they all are? What kind of hard evidence is available to judge the quality of their leadership?
The men in leadership may have nice wives and good kids, but does that mean they are qualified to address someone’s addiction to porn? I don’t think so.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Kris –
OK you’ve now completely reopened the door.
I completely disagree with your sister. Porn is by a large for most men a sex substitute. Strip clubs are not a sex substitute. They are appealing to entire different motivations and often to different men.
The two main motivations I’ve seen/read about are:
a) male bonding
i.e. among men who need to work together but at the same time are competitive they “share”. Essentially like a boys night out with alcohol but with some titillation thrown in.
b) sexual degradation and depersonalization
And this is what you see among regulars. And no a wife can’t fix strip club problem b by making herself available.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Mr. Think (Freeda’s husband :-) ) -
I think you make an excellent point…and it’s something that I tried to explain long ago, back when Jesse was commenting, but I don’t think I discussed it as clearly as you just did. And that is, people from different sides of the SG experience will have different perspectives on what they’ve experienced…or, as you said, are working from different paradigms.
Someone born and raised in the movement, someone who has had essentially positive experiences in his or her church (and has accepted and subsequently internalized and identified as “good for them” those things that actually were NOT so positive) will look at all these things from a FAR different point of view than someone like “SGM Casualty,” for instance, who views her own experiences with SGM as contributing to the breakup of her life as she knew it. Or even from the point of view of someone like me, who came into SGM as a totally uninformed outsider, knowing nothing but what I’d call “mainstream” Evangelical Christianity.
Someone who is “SGM Happy” will see a subject like “accountability” and think of it as something essentially positive, because his own experiences with this type of accountability have never gotten him into trouble…and even if, perhaps, they DID get him into trouble, he has not yet reached the point of recognizing that. Someone like “SGM Casualty,” on the other hand, looks at accountability and remembers spending years doing penance for a “sin” (anorexia) that she probably never was “guilty” of (I always thought that anorexia was more of a psychological disorder and not actually a “sin” issue anyway?). Finally, someone like me…well, I look at accountability and have a strong initial reaction that it could much more easily become a tool of great harm in the hands of the wrong person than that it would be very beneficial.
I guess another difference within all of our paradigms is how we view our sinfulness. At the risk of sounding antinomian (there, that’s our SGuncensored Word For The Day), 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.
In other words, rather than agonizing over whether I would be sinning if my kids went trick-or-treating, my focus has always been on the question, “What does ‘loving my neighbor’ look like?” Since the Lord has led me to believe that “loving my neighbor” means that we participate in the society around us, and not hold up our noses in disdain for something that in and of itself is NOT forbidden in the Bible, my kids donned costumes this year and went around our neighborhood with the other kids.
Along those same lines, if we wake up in the morning with the attitude of seeking God’s guidance for where He wants us to go and what He wants us to do, we won’t be obsessing about what he does NOT want us to do.
It’s hard to explain, but it’s sort of the difference between reckoning our sin nature as “dead” in Christ versus thinking of our sin nature as some perpetual 90-pound albatross hanging around our necks and dragging us down. I’d rather focus on the verse, “Therefore, anyone who is in Christ Jesus is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new.”
The sort of “accountability” where people would go around honing in on and confronting their friends about their sins just strikes me as something that is negative, rather than positive. I’d rather spend my time commending my friends for where they are doing well, for where they are letting their NEW nature put to death the deeds of the old nature, instead of playing the role of (I think it might have been Nancy Drew or Lynn who said) a “Junior Holy Spirit.”
But that’s just me, working from my paradigm. Good point, Mr. Think!
January 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi Kris, sorry if I crossed the line by bringing up the “porn thing” – I do appreciate your leadership on this blog and I think that’s very appropriate and right. However you did say one thing;
“Marc Driscoll, for all I know, has nothing to do with SGM”.
Actually I have been following Mark Driscoll’s relationship with SGM and it seems he is having an increasing amount to do with them – even if it is only personally with C J Mahaney at present. Driscoll wrote this on his blog;
“About this time last year I was in the midst of some difficulty with some Christian critics. At that time I received a call from a man I had heard a great deal about but had never met, Pastor C.J. Mahaney. He was offering a humble and helpful hand of pastoral counsel and friendship. Some time thereafter, he came to Seattle on his own initiative to speak wisdom into my life, meet my family, and build our friendship … A few weeks ago I received an email from C.J. stating that he planned on flying in to join us for the February 2008 Resurgence conference in Seattle … Upon hearing that he was joining us, we asked C.J. if he would be willing to speak and he kindly agreed”.
I am not passing any comment on this – because I wouldn’t presume to understand C J Mahaney’s motives. But it is note-worthy that C J has clearly taken an interest in Mark Driscoll – and hence SGM and Driscoll do have a link. Whether Mark Driscoll will be invited to future SGM conferences remains to be seen.
That’s more a comment based on some stuff I have noticed on the net.
Make of it what you will.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Dan,
Thanks for clarifying that. I had no idea.
For some reason, I was under the impression that Driscoll is part of the Emerging Church movement. Boy, I must be out of it!
I’m off to do some googling now. :-)
January 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Janelle,
I’m impressed. You really held your own! And you’re quite skilled with the pen … but you come by it honestly! Our writing isn’t really all that different. I just use big words when I have a weak point. It beats pounding on the table (cf post 25). You should try it; gets people every time … Kidding! No, sadly I’m just a hopeless word nerd who instinctively gets in front of a computer and loses whatever shred of cool she had at her disposal.
Seriously … I will make this one concession. (And do try to not let this go to your head, please …
) Having gone fisticuffs with my friends at work the other day and then reading your posts, there is a part of me that misses the more iron-sharpening-iron dynamic that I enjoyed in SGM. In fact, your mom predicted that I would when we left and told me that I was “wired” for it. She was right. Granted, it was a lonnnng time before I missed it b/c I really just needed to find a church that was safe, where I would be lavished w/ love and acceptance, and could heal. And I needed to get counseling from someone who was SKILLED in walking someone through the backlash of a particularly tragic past.
But now that I’m in a better place and all kindsa feisty again, I miss not having friends who felt free to “speak the truth in love” and wouldn’t get spooked by a more passionate discussion – much like the one we’re having here. But your mom was right: That is how I’m wired, and that does constitute really healthy friendship in my book.
However, I’ve also matured a lot since my SGM days. (Okay, so it doesn’t always show in my writing but still …
). So if someone ever came to me with an “observation” that they couldn’t substantiate with real examples (not just nebulous super-spiritualized generalities), scriptures used IN CONTEXT, and/or specific ways that a certain behavior could be potentially dangerous to me (e.g., your smoking example), I would – in love (hopefully) – send my friend back to the drawing board and encourage her to come back when she has something of substance that I can sink my teeth into. And I would never agree to any “plan” that I didn’t agree with.
I will also say that you were unusually blessed b/c when you entered the deeper end of the accountability pool, you had parents who you could bounce things off of. If someone shared something off the wall with you, I can totally imagine your mom bringing balance to it or correcting something that was shared on the wrong premise altogether.
The whole biblical fellowship teaching has also had some time to steep and settle into more of a balance than what some of us “earlier adopters” experienced. I’m sure that those who caused me suffering (as well as others) – with some of their more judgmental, dogmatic practices – have learned from their mistakes. (I would hope.) And who knows … maybe reading some of the stories here will result in further evaluation about how much love is being kneaded into these accountability practices.
So, with all that said … would I be able to hold my own in the type of accountability you’re talking about? Maybe. Would I be easily intimidated by the friend? Nope. Wouldn’t matter if she were the queen of England (unless she oversaw beheadings, of course). And would I go along with something just b/c I don’t want to be arrogant or lose the friendship? Not on your life. The Holy Spirit is more than faithful to convict me of arrogance (it’s a well-worn path). And if a friend is willing to walk away from the friendship b/c I didn’t agree with her every assessment of me, I would consider that relational pruning.
Take care, sweetie. And great job, again. Touche … I’m exhausted! ;)
January 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Kris –
You and Dan are both right. Driscoll isn’t just part of the Emerging Church movement he is one of its founders and, one of its most successful proponents and the single best known leader on its right wing. Marc basically mixes mainstream evangelical protestantism with postmodern epistemology, “theology with a closed fist but methodology with an open hand”.
Driscoll has had trouble with the adjustment from a sect leader to a national spokesperson for evangelical Christianity. The style that worked within his group alienates the wider public and at the same time sounding like other evangelical leaders makes him a sell out within his group. I can imagine C.J. might very well been able to help him here. Also its a useful alliance for both men, Marc has fans who Maheney can’t speak to and vice versa.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
SGM Cas,
You take care too. Thanks for the discussion! :-D
January 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
CD,
Wow, if there are two streams of the Christian faith that I would NEVER, never in a million years, have merged in ANY sense, it would have been Sovereign Grace and the Emergents!
Seriously!
Driscoll’s following (and I’m relieved to know that my memory was NOT failing me, and he IS the same Marc Driscoll that I’d read) would simply scream-laugh at things like C.J.’s modesty sermon. They’d NEVER be able to get beyond practices like homeschooling, either, seeing it as the antithesis to their vision of bringing the “Kingdom of God” to this earth, in this age. All the navel-gazing about one’s motives and one’s sins would also be completely foreign to Driscoll’s crowd.
What in the world is going on there? I know that Dan did not want to read anything into it, but really. Can two people hold to two such radically different expressions of Christianity and yet find something that unites them? Yes, I know – “Together for the Gospel” – but…the “Gospel” that Driscoll and the Emergents preach is something QUITE different than Christ on the cross. I mean, they accept that Christ’s death on the cross is an element of the Gospel, but in my understanding, many other key terms have gotten re-defined.
Sheesh! I’m all sorts of confused now.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Kris,
Okay, about the porn thing … I couldn’t agree more with you and your sister. Porn and other scintillating extramarital activities (e.g., strip bars) aren’t really all about sex. The sex that’s painted in the Song of Solomon requires a lot of selfless commitment on both spouses’ parts – the man in his pursuit and the woman in her response. All of that is stripped out with porn and bars. It’s all about self-gratification with no love, no commitment, no vulnerability.
CD and I are going to essentially disagree on this point b/c, as he has noted, he is not a Christian and, therefore, won’t adhere to the restrictions the Bible clearly places on sexual activities outside of the bonds of marriage. If Jesus says that even looking at a woman with lust is tantamount to adultery, these activities certainly cannot be sanctioned by God. Men can “bond” over a football game or even over beers at a bar where the woman are dressed.
Also, CD, you were not right that my husband leaving me for another woman was proof positive that it wasn’t about porn. He went to her b/c she is totally fine with these activities and goes with him to some of these places. But they were also living together (while he was still married to me) and going to church every Sunday, so why not? And when questioned by our kids (mine and hers) about how they could live together and be Christians, they explained that b/c they couldn’t be “physically married” yet, they had gotten “morally married” … on a pirate ship. That makes me laugh every time b/c of the choice analogy of stolen treasure. But I digress …
Anyway, if Christians can get to the place that they see no problem with living with someone else’s husband, what’s to prevent taking a much more “progressive” stance on what’s considered acceptable with regard to how a husband keeps his heart/thoughts pure toward any woman who’s not his wife? Again, it’s a slippery slope.
I just wish SGM would take a harder stand on the problem of pornography and would present a more balanced teaching to women on the issue of being able to keep your man from wandering. I’m with Claireon post 60. They need to do a better job releasing people to get help outside the church for issues of serious pornography addiction and stop sweeping it under the rug and pretending it’s not a very real phenomenon that is tearing marriages apart thread by thread. SGM churches are not led by men with counseling training and experience (in large part), so – in my opinion – I think it’s arrogant to not recognize that there are some issues that are simply over their heads and point them to those who can.
Okay, that’s enough for now.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
PS Kris, I forgot to mention … The whole teaching on how if wives are submissive, keep themselves attractive, and are sexually available to their husbands, their husbands would have no reason to look elsewhere came from Carolyn Mahaney’s teaching on “A Biblical Perspective of Beauty.” I think that was the title. It was within the context of a two-day marriage retreat, and it was in the breakout session where CJ talked to the men and Carolyn to the ladies.
I’m sure someone would be able to find documentation of this teaching by finding the recording and/or the outline that accompanied the teaching, if s/he were so inclined. I wish I could remember the year, but I’m sure they’ve done this teaching in lots of Sovereign Grace churches over the years.
As I mentioned in another post, I will always love and admire Carolyn Mahaney. But I would imagine this point has probably hamstrung other women from getting help for their husband’s addictions and put undue weight on them to try to put out a grease fire with a bucket of water.
One other thing … And I may be stepping out of line here. I have respected so much of what CD has written and found him a great ally of some of the points we’ve made on this blog. However, I find the latter point of his explanation about “sexual degradation and depersonalization” in poor taste and not appropriate for the purpose (and audience) of this blog. Just my opinion.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
CD-Host,
I hope this won’t send you running, screaming from our censored “sgUNcensored” blog (is there NO truth in advertising any more? :-) ), but in the interest of many readers’ sensitivities (mine included), I took the liberty of editing the last sentence out of your comment #61 (the sentence you’d already labeled as PG-13).
We really do appreciate your contributions, and I hope you’ll understand this bit of censorship and keep commenting anyway.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
SGM –
Ah I’ve been married 11.5 years and known my wife 14 years. I’ve been faithful to her since we first met. You can judge me as an arrogant ass, but I’m a faithful husband. Rates of both adultery and divorce are higher among evangelicals than secular people as even Barra now admits. Rates of teenage pregnancy (not just birth) are much higher among children of evangelicals. The age of first sexual experience is about 7 months lower on average among evangelicals. I could go on and on.
I’m not a Christian so I’m not going to judge whether the practices are biblical or not, but the evidence that the strategies being employed in America today by evangelicals are ineffectual is overwhelming.
I’m kind of hamstrung here by a sort of schizophrenia that’s going on. We’ve had about a half dozen back and fourths on this issue. Kris is really uncomfortable with discussing sex on this blog but keeps bring it up. You don’t want to be in good taste but want to delve into details of your husband and his 2nd wife’s sex habits. I’m not really sure how to handle this situation. You all need to make up your minds.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
To SGM Cas:
I went to a Marriage Retreat in North Denver where Carolyn spoke about this. It was (I think) back in 2002 (late fall). Wait, it could have been early in 2003, I can’t remember just how far along I was. It was between October 2002-March 2003! I remember the timing of this because I was pregnant with our first Child, attending the South Denver church and we went shopping at this cool shopping mall that was partly outdoor….I forget the location, though exactly.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
CD,
It was your explicit use of distasteful sexual practices that I objected to, not your discussion on the topic altogether. I couldn’t even tell what point you were trying to make or how it fit in with the discussion.
You’re normally very analytical and reasonable; let’s not allow emotions to now throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Those are some pretty table-pounding remarks you make toward the end of your last post.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
CD-Host,
It’s not the subject of sex that I’m uncomfortable with…it’s how the topic fits into this blog that has made me all mush-brained.
Quite frankly, I think more than one book could be written about the many contradictions exhibited within SGM about the subject of sex. I mean, you have modesty checklists and courtship on the one hand, and training for married women that encourages them to be voracious tarts on the other hand. Men are taught from the earliest ages that women must either be viewed as “sisters” or “their future wives,” all in the interest of keeping their thoughts pure. But then there are reports of how such a huge percentage of these same guys have problems with things like porn and strip clubs once they do get married.
Yes, a psychologist could have a veritable field day with the many sexual extremes bubbling just below the surface at SGM.
That being said, however, my squeamishness about discussing the subject here stems from just how nebulous it all is…and what a minefield. Considering that there are so many other huge issues which we CAN pin down (such as your excellent analysis of CLC’s membership covenant and discipline appendix), I hesitate to drive the conversation down a road that, first of all, will offend a lot of SG people, and second of all, will simply bring up more occasions for pro-SGMers to accuse me of “gossip” and scandal-mongoring…and even of outright lying, since I believe that these sexual extremes within SGM are not honestly acknowledged anywhere else. Also, since the extremes are, well, EXTREME, the average SGM reader would probably just shrug off the posts that discuss them…and use these posts to discredit everything else we have to say.
So that’s why I keep going back and forth as to the acceptability of this topic.
But that sentence in your post #61 was censored more for its specifics than the general subject matter. You yourself even acknowledged that it was PG-13.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Hi Beth,
Yes! That was the one exactly. Thanks for helping to narrow it down for me. How funny … I have no idea who you are (honestly, that’s not a smokescreen, people
), yet we were at the same marriage retreat together. Small kingdom … 
January 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
A book “PORNOGRAPHY” Driving The Demand in International Sex Trafficking states that the majority of pornography is actually prostitution(es) being filmed in camera or video.
It is not a victimless crime. Both participant and buyer are damaged people. It has no place in a believer’s life. Frankly the devil has you decieved.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Very small :-) We were (are) very good friends with the Hodges!
January 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
That’s funny, Beth. I’m sitting here thinking, “Aha! A clue! … If I just knew who the Hodges were …” Seriously, the name sounds familiar, but age and a lack of Ginkgo Biloba in my diet seem to be taking their toll. (I have some but just forget to take it. It’s a vicious cycle.
)
January 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
but I went to the S. Church, you must have gone to the North :-)
January 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Kris –
Well what did you think of my theory of how they got together?
I agree they don’t have common membership, Mars Hill started as a missionary church in a city ghetto. They still have lots of people who have been meaningful Christians less than 2 years. But Marc needed help with an issue and C. J. was a good choice to give that help, and what the heck can’t C. J. do something right. :-)
And I think the alliance makes would make sense for both men People on the right hear “Emerging Church” and run screaming, but if C. J. invites Driscoll to his pulpit…. On the other hand C. J. can’t be mainstream unless he learns how to reach other demographics and Marc is an expert at cross cultural Christianity.
Or maybe its not an alliance and C.J. was really just being helpful when he saw a leading pastor who had bit something off he was having trouble handling.
Or maybe its just C.J. being pragmatic. If the voice of 20m Christians is going to be Marc Driscoll or Brian McLauren that’s a pretty easy choice for C.J. and he voted. And if Marc were to flame out there really is on one of similar stature nearly as orthodox in the EM movement.
BTW I’m a huge Driscoll fan (especially the early Driscoll before he became more mainstream),
All the navel-gazing about one’s motives and one’s sins would also be completely foreign to Driscoll’s crowd.
Actually no. Almost all the emergents are into examining one’s motives and sins. They just add a lot of naval gazing about one’s epistemology, hermeneutics…. as well. I’d argue there is in many ways more of a focus on doing what’s right in the EM movement then there is in SG, just essentially no focus on doing what you are told. :-)
Also C. J. might really enjoy Marc’s style. For example on gay pastors
All of this has led this blogger to speculate that if Christian males do not man up soon, the Episcopalians may vote a fluffy baby bunny rabbit as their next bishop to lead God’s men. When asked for their perspective, some bunny rabbits simply said that they have been discriminated against long enough and that people need to “Get over it.”
January 19th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Good job, gumshoe. So I did. But I loved you S. Denverites! We were close to several families down there. The Whitacres (sp?) were our absolute favs, but I also had a ton of fun with Keith and Patsy. They’re good people. Good times …
January 19th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Kris –
I understand why you deleted that sentence, you can stop defending yourself. I flagged it, you made your call I’m OK with it. You don’t need to defend yourself.
SGM –
CD,
It was your explicit use of distasteful sexual practices that I objected to, not your discussion on the topic altogether. I couldn’t even tell what point you were trying to make or how it fit in with the discussion.
You’re normally very analytical and reasonable; let’s not allow emotions to now throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Those are some pretty table-pounding remarks you make toward the end of your last post.
First off you did question my sexual fidelity. Look back at your posts. That was a below the belt shot. Second, I’m not the one bring up what motivates men to go to strip clubs. I was simply refuting what Kris quoted her sister as saying (i.e. linking porn and strip clubs). 3rd: I’m OK with not getting into specifics, but then lets stop discussing it. Just drop it.
Fourth, you made a claim save to say I was also the one who was far more adventuresome in our intimate life and tried the hardest to keep things spicy. Nothing in my list of “distasteful things” was even close to what I would call “adventuresome”.
You are profoundly contradicting yourself.
1) I said that porn was not an addiction in most cases
2) You indicated your X-husband was an example of an addict
3) I noted how your example proves the opposite, i.e. non addict behavior
4) You are now throwing in all sorts of claims that further weaken not strengthen your argument that you tried everything by hinting at what the other woman was willing to give him that you weren’t.
What you are describing now is a story of a guy who wanted some stuff you refused to provide he switched to porn and finally left you over it. He may be a jerk, he may be a covenant breaker. But he ain’t an addict. He made a rational choice that he valued his sexual proclivities more than his marriage. Unless the claim is that porn fundamentally changed his sexual taste I’m losing how this story is even supposed to prove the existence of porn addiction. You’ve identified what the real problem was and it had nothing to do with porn.
I’ll let you get in the last word. I have yet to figure out how to discuss this kind of topic on a blog like this. Kris is absolutely correct that an open discussion of sex would freak her readership out.
I’m not sure why you want to debate this with me.
I’m willing to discuss this with you on my blog or in email if there is some reason.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
CD-Host,
Something interesting about any sort of teaming-up of C.J. Mahaney and Marc Driscoll would be how it would affect C.J.’s status among the Reformed luminaries. Taking a “Reformed” stance means that you build your entire definition of truth upon the Bible as being the literal and infallible Word of God. Then it is predicated on the assumption that we can indeed know some things to be certain truths, because God states them clearly in the Bible. An example of this would be the principle of “penal substitution,” where Christ took upon Himself all of God’s wrath against us, in effect suffering the punishment that WE deserved when He hung on the cross.
Emergents (and I’m not sure if Driscoll would fall into this category, but if not, he’s probably not one to get his boxers in a wad over those who do) have referred to “penal substitution” as “cosmic child abuse” and have now denied it as a crucial doctrine of the faith. Emergents also take a very elastic view of the Bible, saying that they’d never dream of “boxing God in” to an old Book. (Never mind that God Himself, in that “dusty Book,” promised to box Himself in…but I am revealing my own prejudice…)
Considering the outrage among Reformed folks like John MacArthur against heresies such as this, and considering that C.J. has very recently shared the stage with MacArthur, I cannot imagine what any sort of alliance or friendship or even mentoring relationship with Marc Driscoll would do to Mahaney’s reputation in the eyes of these guys – unless he was clearly occupying the position of the recognized superior, bringing Driscoll up to his level of “doctrinal correctness,” something I canNOT imagine Driscoll would suffer gladly!
This whole thing, from the “Reformed” angle, is still mind-boggling to me.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
CD-Host,
Please don’t do that – don’t raise a question and then turn around and tell me that when I answer you, I am “defending myself.”
You made a statement insinuating that I’m somehow schizophrenic because I raised the subject of sex (with respect to porn) and then asked you all to drop it…and then raised it again myself…and then censored your comment. I figured you made a really good point, so I tried to explain why I was feeling conflicted about the whole thing.
If that’s “defending myself,” then we’re back to re-defining terms.
Hey, you should start a cult! :-)
January 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
CD,
You are so unbelievably out of line. First of all, this statement here couldn’t be further from the truth:
“First off you did question my sexual fidelity. Look back at your posts. That was a below the belt shot.”
I have NO IDEA what on earth you’re talking about! But I never questioned your fidelity. It never even entered my mind. In fact, I offered further clarification to you that I only disagreed with one sentence you wrote. The rest of my comments were directed at Marc’s position.
You also so presumptuously stated:
“What you are describing now is a story of a guy who wanted some stuff you refused to provide he switched to porn and finally left you over it. He may be a jerk, he may be a covenant breaker. But he ain’t an addict.”
Again, not only is such an allegation utterly untrue, it’s downright bizarre. And it shows that with all of your studies, you have no idea what porn addiction is all about.
I stopped reading your post at that sentence b/c you’re talking crazy. And if I hadn’t read so many of your other posts, I’d think someone commandeered your keyboard and took over your conversations.
I’m sorry if saying that I thought your PG-13 comment that detailed pretty gross stuff was inappropriate hurt your feelings. But we have teens visiting this blog and outsiders who are evaluating our positions on various topics. But disagreeing on that point did not warrant your full-blown attack.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
We were very good friends with the Whitacres and the Jacob’s. Did you know that the W’s moved back to Virginia? Ok, we should discuss this somewhere else , I guess so that we aren’t putting peoples names all over the internet that may or may not want it here :-) All my fault!
January 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Beth,
I’m sure they wouldn’t mind since it’s all good. I don’t mind telling the world that these couples were, imho, some of Sovereign Grace’s finest!
And yes, I did hear that the Whitacres moved. Good for them. I know they still had strong ties to that area, including family.
But if you ever want to email me, my email address (for this blog) is sgmcasualty (at) gmail.com.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
If there is a significant problem with men reading pornography in Sovereign Grace as some here have indicated, I wonder what the cause would be? e? I have no idea of to what extent if any this problem may be in this group. I would especially doubt that it is that prevalent but who knows. It did concern me when freedathink indicated that one care group leader at one church had this problem and remained a care group leader.
I do know of one case where a man in a Sovereign Grace Church came to leadership and admitted he had a problem with this (it wasn’t that he was hiding this). How he was treated didn’t go very well and he ended up leaving the church. He was not unrepentant and showed initiative by coming to leadership for help.
This happened around 10 years ago so things could be different but I do wonder if how one is treated (or think they would be treated) if they came to leadership for help may contribute to the problem?
I agree with the others who didn’t the wife could do anything to prevent a husband from having or continuing viewing porn. I certainly wouldn’t blame it on the wife.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Kris –
Sorry. I didn’t see my statement as a question more as exasperation. I apologize.
Anyway if you took my statement as a question and answered it honestly then your answer deserves a real response.
and training for married women that encourages them to be voracious tarts on the other hand.
Really like what do they do to up married woman’s sexual appetites?
But then there are reports of how such a huge percentage of these same guys have problems with things like porn and strip clubs once they do get married.
I think this has to do with unrealistic expectations and courtship. They marry people off when they are sexually inexperienced (probably not virgins but close). Neither the bride or groom really knows what they like yet. They are denied sexual education so they really don’t know what they doing. Within a few years inevitably incompatibilities start occurring. This wouldn’t be a problem in most courtship based systems in history because there was never a belief that marital sex was supposed to be fulfilling: mistress and concubines were for sexual fulfillment wives were for procreation. I sort of deal with this in 2nd half of defense part 5 where I detail what a “successful” model of courtship looked like.
But SGM doesn’t see it that way. They create an expectation that marital sex is going to be fulfilling while having a courtship model. But they never answer the hard question like: How are the kids going to figure out what they really like? How are they going to figure out how to work it out? Virtual any attempt at honest communication is going to be viewed through a lens of sin, so it never happens. So I’d assume that when men try and maintain the marriage they turn to porn. In other words the culprit is courtship and marrying off virgins without understanding the natural implications of that system.
A few extra comments. Separate off porn and strip clubs. Two entirely different issues with two entirely different appeals (see post above).
Also remember, I’m not sure if the porn usage are really problems. See #42. I think normal America male usage is being defined as a “problem” and sociological pressure are being put on people to admit to “problems” that don’t exist while creating marital structures designed to increase the frequency of incompatibility.
You btw can actually see the same repulsion attraction in the thread above. There is a longing to talk honesty about these issues and at the same time an instinctive reaction once it happens that the talk is sinful. This is one of the reasons sex-ed is so valuable it breaks this pattern and allows people to discuss the same way they would discuss cooking. The repulsion is worked through and killed. It makes honest communication possible and fixes these kinds of problems before they destroy the marriage. Secular counseling can also do the same thing.
Considering that there are so many other huge issues which we CAN pin down (such as your excellent analysis of CLC’s membership covenant and discipline appendix),
Yeah I know. That one deserves a response. They can’t deny that one is happening or a one off incident or just some low level issue. But so far all the pro-SGers are ignoring me, except for Joey but twice he’s tried to engage and twice he backed off fast.
I hesitate to drive the conversation down a road that, first of all, will offend a lot of SG people, and second of all, will simply bring up more occasions for pro-SGMers to accuse me of “gossip” and scandal-mongoring…and even of outright lying, since I believe that these sexual extremes within SGM are not honestly acknowledged anywhere else.
Actually they wouldn’t have that effect. It would be more powerful. Because then you start to see realistic pictures of how these bad things happened. Right now the stories don’t meld into a cohesive whole. If things go well a year from now you’ll have low level leadership confessing how they mishandled various situations.
And as for gossip, just take that as a given. SG defines any attempt to critique the organization as gossip. By their definition the very purpose of this blog is gossip. You simply reject their definition and move on.
Also, since the extremes are, well, EXTREME, the average SGM reader would probably just shrug off the posts that discuss them…and use these posts to discredit everything else we have to say.
Might very well be true. But they aren’t extreme. 5-10% of the population is homosexual. 10-15% of the population either has sadistic or masochistic tendencies sexually. 8% of the population has object related fetishes…. It doesn’t take long to get to 30%. Since there are 2 people in a couple that means that 1/2 of all courtship marriages will have a serious essentially incurable sexual incompatibility problem. These types of problems aren’t extreme, they are exactly what you would expect by denying the reality of how complex human sexuality really is.
But that sentence in your post #61 was censored more for its specifics than the general subject matter. You yourself even acknowledged that it was PG-13.
I understand. But to be honest I disagree that’s why. It was censored because of its general subject matter. It answered the exact question asked with the minimum amount of information (that’s how I kept it PG-13). There was no vulgarity, there was no profanity, there wasn’t anything other then a list of a 1/2 dozen items. What really was offending people was the answer. It was exactly the way you’d answer a cooking question “to make bread you need: flour, water, eggs, yeast and shortening”. Nothing offensive about that.
What I haven’t figured out yet is how to answer the “how to make bread” question given a repulsion about eggs.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Kris said:
“Men are taught from the earliest ages that women must either be viewed as “sisters” or “their future wives,” all in the interest of keeping their thoughts pure. But then there are reports of how such a huge percentage of these same guys have problems with things like porn and strip clubs once they do get married.”
CD-Host commented on this also, I wonder if Sovereign Grace’s courtship approach could be at least a partial cause to this problem? I imagine one might be more apt to this kind of a problem if they weren’t given the freedom to get to know a number of different personalities and then make their own choice as to which was the most compatible? Just a thought. I doubt it is the only cause but could be one of the causes.
Today I posted a new entry on my blog about an online book that analyzes the courtship/betrothal movement. You might want to check out my blog. It has a link to this online book. The books has a chapter titled “Why Dating Is Not The Problem And Courtship Is Not The Answer.”
http://ikdg.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/courtship-extending-parents-%e2%80%9cprotection%e2%80%9d-beyond-home-schooling/
Courtship: Extending Parents “Protection” Beyond Home Schooling?
January 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
My ears were burning and I came over here to check it out. It seems that CD ‘wished’ me over here, so here I am!
Hi Kris! Interesting blog. It was interesting to watch you two discuss my journey over the last year. You are very correct that I was surprised to find heresy when I merely set out to tell my story at first. The blog did take on a very different nature as so many others pushed me to examine the root of what was growing such rotten fruit. Although I fell off the wagon last month, I am back and ready for action now!
After my last utter failure at finding a church, I thought I would try a SG church next. Hmm. After reading this thread, I wonder if I would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Obviously it’s not nearly as extreme as where I came from, but am I seeing some potential red flags here? Obviously the discipline issue could get really sticky for someone like me. I’m liable to speak my opinion sometime in my life, I’m sure. ;-)
Seriously, within any denomination you are going to find a lot of faults. That’s a given. What I would like to know is if there are any MORE red flags in SG than there would be in any other given denomination, or is this blog just exposing what would one would naturally find in any given church/denomination? I long ago gave up on finding that elusive perfect church, but I can’t stay away from all of them just because there are some problems. Are the problems serious enough to warrant a legitimate warning or not? And if so, is that individual to each church, or is it in the denomination as a whole?
As to the current topic at hand, which seems to have greatly digressed from the blog post above ;-) , CD, I don’t think more “experience” before marriage is the answer to sexual dissatisfaction after marriage. I also don’t think sex ed is the answer either. I think most people probably have no problems figuring out what to do in that department and can become quite creative on their own. Christians do value virginity at the wedding altar because God forbids fornication before marriage, so God must have had a plan in mind for that all along. There are certain things that do seem to just come naturally.
However, I would add that when two people marry, there are going to be many differences in all areas of life. Part of working hard to make a marriage work is working through all the differences and attempting to put the other person first. If each partner truly works hard to please their spouse, they should be able to come up with a satisfying sexual life overall. My two cents’.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Hi, Jen, and thanks for your comment. Welcome to the site.
I really wouldn’t want to speak to how you’d fit into an SG church. I’ve pointed out in other places that obviously, SG works for a lot of people…particularly if you’re already “doing the lifestyle.” Also, different SG churches have different “feels” to them.
I have come to believe, however, that SG’s stance on church discipline, as it is mixed with the teachings on absolute, unquestioning submission to church authorities, can be a potentially dangerous thing…far more so than anything I’ve seen in more “mainstream” Evangelical churches.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Hello everyone!
I have a few comments to add on Mark Driscoll and SGM. I am a member of an SGM church and am temporarily in Seattle for a few months on business. I have regularly attended Mars Hill Church where Driscoll preaches and I have gotten to know many people in the congregation.
Driscoll used to be involved in the emerging church movement but has recently denounced the wrong views of the Bible and of the Atonement found among its leaders. He does still try to appropriately adapt to Seattle culture without compromising the essentials of the Gospel. He is a talented comedian with an “in your face” personality. People either love him or hate him; someone even attacked him with a knife while preaching! He is known as the “cussing pastor” for a reason. Recently Driscoll gave a public teaching Sunday morning on birth control complete with graphic descriptions of everything you might imagine. Some of the free downloadable messages on the church web site are rated “Mars Hill-17” or MH-17 to warn parents about letting their kids hear the adult content. I am not making this up.
The church culture at Mars Hill is very free-wheeling compared to SGM. There are small groups, but only a small percentage of church attendees are in one. I haven’t seen any signs of homeschooling or courting anywhere. In short, at Driscoll’s church everything seems completely opposite to SGM culturally, but doctrinally they are very similar, i.e. Reformed.
Speaking at the upcoming conference with Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill is not only CJ Mahaney, but also John Piper. These 3 men have been more closely associated the last year or so despite obvious cultural differences.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Jen –
Glad your here. I’ve been hoping a Christian and a woman whose already been through this whole process shows up.
In terms of areas of problems with SG:
1) Church discipline system designed for abuse (that one is covered on my blog)
2) Culture where questioning of leadership is strongly discouraged
3) Tremendous focus on the local church almost exclusively
4) Culture of constant critiquing of other people’s moral status (probably designed to undermine self esteem).
Since all this seems to be coming from the top I’d say the problem is the denomination. Plus (TIC)
etc….
Basically pretty substantial spiritual abuse and institutionalized at that.
As for the sex stuff. Jen you know me well enough I try and avoid arguing the truth of theology. Given your assertions how would you explain the Barna data (#72)?
January 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
MarsHillGuy,
Welcome to the site, and thanks for your comment.
I still don’t know what to make of Mahaney and Driscoll together. I guess Reformed doctrine is about the only “hill to die on” that is left? :-) Go figure!
January 20th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Kris, I wasn’t necessarily looking for personal advice, although I appreciate your attempt to stay away from that, but rather what sets SG apart from other denominations. Isn’t their stance on church discipline a very typical stance for Reformed Baptists?
CD, thanks for delineating the problems in SG. I have read your article about this on your blog already. I wasn’t too happy to see it. ;-) I was wondering if you would explain what you mean by “4) Culture of constant critiquing of other people’s moral status (probably designed to undermine self esteem).”
Regarding Barna’s statistics, well, you’re the “sociologist” of the two of us. ;-) But if I were to guess, it might be more of a backlash-type reaction to the lack of grace/focus on “rules” found in so many evangelical, and especially fundamental, churches. Since this issue was forced upon me to examine for myself, I have noticed a striking pattern. The more rules there are, the more likely they are to get broken.
For example, I heard a story recently that really impacted me. A pastor was at a mall wearing a nice suit. He was strolling through the outdoor mall, enjoying the day and minding his own business, when he came upon a sign which said, “Stay off the grass” and another which said, “Don’t jump in the fountain.” Before he saw those signs, he had absolutely no intentions of either walking on the grass or jumping in the fountain, but as soon as he saw those signs, there were only two things he desperately wanted to do — break the rules!
Now this concept can apply to individual rules, as above, or it can greatly impact a whole lifestyle. In my journey out of patriarchy, 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.
No one likes to be told what to do, which is probably why so much is being written to help wives become more submissive. We naturally chafe when our husbands order us around. (I’ll save the rest of that for another time.) So even if the rules are perceived to come from the Bible, most of these external rules are just that — external and man-made — so there is a rebellious spirit that rises up in most of us and it has to come out somewhere. Seeing the sexual nature of our culture today, that is a natural expression of dealing with that inward rebelliousness of chafing against the system. Obviously, it doesn’t matter if you are already married or not, as seen by the figures you quoted from Barna.
Is that the only reason for the increased immorality among professing Christians? No. Absolutely not. I think plain ol’ self-centeredness has a lot to do with it as well, although that may not explain any rise among Christians as compared to others.
Perhaps if I think on it, I may come up with some other explanations as well, but I’m really tired right now. Good-night. :-)
January 20th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Hi folks -
Suggestion here – for the good of the blog.
Let’s keep the discussion toward SG at this point and move other conversations to email and/or directly related boards. That way, your wonderful hostess will be able to keep focus and not be pulled into discussions that are better held elsewhere.
Thanks in advance – gb
January 20th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Excellent suggestion, gbts
January 20th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Hi Jen,
Welcome to this very fast growing blog!
“After my last utter failure at finding a church, I thought I would try a SG church next. Hmm. After reading this thread, I wonder if I would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Obviously it’s not nearly as extreme as where I came from, but am I seeing some potential red flags here?”
I’m glad you read this thread and I hope that you take the time to read more of the blog. Kris has been doing a great job moderating along with the support of her husband. I’m sure that you aren’t looking for any “personal advice”, but this blog is here to help people like you, and I trust that you will find this to be a valuable resource. I’m sure that Kris and others will be more than happy to answer any of your questions or respond to any observations you may have.
I hope that you enjoy your visit!
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.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Mahaz,
You said:
“Those who are not married, specifically older adults, seem to have a ‘mark’ upon them.”
My experience is that is true in many other churches, also. The pastors at my SG church have gone out of their way to make older singles feel part of the church. The pastors do hold us single men responsible for our unmarried state due to our lack of initiative, though. This idea may be the “mark” you are talking about, but if that mark helps us face our sin and deal with it, maybe it is worth it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 am
SGMsingle -
Um, I am puzzled by this sentence in your comment:
What sin could you possibly be talking about? Paul very clearly stated in I Corinthians 7 that if a Christian can remain single without encountering problems with lust, he (or she) should do so, as he will have an easier time devoting his life to the Lord.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Hi SGMsingle,
Thanks for your comments. I have seen an outreach to the singles and my local SGM church as well. My comment was specifically focused on the pressure applied in the courtship ideology. Though I understand it is to serve as a biblical “guide” and approach toward marriage, I have seen the concept taken to a legalistic extreme within the church. In fact, I have had a conversation with a Pastor of an SGM church about the tendency in our church culture to treat courtship as a “pre-engagement.” I believe this is very unhealthy.
Also, I do not see biblical justification in labeling someone in an unmarried state as sinful. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, “I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness. ”
Mahaz
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
Hi Everybody,
I’m will be interested to see the discussion comparing Mormon culture to SGM culture, because when I was in SGM, I had also thought it seemed very Mormon in many ways, but I was never involved in Mormonism so it’s interesting to read Mahaz’s remarks.
I did know some Mormons and they always had a “Family Night”, and the same kind of things was encouraged within SGM. SGM encouraged “Family Nights” and “Date Nights” (for just the married couples of course!), that struck me was being similar to what the Mormons practiced. In fact, I used to wonder if Carolyn Mahaney had come out of a Mormon background because of the way she seemed so attached to these kind of structures. She drove a car with a bumper sticker that read, “I Love My Family”.
I do think its interesting that so many people notice this about the culture of SGM. While I agree with Mahaz that, “there are aspects of the Mormon culture and the Sovereign Grace culture that serve our society well” in that it keeps people focused on essentially wholesome pursuits, I think its also harmful because it gives people the impression that being a Christian involves limiting the expression of one’s faith to SGM’s predefined modes that they dictate for you to follow.
Sure, Mormons can seem wholesome and law abiding, but their gospel has no power. In the same way Mormonism lacks power, so does SGM. You have form, but no power.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 am
I be wary torry about the all those mistakes I be making in my posting above right now. I need to be sleeping and then I will go to bed, now. You all have fun and please forgive Claireon for her not being knowing how to talk and typing good.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Claireon…
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 am
Yes, the Mormon church has for years emphasized Monday evenings as “Family Home Evening” (FHE). I was shocked when I began to become immersed in my local Sovereign Grace Church to discover that many SGM families have designated Monday nights as their “Family nights!”
Is this bad? No! In fact, I think our society could do very well to designate times for family intimacy, particularly in light of our very hectic lives. Nevertheless, I do agree that anything that we do in life without Christ at the center lacks power for personal transformation. I pray that the families within SG that have taken upon these type of family traditions are doing so with God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s power.
And yes, I would agree that Sovereign Grace Ministries as an organization, or a box, lacks power. However, I would also say that Billy Graham’s Evangelistic Outreach, or the Assemblies of God, the Presbyterians, the “Word-of-Faith” churches, or the Catholics all lack power if those who support their mission lose sight of the Great Commission through the personal work of the Holy Spirit, who endows us with power to be a witness for Christ and His gospel of grace.
Based upon the discussions in this blog and my own observations, I am very cautious of the cultural trends of SGM. However, I would like to make it clear that my caution stems only from a desire to seek the Living Christ before I seek an organization. However, I am convinced that as we press into our Resurrected Lord, He will direct us to a place of fellowship with other brothers and sisters in the family of God. At this point in my life, it happens to be at a Sovereign Grace Church.
I pray, believe, and know that He will direct the course of His universal body as He works through the imperfect local church.
Mahaz
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Kris and Mahaz,
The sin I was referring to was “our unmarried state due to our lack of initiative”.
In other words, if we are unmarried because we are too lazy or scared to initiate a relationship, we are in sin.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
SGMsingle,
Very respectfully………..this is bunk.
Maybe if you’re not sharing the Gospel with people because you’re too lazy or scared, THAT might be a sin. But getting married? Nope.
The only Scriptural standard for sin in singleness is if you are deliberately not making effort to get married even as you succumb to the temptation of lust. Otherwise? The Bible almost has more directly positive things to say about singleness in relationship to your Christian experience than it says about marriage.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am
gotta pipe in here…not a good argument. Being married or unmarried should in no way define being in sin. Unless, of course, you’re unmarried because you stay drunk all the time and like to beat people up random people…(a joke…kind of).
Being “scared” to initiate a relationship is a stretch. Does that just mean a “romantic relationship” or could it be any relationship? I’m “scared” to initiate a relationship with some folks – I know a guy who’s a much better golfer than I am, so I’m scared to play him. Is that sin?
Some people just aren’t cut out for marriage. Regardless of the reasons, and there are multiples, not being in a relationship does not equal being in sin. Some people truly enjoy the “single life” and all that it entails.
Don’t take this the wrong way SGMsingle, but I’m interested in hearing more about this. Perhaps it just reads wrong – are you referring to just the laziness part as the sin, or the not initiating a relationship part?
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 am
Mahaz,
I would agree with you that some of the overlapping characteristics of Mormonism and Sovereign Grace Ministries are actually wonderful things. There is nothing wrong with being family-oriented, or having family nights or date nights or whatever. There is nothing wrong with having a large family, or with women being homemakers. There is even nothing wrong with wanting to do courtship instead of date.
There’s nothing wrong with any of these things UNTIL it becomes difficult to distinguish them from the real tenets of one’s faith and not just something that one personally chooses to do to honor the Lord. And I think that that is where I saw things within SGM that made me nervous. Lawrence (and other posters) have said that I’ve created straw men with my generalizations about the Homeschooled Haleys and the Courtship Courtneys and the lack of marriages among the singles in the church we attended.
But I’ve always said that I was speaking in generalities, and that OBVIOUSLY, there would be exceptions. I believe that many SGM churches do not necessarily follow these patterns.
HOWEVER, when you get a “family of churches” that do exhibit major cultural trends like choosing courtship over dating (and I would CHALLENGE any naysayer on this one to point me to an SGM church that does NOT portray courtship as “wiser” or “more honoring to God” than dating), it’s basically inevitable that somewhere along the line, these things have been instituted in legalistic ways. Otherwise, given the wide range of personalities, more people would have deviated from those practices and the practices would not have become cultural norms.
I mean, unless courtship had been taught as “wiser,” “more Godly,” and simply a better way to find love than dating, you would not find an entire group of churches where this practice is the norm. Simple as that.
So when a behavioral practice NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE BIBLE is given this type of “unspoken doctrinal significance,” I think this is a problem. It’s a sign that SGM has created a narrower standard of desirable behaviors (“what honors God most”) than what the Bible calls for.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 am
Guy,
Laziness and fear are sins. One way these sins can be displayed is by a single man not taking the initiative to start a romantic relationship. If that lack of initiative is BECAUSE of these sins, then the man is sinning by doing nothing.
I realize there are valid reasons for remaining single, and I personally believe I myself have valid reasons. I still need to keep in mind that all of my best intentions and actions are contaminated by sin in some way. That means I need to be suspicious of my own heart and motives, and to repent if I realize I am remaining single for the wrong reasons.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 am
Kris,
You said:
“So when a behavioral practice NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE BIBLE is given this type of “unspoken doctrinal significance,” I think this is a problem. It’s a sign that SGM has created a narrower standard of desirable behaviors (“what honors God most”) that what the Bible calls for.”
Incredible insight…. truly incredible. In some ways, Kris, your comment has helped me more than you know! Though my time in SGM has been relatively short (approx 1 year), in that time, I have already adhered to “narrower standards of desirable behavior” that are not found in Scripture, but are found in my church culture. For the sake of anonymity, I won’t go into details, but I recently had a very painful experience as a result of my allegiance to one of these “unspoken doctrines” that are not clearly Biblical. It has been a true test of my faith.
I am thankful, however, that one of my Pastors at my local SGM church initiated a conversation with me where he admitted that our church’s cultural tendencies in a specific area contributed to some of the pain and confusion in this circumstance I was involved in. With true humility, he admitted his desire to be used of the Lord to bring some balance to this area of legalism (dysfunction) in our church.
As a result of this encounter, though painful, the wisdom and counsel I have received from my pastoral oversight has compelled me to stay plugged into this church.
I truly appreciate this blog. It is a wonderful sounding board. Thank you for your prayers and administrative efforts as it has attracted a large base of readers!
Blessings,
“Mahaz”
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 am
Steve,
You said,
“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.”
By way of integrity, I need to clarify that my church DID have plurality of leadership. There wasn’t one pastor w/ oversight responsibilities for our church. What I was trying to communicate (but not have been very effective at … I’m on some heavy-duty pain meds today that have me in a bit of a cloud) … was that giving one man the power to determine when he “felt” my husband’s heart had been thoroughly “taken to task” (a Puritan cliche that was commonly used in our church) is very dangerous. I also think it plays into, what I believe is, a competition among pastors to somehow prove themselves to to those in authority over them that they are “unapologetically ruthless” (again, their term, not mine) in the dispensation of discipline.
Also, interesting discussion here on the parallels between Mormonism and Sovereign Grace Ministries. I think anytime man adds a lot of extra-biblical requirements to the gospel in an effort to keep people on the straight and narrow, you run the risk of setting up a “form of godliness” that denies God’s power.
I mean, it sort of stands to reason that if you have all of these people in your life pointing out your sin and questioning your motives; you home school your children and severely limit their interaction with the outside, unbelieving world; you don’t allow your children to leave the home (especially girls) until marriage; you have modesty checklists; you set up approved reading lists; you disallow members to have group Bible studies; etc., etc. … how much power do you really need?
As indicated by book titles such as The Enemy Within,” (an exposition on the writings of puritan John Owen, which SGM fully subscribes to) Sovereign Grace has completely minimized the validity of spiritual warfare in a Christian’s life. The enemy is no longer what we see identified in Eph 6 but our own evil hearts. And their panacea for that “lifelong battle” are the “means of grace” that we’ve identified over and over in this blog.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 am
Dennis,
I was in a word of faith for 6 years. 5 fold ministry is no guarantee of balance. If it’s not the pastor it will be the prophet or apostle lording it over everybody. Everyone runs to them to get a word,then the pastor gets jealous. I have seen that to. Then of course the pastors wife gets involved because her husband isn’t center stage.
Then there’s AOG who doesn’t even recognize those giftings. I no longer buy into “offices” exist today but there are giftings in all 5 areas definately. Try and bring that into a house church and it will be a disaster. Been there done that in small groups in word of faith,people prophecying over each other….. but then the pastor stopped it because there was no supervision and he was right because it was incredibly screwed up.. people hearing what they want to hear.
In alot of ways I wish I were a cessionist I don’t know that I would have gotten so messed up in bad theology and churches. (Lord forgive me but he knows my heart ,and HE GAVE ME A NEW HEART FOR GOODNESS SAKES )
Third wave charismatics have alot to learn from the later rain crowd circa 1980′s but they are not listening. I stay clear because I know where they are headed.
Bapticostal,cal-armenia ( or whatever it’s called) without the patriarchy is the way to go for the future. If persecution gets so bad here in the US that we have to start meeting in houses so be it,but it better fit that model. First century has ALOT of holes in it and I’m not hanging with people that worship crystals on the side.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
Re: Comments #159 and #160,
I hope it’s okay for me to pipe in here because I too am single!! (for my sins … wait, no … i didn’t mean that! ;)
Guy you wrote; “Don’t take this the wrong way SGMsingle, but I’m interested in hearing more about this. Perhaps it just reads wrong – are you referring to just the laziness part as the sin, or the not initiating a relationship part?
I would totally agree and concur with what SGM single responded to. There weren’t any explicit sermons in the SGM church about this, but while I was in SGM some of the young people from the church in Wales came back from New Attitude (the youth conference) and said that one of the sermons by Al Mohler was dedicated to “kicking the young men’s backsides” into gear and telling them to get out there and “find women”.
My question to that (which was never answered) was – well why then does Paul actually say that it is BETTER not to get married?
I appreciate that there may be some men who do resist getting married for more selfish reasons, but is this something that really needs to be preached at international conferences? Won’t there be a tempation to go to the other extreme (as we began seeing in the SGM churches in the UK) and seeing young couples getting married before they were ready?
PS: This is off-subject but I was reading about the discipline of the Lord last night in the Bible. It says that the Lord disciplines those He loves. Now I was never approached by the church leaders during my two years in the church until those final meetings where they drudged up their two years of concerns about me. Does that mean that they actually didn’t love me? Because if they did then why did they remain silent until it was too late? Just a wondering. Thoughts on a postcard.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Hi Everyone!
Similarities to the Mormon Church I see in SGM:
1. One central figure at the top (CJ)
2. A movement that evolves with special revelation given to their prophet , thus the swinging from heavily Charasmatic to more reformed.
3.Emphasis on performance and getting rid of sin
4.Little emphasis on the power of the Holy Spirit
5. Very little emphasis on spiritual warfare, but more on the believer’s sin being the culprit
6.Huge emphasis on family, courting, stay home moms, modesty, large families
7.All counsel is coming from within the church
8. Most fellowship takes place within the church and other member’s homes
9. Group think mentality mandated from the those in leadership
10. Higher up you go in leadership, the more you know
11. Demotivational management of one’s hearts (type of brain washing CD brought up)
12. One translation of the Bible strongly encouraged from the top (ESV)
13.Children raised in the movement, can’t think outside the box
14.Extra books added to the Bible and strongly encouraged to read
15. Special language that you only hear at SGM.. How can I serve you! What are some Evidences of grace that you see in my life? Can I bring you an observation? We will be having a MEET-ing! WE will be a reading church! etc. etc.
16.Girls encouraged to marry young and within the church
17.Very tired and overworked women, and a bunch of just really nice guys
( no wild adventurous types…. no room for “wild at hearts”. Maybe singing Karyoke is wild though!:D
18.Similar unspoken laws: don’t talk, think or feel
19.Controlling spirit in the air
20. Twisting of Scripture to make their point
These were just a few that I could come up with. Did I miss any?
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Oh…I forgot one… the shunning when you leave!;-)
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
Hi Kelly,
Thanks you for your imput. I can appreciate all of your concerns. I still believe in the 5 fold minisrty and in house church. It is NOT about authority, it is about equipping the saints. NOBODY should be lording it over anyone! We are all equal in authority. It is not a hierarchy. Here is the link to an excellent FREE book on house churches and the 5 fold ministry.
http://www.dawnministries.org/freedownloads/additionalbooks/housesthatchangetheworld/view
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Hi all,
I think we all agree on what church sould NOT be. Controlling, manipulative, authoritative, domineering, abusive, condemning, judgemental, exclusive, elitist, etc etc. For what it is worth, here is how I see how it should be when we come together before the Lord to gather in HIS Name. If I have a teaching, I should be free to share it. If you disagree with my teaching, you need to be free to say it was a bunch of bologna, There needs to be open and free discussion about the teaching, prophecy, worship etc. All are free to participate in whatever calings and giftings that the Lord has given. The body needs to be able to funtion as a WHOLE, not one member dominating the entire meeting.
My teaching might last 10 – 15 minutes. Anyone can interrupt me ant ANY time to ask a question or refute what I am saying. There may be 2 or 3 others who also have a teaching or a prophetic insight into the word, while the others judge what is being said (1 Cor 14). There is a time for all to pray out loud for whatever the Lord has put on their hearts. God is a God of order. So the elders, those who are mature in the Lord and called to be overseeres, encourage us to stay focused on the Lord and to keep things in order. But never in a domineering fashion, always with gentleness and kindness. And we are free to disagree with each other on any point at any time.
It is a TRUE family get together just like a big family at meal time. ALL are allowed to talk and share what is on their heart.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Dennis,
I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. If I were in an area of this country where I had no other choice like rural and wilderness areas I would definately consider it. But then I’d worry about the isolation and lack of solid input from others.
I’m not trying to cause a problem I’m just trying to avoid people having to be re-discipled in 10 years if it goes wrong.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Wow, excellent thoughts, everybody.
Mahaz, I’m so glad that you are having an experience where your pastor has responded to your concerns. One of the things I’ve tried to say, over and over again, is that within SGM, there are obviously many wonderful, sincere, well-meaning, and responsive pastors who DO wish to humbly serve their people. It’s great to hear a report about one of them…and that somebody “official” within SGM will actually talk openly about legalism.
You may not wish to share this, but I’m sure others would be interested in hearing a little of your journey from the Mormon church to SGM.
SGM Casualty, I think you just summed up two of the biggest issues that people have discussed here – the overwhelming emphasis on “the enemy within” (at the expense of acknowledging the enemy without), and the “ruthless” discipline. I am curious about why being “ruthless” about discipline would seem even remotely desirable to a pastor? I would think that any pastor who actually lives with a consciousness of his own sinfulness would approach church discipline with a tremendous amount of hesitation, fear, and trembling. After all, if one knows one is sinful, how can one be absolutely certain that at least some of one’s perceptions of another person are not tainted by one’s own sin? Or even some of one’s own desire to discipline the person in the first place? (This sort of goes back to how I view the practice of “bringing observations” as practically the antithesis of true humility.)
Kelly, I agree with you about how sometimes, it’d be so much easier to just be a cessationist!! Prior to our SGM experience, we spent several years in a church where the pastor was regarded as “a true prophet.” For a long while, we believed in his “prophetic gifting” right with everybody else…and he no doubt did deliver some true prophecies along the way…but in the end, it was just WAY too confusing to muddle through what was true and what wasn’t, because everything was presented as, “Thus saith the Lord thy God unto thee…” (Yes, God apparently speaks in King James English! :-) )
Dan, I am baffled right along with you about why singleness has been preached against at SGM in recent years. It’s almost like they go from one extreme to the other with some of these things. I can see how marriage is a good thing for most people, but if it really were that vital for everybody, the Bible wouldn’t contain so many passages that extol the good parts of singleness.
Freeda, your list about the similarities between Mormonism and SGM is interesting. One thing I’d have to say, though, is that the Mormons I’ve known are MUCH more connected than SGM folks with the communities they live in. Most of the Mormons I know have their kids in public schools, where their kids are often the star students (and great examples for their church). Although they seem to have their closest friendships within their church, they still associate with people from their neighborhoods in ways that at least my SG friends did not. In that way, SGM folks are even more segregated from the rest of society than Mormons are. (And yes, I know there are exceptions! I’m just speaking from my own limited experience, where the SG folks I knew were freaked at the thought of their kids riding their bikes with the other children in the neighborhood. It seemed so oddly fear-based.)
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Kris,
Actually, CJ himself has devoted quite a bit of energy to talking about the dangers of legalism. I think members of some of his churches would do quite well to listen to and meditate on a sermon he preached called, “Enjoying Grace and Detecting Legalism.”
In it, C.J. cited seven evidences of legalism:
1. You are more aware of and affected by your past sin than you are the finished work of Jesus Christ. You are paralyzed by condemnation.
2. You are more aware of areas in which you need to grow than of the cross – you are more aware of what you are presently doing than of what Christ has done for you, and whatever you are doing, you feel that it is not enough.
3. You live thinking, feeling, and believing that God is disappointed in you and not delighting you.
4. You assume God’s acceptance is dependent on your obedience, so you make a list of things to do, often Biblical directives. But beware – the study of the Bible is never a basis for God’s acceptance of you, nor are any other spiritual disciplines.
5. You consistently experience condemnation. The way out of condemnation is actually to be less aware of our sin and more aware of what Christ has done for us.
6. You have an undue concern for what people think, motivated by pride.
7. You lack joy.
In the sermon, CJ talks about “spinning the plates of legalism.” It is quite a compelling sermon, and can be found on the Sovereign Grace website.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
re: #162
SGMsingle said:
“Laziness and fear are sins. One way these sins can be displayed is by a single man not taking the initiative to start a romantic relationship. If that lack of initiative is BECAUSE of these sins, then the man is sinning by doing nothing.
I realize there are valid reasons for remaining single, and I personally believe I myself have valid reasons. I still need to keep in mind that all of my best intentions and actions are contaminated by sin in some way. That means I need to be suspicious of my own heart and motives, and to repent if I realize I am remaining single for the wrong reasons.”
How can the man be sinning by doing nothing unless the Holy Spirit has placed it in his heart that he is marry a certain person? (and I’m not talking about some nut that gets it in his head that a certain someone is “the one” no matter what the woman says…) It’s not like you should just go out fishing, hoping to see what gets caught on the hook….
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Hi Kris,
When I speak of the prophetic, I am not talking about “Thus saith the Lord”. I am speaking of the things that are bing discussed right here on this site. People’s eyes are being opened! That is the prophetic! Being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND and DISCERN spiritual maladies and abususes. Being able to call a spade a spade. Knowing what God’s heart is concerning a matter. TRUELY understanding and applying the word of God through a word of knowlwdge or a word of wisdom. There is MUCH of this taking place right here on this web site. We are BEING and HAVING church, right here as we all come together to discuss these very important SGM issues. EVERYONE is free to express what exactly is on their heart and what the Lord has revealed to them, without fear of rejection or condemnation! Isn’t that wonderful! You don’t get to experience that very much within the 4 walls of most church buildings. It is not about “house church” – it is about FREEDOM IN CHRIST, wherever that can be found! Many are finding that freedom RIGHT HERE!
Thank you again Kris for the wonderful job you are doing in moderating this site. So many are being blessed. To God be the Glory for what He is doing here through you and all the others who are participating. This is wonderful!
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Dennis,
Thanks for your kind words. I do understand what you are saying about the prophetic, and your thoughts about “having church.” I’m just not at that place where I think we should feel compelled to give up the many good aspects of “church as an organized institution.”
I realize that the term “prophecy” can mean different things to different people. At SGM, “prophecy” seemed to mean when people felt led to read certain passages of Scripture. I had no idea, in fact, that this was considered “prophecy” until someone once talked about how great it was that “the gift of prophecy” had been so active in a meeting when several people had gone to the microphone to read their Bibles to us.
Finally, “prophecy” can have an even more general meaning, as you use the term.
I am encouraged by how much thought and analysis you’ve given your own church struggles, Dennis. I appreciate your different point of view, and I think you have given us much that is thought-provoking.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Hi Kelli,
You said, “I’m not trying to cause a problem I’m just trying to avoid people having to be re-discipled in 10 years if it goes wrong.”
We are all being re discipled right here on this web site! I think that God is always having to re-disciple us. Everyone has been through bad chuch experiences and wrong doctrines. “Churches” go wrong all the time. I have never found one that is right, including house churches. This site is the best fellowship I have had compared to any church I ever attended! So again, it is NOT about house church, it is about FREEDOM in Christ! Free to be exactly what God has made me, and free to function accordingly. Just try to picture what it would be like for all of us on this web site to come together for fellowship. That to me is what the church should look like when we get together.
We don’t have to agree whether the gifts are still in operation today! We don’t need to divide over that. We can study it, discuss it,. pray about it etc together and agree to disagree when necessary, just like we are all doing here. Isn’t it great!
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hi Kris,
Thanks for the reply. It is very obvoious, that we are all a work in progress. We are encouraging and sharpening one another in love. There are great insights to be found here on this site. I have learned so very much over the past several weeks. I am still utterly amazed at what God is doing here! We are all learning much about grace, mercy and healing. Deprogramming can be a long and painful process, but the end fruit is FREEDOM. Gal 5 says it is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us FREE!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Hi Kris,
I wanted to confirm what you said about the abuses in the prophetic realm. There is so much nonsennse and pablum, that most people would rather not mess with it at all. My wife and I have heard some very nastly and harmful “prophecies” over the years. It seems like most of the “Thus saith the Lord” is really “Thus saith my religious imagination”. Some of us just love to look and sound spiritual! That is why people need to be able to freely say “Thus saith the congregation – Please sit down and shut up!”
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Dennis -
Your line is hilarious: “Thus saith the Lord” is really “Thus saith my religious imagination.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hi SGMSingle -
It just strikes me that the constant “being contaminated by sin in some way” is a recurring theme that doesn’t seem to be grounded in freedom. If I walk around all day focusing on my failures (i.e., sin), then it probably won’t be long before I realize that I’m worthless and shouldn’t be allowed to continue to walk. What is that witness? I can’t very well share the Gospel to folks that need it, because they’re going to look at me and say, “well…it didn’t do him a lot of good” and run the other way.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Hi Guy,
You are so right. Why all of this morbid preoccupation with “indwelling sin.” The bible teaches us that we have been crucified with Christ, buried with Him in baptism, and raised to a newness of life in the Holy Spirit. Don’t they believe Jesus when He said from the cross, “It is finished”. Does SGM want to help God out and ADD to His already finished work?
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Dear Guy behind the scene,
“If I walk around all day focusing on my failures (i.e., sin), then it probably won’t be long before I realize that I’m worthless and shouldn’t be allowed to continue to walk. ”
My husband equates it to being on a diet and studying a Pizza Hut menu for support.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
So, I’m curious in regards to post 162, what is the label of the sin for a woman who is single above the age of 25 or whatever the common age is to be married within the SGM church? Or, is it a sin for the woman?
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Kris -
You asked for my testimony on coming out of Mormonism into SG. Well, I have posted below my spiritual story. Please keep in mind that I wrote a good portion of this while I was outside of any fellowship with believers, and therefore, some of it may come across as a bit cynical. Nevertheless, I have amended parts of the story toward the end to show how I eventually landed in a Sovereign Grace Church.
______________________________________________________________________________
My mother and father were raised in nominal Christian families in a wealthy New England suburb. As they entered adulthood, they embraced an eclectic mix of alternative spirituality, eventually attending Maharishi International University, founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This balding, white-bearded, guru helped popularize Hindu practice in America through the introduction of Transcendental Meditation.
As a young child, I recall my father recounting stories of traveling to France, where he participated in a Transcendental Meditation program that taught TM students the ability to levitate. As a young boy, I was fascinated that my father could fly! This TM-Sidhi Program, or Yogic-Flying, is believed by devotees to manifest a Maharishi Effect, exerting a positive influence on society and the individual practitioner.
This ethereal practice had little positive influence on my parents relationship. Shortly after my third birthday, Mom and Dad finally divorced after many unhappy years of marriage. Custody of the four children in my family was granted to my mother. We would spend alternating weekends with my father.
When I was five years old, my father attended a Christian church with his new girlfriend. This Pentecostal Church of the Foursquare Gospel was unlike any congregation he had ever visited. During the musical portion of worship, people danced, clapped, cried, and spoke in unknown tongues that were thought to be a heavenly language endowed upon believers by the third member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. Words of prophecy were spoken in these services. Gifted individuals in the congregation, believing to possess a prophetic mantle, were the mouthpieces of God on earth. They gave direction, clarification, and encouragement. My father, already prone to mystical experiences, found a new home. He became a tongue-talking, bible thumping, Holy Spirit filled, Born Again Christian. He did not completely absolve himself of his eastern meditation practices, incidentally. He simply applied a different label. In 1986, Dad remarried an evangelical Christian who was an elementary school teacher and sixteen years his younger. My stepmother was a zealous Pentecostal that eventually left her teaching career to pursue full time ministry. She was known as a witty bible teacher, evangelist, and prophetess. They divorced seventeen years later.
My father and stepmother’s religious fanaticism disgusted my mother. She became more indignant as they began a pattern that would last throughout my childhood of evading financial responsibility. My mother was forced to assume the role of sole provider, becoming a model, and later a successful businesswoman. Being the youngest of the four children, this is the mother I knew: beautiful, strong, independent, and extremely critical. Gone was the nurturing homemaker I heard about from my siblings. In 1987, my mother also remarried. My stepfather was a successful Architect, lover of classical music, theatre, and an agnostic. An honest, hard working, ethical man that valued education, Ken became my father figure. He made his best, and often unsuccessful attempts, at being rational when my mother’s emotions erupted violently. They also divorced seventeen years later.
As a child, my loyalties were divided between Ken and my biological father. I became an ardent music student, spending a large portion of my childhood involved in musical activities, and pursuing the mastery of the Saxophone, the instrument my step-father played in his youth. I became indoctrinated in religious fanaticism shortly after my biological father’s conversion. My childhood was a war between religion and reason.
At six years old, I said the Sinner’s Prayer and became a Born Again Christian, and was heavily influenced by the ultra-charismatic segment of the church.
I saw an angel and demon at an age when most children still have imaginary friends. The angel was, ironically, at my mother and stepfather’s house. He had golden hair, a white flowing robe, and stood about eight feet tall. I knew that the angel was there to protect me from the hordes of demons that possessed the bodies of my unsaved mother and stepfather. I saw the demon in my father’s car. Another irony. This demon, with a gnarled and bloody face, was sitting in the backseat of my father’s green station wagon. My dad approved of and encouraged these visions, and taught me how to expel the demons set on attacking me. He was proud to know that his youngest son had a supernatural gift with the ability to see into the spirit world.
I was fascinated with God, angels, demons, heaven, and hell. On some weekends with my father, I would fall asleep listening to testimonies of people who had near death experiences, visited a literal hell, and returned to warn people about it. Hell was a torturous place where homosexuals were chained together in a lake of fire, and people like my stepfather who had not accepted Jesus, were speared in the chest for eternity by scoffing demons. I was told and believed that Scientists had dug a hole to the center of the earth and recorded voices screaming in agony, thus proving the existence of Hell. At my father’s Pentecostal church, during several services over the course of a year, the Pastor lowered the lights and played recordings of these screaming voices. He would then use the recording as an opportunity to call people to Jesus’s saving grace.
Heaven was a much better place. It was the place I would go if I did not lose my salvation. I often watched a videotape of a man who claimed to have visited heaven when he was eight years old. The streets were paved with gold. The animals spoke. Heaven was filled with mansions, sweet smelling aromas, and angels with swords of fire surrounding the throne of God. The man who claimed to have this vision would revisit my life years later.
I brought my bible to elementary school and wore Christian t-shirts. One had a picture of a fish swimming against the tide. The shirt read, “Go Against the Flow.” The other shirt had a picture of an American Express Card, but was cleverly renamed, “Salvation Express. Don’t Leave Earth Without It.” Instead of a soldier with headgear commonly seen on American Express Cards, Jesus Christ with a crown of thorns was pictured on this “Salvation Express Card.” I wore those shirts with pride.
Rapture doctrine held a firm grasp on evangelical Christians in the late 1980s. The rapture is a belief that Jesus Christ will return and rescue faithful Christians from a painful time of tribulation preceding the end of the world. In 1988, a book was written called 88 Reasons Why The Rapture Could Be In 1988. My father and stepmother believed this book, and I became convinced, at eight years of age, that I would celebrate my ninth birthday in Heaven. No such luck.
The painful reality of life smacked me in the face at ten years old when my father and stepmother moved out of the city in which I lived. Their departure evoked many tears. They began a ministry endeavor, touring the United States with an evangelist who specialized in current events, prophesying the second coming of Jesus Christ and the end of the world. It was 1990 and the beginning of the gulf war.
I had the opportunity to spend an occasional weekend and summer break with my father during this time. This is when I learned that George Herbert Walker Bush was promoting a New World Order that would usher in the Anti-Christ, who some speculated to be Henry Kissinger, the German born American Diplomat. The rapture was still pending, and could happen at any time. Our society would become cashless, and all transactions would be processed via an electronic chip implanted on a person’s wrist or forehead. For those who refused the chip, beheading would soon follow.
At one of my father’s religious meetings in a small mountain community in northern New Mexico, I recall walking outside for a breath of fresh air. It was about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, and the sky was dark with ominous clouds and lightening on the horizon. I walked to the center of a field next to the home in which the meeting was being held, and prayed that lightening would strike. I was sure of my salvation, and wanted to die and enter heaven before I lost my salvation or the minions of hell descended upon the earth to usher in the Great Tribulation.
After that trip, I returned home to my mother and stepfather. Mom tried to hug me, but I resisted. I thought that she was full of the devil, literally. She often wondered why I resisted her attempts to show affection.
As my father and stepmother continued on the ministry road, I entered junior high. With my father’s evangelical Christian influence distanced, we occasionally attended the Church of Christ, Scientist. Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the late 19th century, focuses on bodily healing through divine science. The church has a strong metaphysical approach to religion and liberal interpretation of scripture. At other times, we attended the Church of Religious Science. Founded by Dr. Ernest Holmes, the Church of Religious Science is a New Thought movement focusing on the intelligence of God and manifestations of a divine presence within the diversity of faith traditions. As a family, we were not fully devoted to either of these organizations.
Junior high was a period of artistic growth. I became very involved in choir, theatre, and continuing education through band and private lessons on the Saxophone. For a few years, I was free from the overt religious indoctrination of my earlier, formative years. I received letters from my father occasionally, but he was mostly absent from my life. My mother and stepfather were very supportive of my extracurricular pursuits. These were mostly happy years.
When I was in the fifth grade, I had received a Book of Mormon from a classmate. A Navajo named Joe gave me the book, and I soon learned the Mormon theology that Joe was actually descended from a rebellious tribe, called the “Lamanites,” who would become “white and delightsome” as they accepted the Mormon gospel. Through middle school, I read the Book of Mormon in entirety.
My freshman year of high school, I became good friends with another member of the LDS church. Eventually, I was invited to meet with Mormon missionaries. Brian Jones, one of the missionaries, baptized me into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka The Mormon Church, on July 16th, 1995. I had spent the better part of my freshman year of high school investigating this new religion. I formed a friendship with Mitchell Smith, a Latter-day Saint and fellow member of the high school band. His family expressed a very genuine interest in me. I spent many nights at the Smith household asking questions about Mormonism. Eventually, my curiosity propelled the Smiths to invite me to their church.
The first Sunday I attended was a Stake Conference, a large gathering of smaller, local congregations (wards) throughout the area. I was instantly attracted by the appearance of the Mormon people. They dressed well, smiled, shook hands, hugged, patted each other on the back, and sang hymns with great gusto. My childhood experience in the extreme emotionalism of the Pentecostal church made the Latter-day Saint worship appear tame and refined.
I recall one of the leaders of the Stake giving his testimony about the truthfulness of the LDS church. During this testimony, he began to shed tears. I was impressed that such a professional looking man could express such deep emotion. The service ended with the popular hymn, How Great Thou Art. I left the service that Sunday knowing I wanted to become a Mormon.
In those days, in order to join the Mormon Church, the investigator was required to take a series of discussions with church missionaries. The missionary force was composed of mostly nineteen to twenty-one year old men. Two elders, as the young men are called, taught me the series of lessons over the course of several months. After reading the Book of Mormon and completing the discussions, I prayed that God would give me an indication on whether or not to join. I recall being overcome with deep emotion, and felt strongly that I had found religious truth in its most pure form. I asked the missionary, Brian, to baptize me.
My entire family was extremely concerned with my decision to join the Mormon Church. My absent father and stepmother were suddenly not so absent anymore, and moved back to the city in which I lived. During one particularly loving father-son encounter, Dad said, “Son, if you die today, you will end up in Hell.” My mother and stepfather were perplexed and concerned, and yet respected my decision, and even attended my baptism service.
A few months after my baptism, I was overcome with an awareness of sin in my life. Nevertheless, I believed that if I prayed hard enough, and was the best Mormon possible, somehow God would overlook any sinful tendencies, which incidentally included drinking iced tea and coffee. I attended early morning seminary, and became class President. My sights were set on serving a mission, like Brian, the missionary who baptized me, after graduating high school.
I became a very serious (and legalistic) individual during this time. I remember feelings of great pain and remorse when my stepfather, Ken, said to me, “what happened to the care free kid I used to know?” I loved Ken so much, and hated to disappoint him.
The strained relationship with my biological father continued, but during my junior year of high school, I found literature debunking the LDS church by Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Lighthouse Ministry” based in Salt Lake City. This “anti-mormon” literature was akin to pornography by faithful members of the church. I became confused, sad, and angry. I spent more and more time at the Smith household, seeking prayers and blessings from David Smith, Mitchell’s father. I was encouraged by members of the Mormon Church who confirmed how righteous I was, stating that the adversary (Satan) was focused on me because of my spiritual strength.
One late afternoon during my sophomore year of high school, finishing a long and stressful day, I believed I saw another angel. This angel, Moroni, was the divine being that visited the founder of the Latter-day Saint church, Joseph Smith, and revealed the contents of the Book of Mormon. I was comforted by this angelic presence, and I communicated with him my devotion to the Church.
In January of 1997, being my junior year of high school, I experienced a panic attack in the middle of the night. I began to fear for my life, and became convinced that if I died, I would spend eternity in Hell. Several days later, I visited my father and stepmother, and informed them of my decision to leave the Mormon Church. They, of course, were elated.
That night, I requested prayer from them. As they prayed, I began to shake violently, with tears streaming down my face. My dad believed that Moroni, the angel whom I believed to be my companion, was actually a demonic entity. My father began the first of what would become many encounters with exorcism over the course of the next few years. That night, after the passionate prayers and exorcism, I rededicated my life to Jesus Christ. I was Born Again, again. (Or at least, that was my theological understanding at the time).
With my father and stepmother’s help, I discarded all Mormon material that I had accumulated over the last two years. We ceremoniously ripped and burned the material. I made the announcement to the Smiths that I desired to leave the church. Word spread throughout the Mormon congregation like wildfire. I received tear-soaked letters, visits, and phone calls. One individual said, “With you wanting to leave the church, it is like we have experienced a death in the family.”
I composed a letter to my Mormon Bishop, stating the reasons for requesting that my name be removed from the records of the LDS Church. He responded that, due to the fact that I was not eighteen, he could not remove my name from church records without approval of David Smith. I decided it was not worth the effort, and ceased my efforts. Over the course of the next three years, I would return to the Mormon Church occasionally, trying to re-create the euphoric experience I encountered when first converting at fifteen years of age. It never happened.
My returned with full force to the Pentecostalism of my youth. My senior year of high school, the church I attended experienced a revival/renewal (associated with the Toronto Blessing). During these services people fell into trances, they shook on the floor, they laughed uncontrollably. I experienced visions of my future and was give “prophetic words” that my life was destined for full time ministry. My senior year of high school, while watching Benny Hinn on television, I experienced an improvement in vision after reaching my hands out to the television set as an act of faith in prayer. I went to my mother and Ken, claiming that I had been miraculously healed. Perhaps with this information, they would finally believe in Jesus! Indeed, the eye doctor confirmed that a slight improvement in vision had occurred. I discarded my glasses and contacts, though struggling for years after to read and see long distance, eventually returning to wearing glasses.
I was very successful in my Saxophone performance that year, and earned a scholarship to attend the local university. College would be paid in full. Though I cherished my saxophone and music, I was convinced that my life was destined for a higher purpose. I began listening to tapes of the man who claimed to visit Heaven when he was eight years old. I discovered that he was the founder of an unaccredited Bible School in Southern California. I applied and was accepted.
This was out of the question to my mother and stepfather. Our relationship was extremely tense, and I was convinced that Satan was using them to try to prevent me from fulfilling my destiny. This was confirmed when Ken, my stepfather whom I loved deeply, in a fit of rage and cursing at the dinner table called me a hypocrite. Because of our strained relationship and religious extremism, I was placed in therapy. This did not last long, and I was convinced it was another ploy of the devil to keep me from fulfilling my calling.
The summer after my graduation, I let my mother and stepfather believe that I had completed all the necessary paperwork to begin school at the university in the fall. In mid-June, they discovered that I had not. They knew I wanted to attend Bible College, and did not support these aspirations. My stepfather demanded that I return my professional model Saxophone and vehicle. I did so, and while my brother was driving me to my father and stepmother’s house, he punched the windshield of his vehicle, causing it to crack.
My relationship with my mother and stepfather ceased, and I was encouraged by my father and stepmother to pursue Bible College in Southern California. They purchased a plane ticket for me, and I made arrangements to leave. The night before leaving, I sent an email to friends and family, advising them of my intent to pursue a life of ministry. At midnight, there was a loud knock on the door. Friends that received this email gathered together with Mitchell Smith’s father, David. My father answered the door, and I listened from the bedroom, shaking and crying. David was concerned about my emotional state, and wanted to speak with me before I left. My father would not allow it. David became angry and said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not condone my actions. He asked of my father that I request permanent removal from church records. I complied with his request.
When I arrived in Southern California, I received an email from David, expressing his disappointment saying, “I wish you the best in the level of mediocrity you have embraced.” My mother and Ken did not know I had left my hometown until I called from a pay phone upon arrival in Southern California. We did not speak for over a year.
The spiritual abuse continued in Bible College. I was the recipient of exorcism prayers on numerous occasions. These exorcism sessions included being held down by six men, while the Pastor sat on my chest and attempted to cast out hosts of demonic entities.
This college taught a doctrine called “Warfare Tongues.” We were taught to combat spiritual entities through hours of loud, boisterous, prayers in English and our unknown tongues. We were encouraged to give our money through tithes and offerings. I emptied my bank account several times giving everything I had to the church while going hungry for days, believing that I would have a “ten fold” return on the money given. We were taught that the more money we gave, the more money we would receive through divine sources.
My second year of Bible school, my father and stepmother moved to Southern California to be a part of the congregation. Half way through the year, I quit school and fell into a deep depression that lasted for months. I demonstrated odd behavior at times, once being found hiding in a closet underneath a pile of clothes.
During this depressive state, I made contact with a former Saxophone teacher from my high school years. I decided to return to my hometown to pursue a music education degree. I made great strides musically, but internally was battling with thoughts that I had failed and thwarted my destiny by dropping out of Bible school. I became, once again, very depressed and dropped out of the university.
I returned to Southern California to finish my religious education. In December of 2001, a scandal rocked the church, and the Pastor that I listened to as a little boy, claiming to visit Heaven, was revealed to have been engaging in a homosexual affair with the youth pastor. I was devastated.
I moved states to attend a church that had been started by a former assistant Pastor who had been ousted from the congregation in California. There were several “damaged sheep” that came to this congregation after the church split. Eventually, both sets of parents divorced.
Over the last seven years I have worked in a field of business that has been very suitable for me. I made another effort toward ministry about three years ago, and attended a moderate Assembly of God congregation while volunteering with a missionary organization called Gospel for Asia. During this time, I began studying Islam. I read the Quran, and attended a Mosque on a few occasions. Eventually, I dropped out of the church scene all together, and convinced myself and others around me that I was no longer a Christian. I occasionally attended a Unitarian church.
I began to identify with Robert Ingersoll, a Humanist, who said the following in a document called The Liberty of All, written in 1877:
“If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men. It has been a constant pain, a perpetual terror to every good man and woman and child. It has filled the good with horror and with fear; but it has had no effect upon the infamous and base. It has wrung the hearts of the tender, it has furrowed the cheeks of the good.
This doctrine never should be preached again. What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.”
While in the height of unbelief, I became acquainted with a Pastor and his family that were affiliated with Sovereign Grace. They eventually invited me to attend church, though I struggled internally on whether to attend. It was at this Sovereign Grace Church that for the first time in my life I truly understood grace. Over the last year, I have begun to understand the importance of sound teaching, and am grateful not to be in a congregation with some of the charismatic excesses that I remember from my childhood.
It was at Sovereign Grace Church that Jesus Christ, though He had never left me, showed himself afresh to me as my only Savior.
As the hymn, Rock of Ages, says:
Could my zeal no respite know
Could my tears forever flow
All for sin could not atone
Thou must save and thou alone
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Mahaz,
One thing I need to mention about CJ’s points you list above is that he seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Preaching against legalism is awesome, but is it very effective if this type of sermon is followed by a talk about something like a “Modesty Checklist”?
Can you have it both ways, so to speak?
I don’t think the anti-legalism talk will have any “teeth” to it unless it includes specifics anyway. Until it addresses people’s tendencies to put too much stock into things like “courtship” – until CJ speaks out against some of Sovereign Grace’s own sacred cows like courtship and homeschooling – most SG people in his audiences are going to be sitting there thinking that little of this applies to them.
His point #4 seems particularly ironic, in light of SGM’s clearly demonstrated “culture” of depending on systems and checklists:
I can appreciate that he’s addressing legalism as something to avoid. But without clear examples – such as tackling exactly how something like a “Modesty Checklist” could so easily become a prime example of the very thing he’s discussing in point #4 – it seems like a sermon such as this one would just serve to lull the people into thinking they were NOT legalistic…because after all, “CJ is against legalism! He just preached against it! So our church must be against legalism.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Mahaz,
I was writing my comment #186 above while you were posting your story. I’m about to run out the door for a few hours and won’t have time to read it until later – but in advance, thank you so much for sharing it with us!
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Kris -
I understand the perception of double talk in reference to CJ’s sermon on legalism.
I suppose the question that comes to my mind is:
Where do we draw the line between not being legalistic and seeking ways to practically apply biblical principles to our daily lives?
I have been a part of churches (mentioned in my story above) where any form of piety was looked upon as wicked because it is “religious” or legalistic. However, the very people who lambasted pious living were living in the greatest hypocrisy, and demonstrating no Christian compassion or love. So, in some ways, the “pious theme” of Sovereign Grace has been so very appealing. I have had thoughts such as, “Oh, wow, biblical principles really can be lived out! It’s not just all talk!” I have been very drawn to CJ and other Sovereign Grace leader’s emphasis on “practical application.”
Thoughts?
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Nancy Drew,
The woman is not held responsible for lack of initiative. The man should lead, so until a man takes initiative the woman should just trust God that He will provide. Carolyn McCulley discusses this in detail on her blog.
http://solofemininity.blogs.com/
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Oh, and another thought on legalism.
So often we think of legalism as a way that we relate to each other in a social context. However, in its purest form, isn’t legalism really about how we relate to God? Legalists will pride themselves in earning God’s favor by their behaviors. However, we understand theologically that God is the only one who opens deaf ears and blind eyes. He is the one that saves, and the one that is truly sovereign over our very lives.
My encounters with SG folks has been that most of them have this doctrinal understanding, and so are trying to find practical ways to demonstrate their faith in a community. I have a hard time finding fault here, particularly since I have seen so little self-righteousness as pastors and others within SG have related to me and come along side me during periods of great trial.
This certainly does not dismiss anything that has been discussed on this forum or any experiences that are different than mine. These conversations are valid and needed! Nevertheless, I felt compelled to present another side of the coin from my perspective.
Cheers,
Mahaz
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hi Mahaz,
You asked a very good question: “Where do we draw the line between not being legalistic and seeking ways to practically apply biblical principles to our daily lives?”
I read a book one time entitled “Free to Obey”. We are no longer slaves to sin . We are servants of God. It is by His grace, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, that we receive the freedom to walk in the Light. The OT Jews tried to apply Biblical principles through applying the law. Appying Biblical principles can STILL become a law, even for those of us under grace. We do not need to apply principles when we have an intimate RELATIONSHIP with God. When we walk according the the Holy Spirit, all of these so called “principles” will be walked out. If we are trying to apply principles to our lives to keep us in line, then we are back under the law, and under the knowledge of good and evil.
The Holy Spirit produces FRUIT – not principles. This is GOD”S salvation and Jesus is the AUTHOR and PERFECTOR of our faith. He has given us a new heart where He has written His laws! I study God’s word, not because of a principle, but because I love His word, and I love God. If we tell people that they need to have “devotions” every day, then we have put them under the law. The same applies to church attendance, tithing/giving, prayer, bible study, etc etc. We should always do what we do because we love God, and not out of some sense of DUTY or principle.
God is after a relationship, not an application of principles. The Pharisses were great at applying their principles and making sure everyone else did also! We know how Jesus felt about their principles!
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
SGMsingle, thanks for the response.
I’ve never heard of this sort of thing (about the possible sin for an unmarried man). Is there an actual teaching on this directed towards men? I would be interested in what scriptures are used to apply this. I realize scripture talks about being lazy, but I’m wondering about specific scriptures about the sin of a single man? I can understand someone being personally convicted in this area, but if that was the case it wouldn’t be something taught church-wide.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Dennis,
Thanks for the quick reply. As I read your comments, the following scripture came to mind:
In Philippians, after Paul gives a wonderfully rich message on Christ in Chapter 2 verses 1- 11, he transitions to application in vs. 12:
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
I read that scripture and I am inclined to see that, though Paul gives a theological understanding that it is God who works in us, he does not release us from cooperating with the Holy Spirit to “work out” our salvation.
I suppose the danger therein is when a movement/organization gives spoken or unspoken rules on how that salvation is to be worked out. Homeschooling is certainly not a tried and true way to work it out. Courship is also not a tried and true way to work it out. However, that begs the question, can these practices be an evidence of the Holy Spirit’s fruit in someone’s life? The fruit of the Spirit comes from the Spirit, and leads to behaviors and practices, observable by men, that are perhaps uncommon to society.
However, I am also inclined to believe that if we pride ourselves in these practices then we are acting out of self-righteousness, and falling into the dangerous pit of legalism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Hi Mahaz,
I think that Phil 2:12 is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. What does Paul mean by “work out” your OWN salvation? I believe these blogs are an example of each of us “working out” of our OWN salvation. We are EACH discovering OUR OWN areas of bondage, hurts, legalism, oppression etc.
We are all having to “work out” our OWN salvation! SGM cannot work out my salvation, nor can any other church group or person! I need to work out my OWN salvation! I cannot work out YOUR salvation, and you cannot work out mine.
Paul starts out the verse by saying “As you have ALWAYS obeyed”!!! So this is NOT about their obedience! And he ends the verse with “For it is GOD that is at work in you BOTH to WILL and to WANT for HIS good pleasure! Salvation is GOD”S work from beginning to end! Jesus is the AUTHOR and PEFECTER of our faith! We do not perfect our faith – Jesus does!
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Nancy Drew (et al.),
Really, the issue about the whole “guy sinning by remaining single” isn’t a matter of the guy sinning by remaining single. Rather, it’s about a guy sinning if he believes he doesn’t have the “gift of singleness” Jesus and Paul talked about, yet insists on not pursuing the “gift of marriage” (either out of laziness [a sin] or cowardice/”fear of man” [a sin]).
The sin is the laziness and/or the pride that’s behind fear of others’ opinions of you. That laziness and/or pride is expressed in his actions. If his actions aren’t motivated by these sinful attitudes, then he’s not sinning.
They’re just trying to work through 1 Corinthians 7, folks. Seriously…! ;)
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Hi Travis,
If a man is ‘lazy” about pursuing a relationship with a woman, then maybe there is a deeper problem! And there is such a thing as “healthy fear” as in “work out your own salvation with FEAR and trembling.” Personally, I think all of this talk about fear and laziness in relationship to a single not pursuing a wife is very judgemental and also bogus.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Hi Travis,
Also, what about the Lord’s timing and the single brother waiting upon the Lord? What’s the rush and what’s all the fuss about single men pursuing a wife? Who are we to accuse another brother of being lazy when it comes to pursuing a wife? Who are we to judge another brother as being fearful? As we talked about above about the following scripture – “work out your OWN salvation”! Let the brother work out his OWN salvation! What business is it of anybody if he stays single? (Unless he is struggling with some form of immorality)
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I’ve been thinking about this conversation all afternoon as I’ve been out and about. I think Mahaz raises some excellent questions about where we can fit practical guidelines for holy living into a framework of “salvation by grace.”
I have to say that just like Mahaz, “Guy” and I were initially very attracted to SGM’s seriousness about holiness, and their willingness to talk about the nitty-gritty of avoiding sin. We’d come from a place where it wasn’t uncommon to overhear other leaders almost flippantly discussing their teenagers’ drug use or incarcerated boyfriends. Or for leaders to have potty mouths. Or for leaders to be involved in shady get-rich-quick schemes. Not all leaders were this way, of course, but enough of them had such a serious disconnect between the faith they claimed to profess and the way they lived their daily lives that it was difficult not to grow a little cynical once we ourselves “arrived” in the ranks of leadership.
So I’ve spent a lot of time over the past year considering the question of how we can honestly address the specifics of what constitutes holy living without veering into the dangerous quagmire of legalism.
I think for me, it all comes down to the question, “Through which nature do we live out a holy Christian life?” After all, every saved person has TWO natures, their old sin nature and their NEW nature, which is the mind of Christ.
Do we live holy lives through a focus on our sin and our potential for sinfulness? Or do we live holy lives because of the POSITIVE things that God calls us to DO (rather than not do) and because of HIS POWER at work within us, through our new nature?
I realize this is sort of like theological hair-splitting, but I think it is nonetheless important hair-splitting.
There’s been so much talk here about our sin nature. Some have said things to the effect that we can NEVER trust our hearts because everything we think and do is tainted with our sin nature. Following out this line of logic, this is almost like saying that rather than possessing TWO opposing natures (a sin nature and a new nature, or the “old man” and the “new man,”), we Christians just have ONE nature that’s occasionally good (like when we’re serving in the church, or when we’re reading our Bible, or doing something overtly “Christian”), but is usually just sort of muddling along, a big old blob of struggling forces, where the force of sin holds sway most of the time.
For our visual learners out there, I would say that a picture of this “single nature” Christian would be to imagine that before your conversion, you are a sculptor working with a mass of filthy clay, the dirtiest of dirty clay, with no hope of ever becoming clean or even really useful ever again. In the “single nature” model of Christianity, when you come to Christ, Christ begins adding new, clean clay to your filth. Or rather, YOU see yourself as mostly responsible for replacing bits of your own brown clay with pieces of Christ’s white clay, day by day striving to become cleaner. But it takes a constant awareness on your part, a continual effort to be on the lookout for if whatever you’re doing at the moment is suitable for the dirty clay or the clean, new clay. And if you’re not vigilant, it’s practically a given that the dirty clay will overtake the white clay, till all you’re left with is neither particularly dirty nor clean but instead just a giant blob of gray…and even when you think that a particular piece might be essentially clean, you’re not entirely sure if there’s not some dirt mixed in with it. You live in a constant state of questioning confusion as to what part of your sculpture is made out of clean clay and which parts are dirty and therefore not fit for the kiln.
The biblical picture of who we are in Christ, however, would be that once we become Christians, we are handed an entire lump of new, clean clay to work with, and God essentially says, “That old dirty lump? I’m not going to count that against you anymore. Just use the clean lump.” We are given the Holy Spirit, who is constantly at work within us to whisper new sculpting ideas for the white clay. The lump of dirty clay is still sitting on our workbench, but the more we focus our thoughts on the positive things that the Holy Spirit is telling us to do (“renewing our minds”), and the more we don’t even CONSIDER the lump of dirty clay to be worth our time and energy (“reckoning ourselves DEAD to sin and ALIVE to Christ”), the more beautiful our new, clean work of art becomes.
I know it’s an analogy, with the same limitations that hobble all analogies past a certain point, but I think it’s useful for the discussion here.
If the practical aspects of Christianity focus too much of our thinking and our energy upon avoiding that lump of dark clay on the workbench, we’re going to lose sight of what we OUGHT to be sculpting with the new, clean, and workable lump.
But more importantly, I think practical suggestions for holiness will simply turn us into neurotic messes, saddled with “analysis paralysis,” if we don’t start out with a clear picture of the reality of who we are in Christ. Unless we see our two natures – who we are in Christ, and who we used to be before Christ – as two separate and totally distinct entities, we will NEVER be able to relax and rest in what the Holy Spirit, as the Master Sculptor, is doing with our new nature. We’ll be far too focused on trying to pick out the bits of dirty clay from our clean clay, when we should instead be focusing on what we can make with the clean clay…and, worse, we might even get into that mindset where we get all hung up on picking OTHERS’ little dirty specks out of THEIR sculptures.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
A passage of Scripture that came to mind, after I’d posted comment #198, is Ephesians 2:1-10. Since this is my blog and I’m the moderator, and since this passage exactly reflects what I’m trying to get at above, I’m going to break my own rules for comments and post the whole thing here (and yes, I even copied and pasted it from biblegateway…I’m really living on the edge! :-) ):
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Mahaz,
That’s quite a story. Thankyou for telling it. I can relate to the Toronto Blessing part and the deep pentecostalism. Considering what you have been through a healthy emotional state means alot to Jesus, and I know you know that. God Bless you for the courage to keep hanging in there and to read this site. If you can keep your perspective and communication open with people you trust and maybe this site ,sounds like SG might be a good place for you for now.
I say this as I can relate in alot of ways. I attend a PCA and visit and charismatic church about every 3 months.( I tip toe back in slowly )
I have found New Life Ministry to be very helpful. http://www.newlife.com They have great resources and a call in radio program you can listen to online. I listened almost every day for 3 years after I got out of my bad churches.
If you still feel like ministry is for you don’t press yourself. I know alot of God’s word is already written on your heart. Relax and rest as long as you need to.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Kelly,
Is Newlife a ministry run by the guy who wrote “Toxic Faith?” I actually read that book just as I was leaving my atheist/agnostic phase, and a few weeks before I found the Sovereign Grace church. It was definitely a good, sobering book to read.
My faith has been toxic in many, many ways. Part of the reason I am even here, a part of this discussion, is because I’m not sure I trust myself that my faith even NOW is not toxic. Does that make sense?
Yes… rest, relax… Thank you for that encouragement. For so long all of my desires, ambitions, and dreams were toward “ministry,” and now I just want some sanity.
I see you were a part of Word of Faith churches. It sounds like we have a lot in common.
Take care.
Mahaz
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Yea ,Steve Arterburn. Hes “been there done that ” too. Thats why he wrote the book. Charismatic/pentecostal churches are also notoriously anti-intellectual. Even trying to finish college was difficult for me because I also had “the call to ministry ” thing going on. I had alot of trouble staying focused.
To be frank,just keep church attendance to once a week and if HFG seems to be ok then do it but I wouldn’t do more than that. Pursue the things that you find fun and mix with secular community efforts,whatever you enjoy !!! Pets are also therapeutic !!PEACE.
You have been entrenched in very HIGH DEMAND GROUPS… REST !!!! :>)
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Kelly,
Wow – yes, I did not finish college because of “the call.”
If you feel so inclined, e-mail me at jesawyer@gmail.com .
I’d love to ask a few questions outside the blog.
Thanks!
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
will do
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Boy, this is a really pithy discussion.
First of all, welcome Mahaz! Thank you for joining our discussion here! We value your perspective. I read your testimony. What a wild ride you’ve been on!
Coming from where you’ve been ying yanged back and forth from one extreme to another, I can see how your Sovereign Grace church has been a refuge for you. What a blessing to have found a pastor who could embrace you and bring more balanced instruction as to “a better way” to walk out your salvation.
With your mixed experience (to put it lightly), overcoming legalism is going to be a slow process. You’ve been manipulated for so long by well-meaning church members (from your variety of churches) who have all used the fear of eternal damnation to keep you in step with their agendas. And b/c you were exposed to this stuff at such a young age, I imagine overcoming all of the fears, misperceptions of God, confusion, etc. is going to be like peeling away layers of an onion. I know that’s how it’s been for me.
So I would encourage you to extract everything you can from these people who seem to be caring for you and providing you with a spiritual ER of sorts. I would also caution you (if I might be so bold) from trying to delve too deeply in some of the more serious issues presented here. You’ve already been through so much. I know where my vulnerabilities lie, and there’s wisdom in being cautious about how much you try to tackle for where you are in your walk.
And I hope that doesn’t come across as condescending at all! My heart just broke for you as I read your journey and would hate for this blog to stir up questions and confusion that God has not yet equipped you for. I just know that Sovereign Grace Ministries (then PDI) was a refuge for my husband and me for a long time as we were coming out of a charismatic ministry that gravitated toward extremes and some abusive practices. If well-meaning people would have pushed too hard to convince me of the error in the ministry (which some tried), I wouldn’t have been ready to hear it. I believe there were things that God genuinely wanted to deposit in me while I was there, and I was loyal to the people who had helped me through some difficult times.
I’m also not surprised at all that you would gravitate toward scriptures that emphasize our responsibility as a Christian. I agree wholeheartedly with Kris in her last two blog entries. The crux of it comes down to where our motivation comes from. I personally am of the persuasion now that making every effort to stay “in Him,” through having an intimate relationship with Him, is where all of the power is that we need to overcome sin and temptation.
I also do not any longer subscribe to the Puritan belief that our old nature still looms larger than life. And I wasn’t a casual student of Puritan teaching. I read the Puritan books hand over fist and wrote lengthy outlines so that I could review them regularly and easily. I think one outline on a book on repentance was like 40 pages. I gravitated toward their writings b/c they were so sincere and zealous. However, I believe now we HAVE been given a new nature but will always wrestle to “put off” the old nature with all of its wares and “put on” the new nature.
But all of that aside, Mahaz, look at where God has brought you already. It’s amazing. You could have just snapped or walked away from God altogether. But you didn’t. In all of your wanderings, you were in search of truth – and from such a young age. That’s remarkable. So I just have full confidence that 10 years from now your testimony will continue to grow as you learn more and more about Him, what He’s done for you, what He expects from you, and all that He has for you.
So feel free to look around, ask questions, and explore a deeper understanding of grace. But just don’t let yourself get bogged down too much. The good thing about the blog is you can monitor your involvement; it’s unobtrusive in that way. And God is faithful … I believe He has already sovereignly mapped out your journey as you learn to walk with “hinds’ feet on high places.’ And you’ll know what’s of Him by the fruit it bears in your life. One of my favorite scriptures in this regard is Isa 55:12. He promises, “You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace …” I love that scripture b/c that’s how you can identify God’s hand: He leads us forth in PEACE; He doesn’t push us from behind out of fear, whether it’s fear of rejection, disappointing Him, missing what He has for you, being deceived, etc.
Peace to you, brother!
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Mahaz,
I just finished reading your story. I would second what “SGM Casualty” said above (in comment #205). Considering where you’ve been, and considering the many positive things you’ve already shared about your SG church, it seems like you’re in a good place right now.
I believe that you can take comfort in God’s sovereignty in how He has led you thus far. I’d encourage you to relax and turn your trust even more fully to God, even as you allow yourself to ask the “hard questions.” But, as “SGM Casualty” also said, I wouldn’t let those questions weigh too heavily on you.
Thanks so much for your comments and for the interesting aspect you’ve added to the conversation today.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Wow! I didn’t realize so much blog activity could go on when one leaves for only a day or so! Anyway, I just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you to those of you who so kindly responded to my input in post #119. It’s still hard for me sometimes to talk about my experiences with PDI/CLC/ALCC but not so much because they are still so painful. I truly believe God has done a miraculous healing work in my heart and I hold no ill feelings towards any of these leaders, my former bosses and pastors (incidentally, the Lord has also taken away the hatred and bitterness I once felt towards my abusive ex-husband and trust me, if I can forgive him, I can forgive anybody!).
No, I find it difficult to talk about it sometimes because it was so ingrained into me by the PDI/SGM culture that to speak against a leader in spiritual authority is tantamount to speaking against God’s anointed. (I can’t tell you how often I heard the sermon about David refusing to kill Saul when he had his chance in the cave despite the fact that the latter wanted him dead.) And, because I truly love these people, like Larry Tomczak (my boss) and Che Ahn (my brother-in-law) whom I considered very good friends (I ate in their homes, baby-sat their kids, prayed with them, fasted with them, etc.) and to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude for teaching me many foundational biblical truths in my earlier years, it is especially hard because it feels like I am betraying them.
However, as I said in my first post last December, I do feel it is time to speak the truth…the whole truth. The fact that they are genuine followers of Christ, lovers of the lost, truly anointed and blessed with many gifts…there is no doubt about this truth. The fact that they were misguided in their doctrines and practices in many ways, immature and perhaps arrogant in their leadership, and controlling to the extreme at times…well, that too is a truth. We all have these dualities—we are both saints and sinners in Christ—the essential thing, I think, is that we remain “child-like” and teachable no matter how long we’ve been Christians, for as Jesus said, these are the only ones who can truly enter His kingdom.
And now a personal note for SGM Casualty, my dearest sister. I kid you not. The other day, I was at Barnes and Noble and was perusing the “self-help” psychology section (yes, one of those “forbidden” places—as labeled by the SGM culture) and my eyes fell on this book “A Child Called It.” Without really knowing why, I picked it up and it is sitting on my night stand, waiting to be read. When you suggested I read your original posts, I was amazed when you spoke of this very book. I will definitely start reading it tonight!
My sister, my heart was weeping (and I actually shed a tear) when I read your whole story! Since I am not a true “blogger” (my original post back in December was the very first time I ever “blogged”), I wondered why I was being led to share my story to complete strangers. Now I am starting to see why. There is power in sharing our stories! One person here said that this feels like what a true church should feel like. Yes, amen to that! And if we were all sitting at a church service right now, I would put my arms around you and show you just how terribly saddened I am by what you had to go through. And while I do feel very badly for you, I feel even worse for your husband. Of course, I don’t condone anything that he did (cheating on you more than once, turning his back on God in the end, emotionally abandoning you and your 4 kids, etc.), I do take comfort in the fact that you never gave up on God (just as I never did) but your husband did. Do I partly blame PDI/SGM for this? Yes I do. I must. Jesus would leave the 99 to go after the one missing sheep. It breaks my heart to know that no one…not even one leader…went after your husband and tried to win him back to the Lord, the way He would have done it. I’m afraid that as leaders, they will indeed be held accountable for this someday unless they repent of this kind of leadership, or lack thereof. As a leader myself now (professionally and in my new church), I try very hard to remember that God does not care much about how much I achieve for Him (they are all HIS work, done by HIS Spirit anyway)…He only cares that I am learning to love others as He loves them.
I also read this last post of yours to our brother, Mahaz. I’m sorry to admit that I have yet to read the full contents of his story and I really haven’t followed this thread all the way through. But I would have to say, at this point, that I agree with everything you said to him (again not knowing the full story). I think you and I are exactly on the same page with regards to all that we have experienced through PDI/SGM.
I like this line: “If well-meaning people would have pushed too hard to convince me of the error in the ministry (which some tried), I wouldn’t have been ready to hear it. I believe there were things that God genuinely wanted to deposit in me while I was there, and I was loyal to the people who had helped me through some difficult times.”
Yes, like you, I will never regret all that God taught me in all the ups and downs I had with PDI/SGM. It’s interesting that you mention the annual “Celebration” conferences PDI used to have for all its churches. (A big part of my job as assistant to the conference director was to help organize these conferences and input the names and addresses of the thousands of people who registered.) It was in those conferences that I had a few of my most significant encounters with the Lord (in a corporate setting and also by myself). I will not get into the details but suffice it to say that I knew that God was blessing me tremendously through the anointing that flowed within this organization. While I was a loyal PDI employee and a CLC/ALCC caregroup leader-in-training, I remember feeling nothing but pride and joy because I truly felt that an affirmation by my leaders was an affirmation from God Himself and that I was a part of the most amazing church movement ever birthed by the Holy Spirit this side of eternity. That’s why it was so terribly disappointing and so hurtful when I realized that after all my laboring for this organization, I was met with judgment and “severe discipline” when my marriage started to fall apart and I no longer “looked” like the part of the perfect member. And, when all was said and done, I was left alone to lick my wounds…just as so many had before me.
As you said SGM Casualty, when these “rebels” and “traitors” of PDI would tell me their stories in the past and of their explanations for why they left PDI while I was still seeped in the culture, I could not hear them nor believe them.
But now, those who have ears, let them hear. Those who eyes, let them see.
Blessings to all…
Pia
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
With all these words about legalism and indwelling sin, I believe we all need to think about the right motivation for holiness: LOVE FOR GOD! A BURNING DESIRE TO PLEASE HIM! The prayerful, joyous hymn quoted below says so well what I would like to communicate:
Take away our bent to sinning;
Alpha and Omega be;
End of faith, as its Beginning,
Set our hearts at liberty.
Thee we would be always blessing,
Serve Thee as Thy hosts above,
Pray and praise Thee without ceasing,
Glory in Thy perfect love.
Finish, then, Thy new creation;
Pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see Thy great salvation
Perfectly restored in Thee;
Changed from glory into glory,
Till in heaven we take our place,
Till we cast our crowns before Thee,
Lost in wonder, love, and praise.
– Charles Wesley (1747)
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Hi SGM single,
The Holy Spirit is what makes us holy! Our desire for God comes from God! It is a gift! We don’t and CAN’T make ourselves holy. Jesus Christ is the Author AND Perfecter of our faith – NOT US! He gets ALL of the glory!
So our “motivation” is HIS motivation. That is why Hebrews tells us to FIX our eyes upon JESUS – not upo