Ambassadors of Reconciliation Refuse All Reconciliation Attempts
The Ambassador of Reconciliation (AoR) Report to the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries (April 10, 2012) raised many troubling concerns for me. Chief among them the hypocrisy of Ted Kober who serves as the President of AoR. After its release, I attempted to interact with Ted in private.
When those attempts failed, I sought the help of Jim Pappadeas (SGM Refuge), Kris (SGM Survivors), Mole, and Larry Tomczak. I tried to set up a meeting with Ted to discuss our concerns for his report. Ted did not respond to these initiatives either.
Yesterday, I wrote the Board of Directors for AoR. I brought my concerns to their attention and made them aware I’d be posting a public rebuke on my blog given Ted’s refusal to meet in private or follow his own teaching. I also presented my case against Bryce Thomas, the trial lawyer hired by SGM, who helped design the Three Panel Review that took place last December. I asked the AoR Board to take disciplinary action against Ted, Ed Keinath (co-author of the report), and Bryce for failing to follow the Standard of Conduct for Christian Conciliation.
I now bring this matter to the attention of those effected by the AoR Report and invite you to write Ted Kober (tkober@hisaor.org), Ed Keinath (crosslife@frontier.com), Bryce Thomas (brycethomas@charter.net) and the AoR Board of Directors (mail@hisaor.org) in a redemptive manner in obedience to the process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17.
I am confident Ambassadors of Reconciliation has done much good helping other groups experience reconciliation. Unfortunately, some of their efforts have produced greater suffering and division for those inside and outside of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
What follows is a chronological presentation of my/our unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:33 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Offenses with Me
Importance: High
Hello Ted,
I just finished reading your report. I get the feeling there is a substantial list of undiscussed and unresolved issues in your heart toward me. This concerns me since you have never written or talked to me about any offenses you may have with me. In contradistinction, I have always talked and written to you about all my concerns. I’ve been open, honest and transparent about the faults/concerns I have perceived in your perspective, character, or approach.
Therefore, please highlight each section or sentence of your report where you have me in mind and send that to me. It is impossible to know who you are referring to in comments like “Another threatened to publicly humiliate and discredit us by posting extensive blogs on the web if we didn’t respond in certain ways by that person’s imposed short deadline.” I am glad to entertain your criticisms but I need to know which ones apply to me.
I’d appreciate your prompt response.
Thank you,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:29 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: RE: Offenses with Me
Importance: High
Please call me if you prefer to do this via a conversation. Today if possible. I need you to point out each statement in your report where you have me in mind. You have not come to me in private so I want to afford you that opportunity.
Sincerely,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:12 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: RE: Offenses with Me
Importance: High
In the report, you claim you “addressed sinful attitudes, words and actions of key individuals” but that is not true with me. We had two conversations. During those interactions you never addressed any attitudes, words or actions of mine as sinful. The subject never came up. The statement below is entirely untrue as it pertains to me. You have never come to me in private.
“The Ambassadors of Reconciliation team addressed sinful attitudes, words and actions of key individuals or leadership groups privately as Scripture requires. Some expressed fear that the AoR team would not confront key leaders or groups on individual actions that contributed to the conflicts. Others expressed their desires that the team would expose sins of key leaders or admonish them publicly. Just as this report does not publicly address the sins of individual members, neither does it publicly address the sins of individual leaders. However, AoR did address such issues with key leaders privately.”
After our second conversation on January 25, you wrote me on February 4. In that letter you ask me to consider several questions but you did not correct me or reprove me for sin except for one passing sentence. That is, “Moreover, I don’t often see the love and forgiving heart in you that your Lord Jesus has shown you.” That is the only corrective statement you made and it was not something you ever talked to me about in person. In fact, you never followed up after February 4 about any of the questions you posited for my consideration even though I wrote you about the contents of your letter. You cut off all communication and refused to interact with me.
Here is the point. You have never corrected, confronted, reproved, rebuked, or addressed any “sinful attitudes, words and actions.” You asked some questions in writing but you never told me my attitudes, words and actions were sinful. If you believe I have sinned against you or others, you have not told me so. As such you have flagrantly disobeyed your own teaching. You did not come to me in private. Even more seriously, you make the false claim in your report that you obeyed Scripture when in fact you disobeyed Scripture as it pertains to me. That is totally misleading.
Ted, I have aught with you. Please leave your altar and call me. The first thing I want to know regards which comments in your report are directed at me. The second thing I want to know is why you never came to me in private. You have never talked to me about any sins you feel I have committed.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:00 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Kris and Jim
You did not come to me in private. Did you go to Kris (Survivors) or Jim (Refuge) to correct them in private before posting your report?
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:26 PM
To: Kris; Jim @ SGM Refuge
Subject: Ted
Did Ted ever talk to you in private and correct or confront you for the sins he accuses you of in the report?
##
From: Jim @ SGM Refuge
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:38 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Kris
Subject: Re: Ted
We talked privately, but the blogs were a very small part of our conversation. There was zero correction. He broke his own ministry guidelines.
##
From: Kris
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:22 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Ted
No. Never. And I did something I never do – I actually initiated a conversation with him via email, offering to be of assistance in any way I could. He never responded to my email.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:08 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Great Hypocrisy
Importance: High
Ted, you have acted with great hypocrisy toward Jim, Kris and me. You need to make this right. See their responses [above].
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:51 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Are You an Ambassador of Reconciliation?
Importance: High
Ted,
In your report you make the following statement:
“Our observation is that the power of worthless talk (Ephesians 4:29 if) and sinful judging (Matthew 7:1-2; James 3:5-12; 4:11-12) was greatly exacerbated by those writing and reading blogs and widely distributed emails. Coupled with the falsehoods and exaggerations about AoR, our team members and work were the threats and condemning words sent to us. Based on false information, people made assumptions, misquoted and twisted our words and statements, and made D**ning statements against us.” (p. 10)
The facts show you did not come to me, Jim or Kris. I’d like to know if you went to anyone in private. Did you attempt to restore these individuals in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1) as you are apt to point out to others? Or did you leave them in their sins and give them no opportunity for repentance? You make no reference to any attempts to act as an ambassador of reconciliation. It appears you are content to make vague accusations on a website but are unwilling to approach such individuals in a biblical manner.
You are completely at odds with your teaching if you have not gone to these people and acted as a peacemaker. I also wonder if you are exaggerating the magnitude of the sins against you since you provide no evidence. What falsehoods? What exaggerations? What threats? What condemning words? What false information? What D**ning statements? Without evidence I am concerned these kinds of statements may constitute “worthless talk” and “sinful judging.” You spend a lot of time in the report highlighting how people have sinned against you. I am not sure why you felt the need to do so. Are you bitter or resentful?
Most importantly, however, have you contacted each of these people regarding the accusations above to work out your offenses? Have they been given the opportunity to respond?
I am still waiting to hear from you. Please tell me all the places in the report where you have me in mind.
Regards,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:47 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Use of Email
Given your position on the use of email and your counsel to SGM, why didn’t you call me regarding the “sensitive issues” contained in your February 4 email? From my perspective, you did not follow your own admonition. Do you agree?
“It seemed apparent to us as outsiders that leaders within SGM have made extensive use of email for rather sensitive or confidential communications. While this may be an expedient way to communicate when key leaders work from scattered locations, the extensive use of this medium in sensitive communications seems unwise to us…. Matters of confronting others about sin, discussing issues with legal implications, discussing employment or supervisory information, confessing sins or forgiving others, and other similar communications should be done in person or documented in more formal written communications. Email tends to be less formal and inadequate for addressing sensitive issues.” (p. 15)
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Mole
In your report, you appear to have Mole in mind as one of those individuals who has sinned against you and SGM? Is that correct? If so, have you gone to him in private to confront his perceived sin and be reconciled?
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Great Travesty
Dear Ted,
Here is your authoritative exhortation to the Sovereign Grace Board of Directors about going to be reconciled. It is found in the Consultation Report from last August:
“Before engaging the help of other Christians (such as through Ambassadors of Reconciliation), we remind the SGM Board members of their biblical responsibilities to initiate action for reconciliation.
“Note that the direct teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul urge us to go and be reconciled to those with whom we have disputes. It does not matter whether we believe we have been sinned against (Matthew 18:15), the other person is entrapped in sin (Galatians 6:1), or if the other person has something against us (Matthew 5:23-24). We are to make every effort to make peace (Romans 12:18; see also Hebrews 12:14).
“As we consider these and other verses in the full context of the Bible, we see that “going” to be reconciled requires more than email, more than blogs, more than letters, more than phone calls – it requires going to meet face-to-face. Note that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son (John 3:16). Jesus the Christ humbled himself to become flesh (Philippians 2:1-11) and come to earth in person to dwell among us (John 1:1, 14).
“Note also that our responsibility to “go to be reconciled” is not excused simply because another indicates that he does not want to meet. God reconciled us to himself “while we were yet sinners” (Romans 5:6-11). God did not wait until we desired for him to come.
“It is obvious to us as we read the documents written by Brent Detwiler and met with you that there are broken relationships between Brent Detwiler and C.J. Mahaney, between Brent Detwiler and individual members (current and former) of the Board of Directors, and between Brent Detwiler and the entire Board of Directors. According to Scripture, it does not matter who caused the offense. When relationship is broken, it is incumbent upon every believer in Christ to “go and be reconciled.”
“Scripture does not excuse us because we are fearful that our words might be twisted. Scripture does not excuse us if we think the other person might not listen. Scripture does not excuse us if the other party indicates in emails that he will not meet with us. Scripture does not excuse us if the person does not live in our town. Scripture does not excuse us if the other party has widely shared his complaints against us. Scripture does not excuse us if the whole world reads about the complaints against us in some public media. People find all kinds of excuses not to obey the teachings of Scripture, but our social practices and customs are not what guide God’s people in such matters.” (Ted Kober, Consultation Report, August 24, 2011, pp. 13-14)
My question is simple. Why haven’t you followed any of your own demands? In relation to me, Kris from SGM Survivors, and Jim Pappadeas, you have made no effort to walk in the light and be reconciled. I suspect the same is true of Mole but you have not answered my questions regarding him. In all seriousness, have you made any effort to meet with anyone you speak against in the report? Have you taken any action to contact those with whom you have offenses?
The majority of your offenses go back to August-November of last year. You’ve had months to pursue reconciliation. Once again, why haven’t you followed your directives in relation to me, Kris, Jim, Bob and others? Per your admonitions, you should have been on a plane to meet with each of us months ago. Furthermore, why haven’t you written me as requested? Why haven’t you called me as requested? Why haven’t you offered to meet with me? I am ready to do all of the above.
Ted, you have done nothing you have taught thousands of others in relation to us. This is a great travesty and needs to be corrected.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Date: Fri, April 20, 2012 7:03 am
To: Mole
Subject: Ted Kober
Has Ted ever come to you in private to confront or correct sins he believes you have committed against SGM or himself?
##
From: Mole
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:15 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
No, why do you ask?
Mole, BSCJ, QMHP
Family Counselor
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Mole
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
Have you ever talked to Ted or Ed [Keinath]? Did you meet with either of them last November at CLC? If so, did they ever register any concerns for you?
##
From: Mole
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:45 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
Marsha and I were told by another couple who interviewed with A of R that their counselor had indicated with dismay and shock, that in fact, 104 pastors had come forward in an effort to expose SGM for their abuse.
Our interviewer [Ed Keinath] was moved to tears as we shared [our] story. He gave every indication that he completely sympathized and understood the tragedy of our situation. When we were finished with the interview I looked out the small window of the office door and saw Gene and Liz sitting there. I asked the interviewer to please escort Gene and Liz down the hall so we could leave without interacting with them. He did so and said, “I absolutely understand.”
##
From: Mole
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:58 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: A of R
Brent…. Marsha reminded me that at the end of our session with Ed, he asked me if I would be willing participate in a meeting in order to address concerns about SGM. This was yet another indication from A of R that they were taking our complaints seriously. Our hopes were very high when we left. Unfortunately, I never heard from anyone from A of R again. Looks like it will stay that way.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:19 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Follow Up on Mole
Bob met with your associate, Ed Keinath in November at the Pastors Conference. Ed only empathized with Bob. He did not confront him on anything. No one from AoR has ever brought any concerns to Bob’s attention. Just the opposite. I hope you did not have him in mind in your report. I await your clarification. Did you?
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 6:43 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Take Along One or Two Others – Matthew 18:16
Ted,
I wanted to talk or meet with you in private in order to show you your fault and win you over (Matt 18:15). I’ve waited five days for a response of any kind but you could not take 5 minutes to call me or two minutes to text me. You should have expressed eagerness, if not a willingness, to meet with me.
I’ve written you numerous times over the past week. I asked to talk with you. I asked to know what parts of your report are in reference to me. I pointed out your dishonesty in saying you addressed sinful attitudes, words and actions with me in private when you did not. I pointed out your hypocrisy in not coming to me when offended at me. I pointed out your hypocrisy in relation to Kris and Jim for the same thing. I asked for an explanation on your use of email in raising “sensitive issues” contrary to the counsel you have given others. I asked whether you have gone to anyone with whom you have offenses. I’ve told you your sins in print. I’ve asked to do this in person. In spite of all this, you have made no effort to “leave your gift at the altar” and “settle matters quickly” with a “brother [who] has something against you.” (Matt 5:23-26.)
Ted, you have grievously sinned against me, specific others, the abused, the churches of SGM, and the larger Body of Christ. Therefore, I have asked Kris (SGM Survivors), Jim (SGM Refuge) and Mole to appeal for your repentance. I also asked them to join me in meeting with you per the teaching of Matthew 18:16. As is obvious in your report, you believe many people have sinned against you (and SGM) and yet you have not gone to them. We also believe you have sinned against us. For example, you confronted us in your public report but never came to us in private. I assume you justified doing so by leaving out our names but it is readily apparent who you had in mind. That amounts to duplicity.
Ted, you have set a terrible example for one who teaches others on peacemaking and the pursuit of reconciliation. You have not been a conciliator. You have brought more division. To be honest, I am concerned you hold sinful anger in your heart toward us and others. This much I know for certain; you have repeatedly violated Matthew 5:21-26, Matthew 7:1-5, Matthew 18:15, Romans 12:18, Galatians 6:1 and Hebrews 12:14. I hope you will repent to us in private and then make public restitution. Please let me know by Monday if you are willing to meet with us or talk to us using Skype. Then we can set a date and make arrangements. If Kris, Jim or Bob are unable to participate, I will provide other witnesses as required by Scripture.
Please show me the simple dignity of a response. Sinners do that much.
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 3:37 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Please Contact Me Today
Please don’t let the day pass without calling or writing to set up a time to meet with us for reconciliation. As I said before, I am glad for you to point out in the report where you had me in mind and then tell me my faults.
Sincerely,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:41 PM
To: Jim Pappadeas; Kris; Mole
Subject: An Appeal to Ted Kober
Importance: High
Dear Jim, Kris and Bob,
I’ve repeatedly attempted to contact Ted Kober. He has been unresponsive. Though he shows no interest, would you be willing to meet or talk with Ted in accordance with the second step of redemptive discipline outlined in Matt 18:15-17? I believe he has sinned against us and others. Kris, we can make special arrangement for you if you are unable to join us in person or prefer not to use Skype.
I’ve limited the scope of my correction in addressing Ted for now. There are some good parts in his report. There are some bad parts. Mostly, there are missing parts. I believe Ted has sinned in other ways but I will address those additional matters in private and give him the opportunity to respond.
For now, I’d appreciate your assistance in helping Ted to see his hypocrisy, unwillingness to attempt private reconciliation, and public slander having not come to us first. You are also welcome to share your general perspective on his report.
Bob has already provided me a statement to send Ted. Jim and Kris, would you do the same? It can be short. I will also ask Larry Tomczak for his perspective on the report. I’d like to send them to Ted tomorrow if possible.
I know we are not in habit of communicating with each other but I felt it important that we collectively reach out to Ted, appeal for his repentance, and share with him our perspectives.
I’ve included my private correspondence with Ted below. I plan to post our correspondence this week if he is unresponsive and ask others to reach out to him and Ed Keinath and appeal for their repentance. I will also contact the Board of Directors for Ambassadors of Reconciliation.
Thanks for your help.
Brent
##
From: Jim @ SGM Refuge [mailto:jim@sgmrefuge.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:29 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Kris; Mole
Subject: Re: An Appeal to Ted Kober
Importance: High
I would love to interact with Ted regarding his condemnation and misrepresentation of my blog. As AoR’s primary blog cheerleader, I’m surprised my efforts were ignored by Ted. I’m not hurt or offended, just surprised.
I am greatly disappointed that Ted was apparently offended by the perceived sin of those abused by SGM leaders, and felt the need to add to their pain with his very public condemnation. I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around such a blatantly hurtful act coming from the president of an organization that calls itself Ambassadors of Reconciliation.
If Ted honestly cares at all about reconciliation, he should publicly repent to the abused, as he has now joined the ranks of the abusers. His actions bear no resemblance to peace making.
Grace,
Jim
##
From: Kris [mailto:kris@sgmsurvivors.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:23 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Cc: Guy
Subject: RE: An Appeal to Ted Kober
Hi Brent –
Our policy has always been that we want to remain anonymous. Although we were very disappointed with the way that AoR chose to go after “the blogs” as relentlessly as they did, without attempting even a simple response to the emails I sent, in which I offered my help, I don’t really feel like we need to participate in any sort of reconciliation process with anyone – at least not the sort of process that the AoR people would expect. We would not wish to speak on the phone or Skype with anyone. We’re happy, however, to have you pass on the following statement to the AoR folks:
To whom this may concern:
As random bystanders who were ourselves thrust unwittingly into the midst of SGM’s problems back in late 2007, we definitely sympathize with the magnitude of the job with which the AoR organization was tasked when hired to explore SGM’s weaknesses and failures and attempt to bring healing to SGM’s victims.
Much has already been said on the Survivors site in response to the report which AoR released recently. If I were to summarize our readers’ reactions, I’d say that many were very disappointed with the way so much of the report’s focus seemed to be upon “the blogs” and the (perceived) sinfulness of those who had spoken out about the way they’d been harmed by SGM. It came across quite clearly in their report that the AoR folks had taken personal offense with “the blogs” early on and never bothered to dig more deeply to try to find out WHY AoR was met with suspicion. Consequently, AoR is – ironically – guilty of committing the very same sins toward blogs and bloggers that they themselves had found so off-putting. The AoR representatives felt free in their report to vent their disdain toward “the blogs” without ever having communicated with anyone from SGM Survivors. (And this, of course, was despite the fact that I’d made at least a couple of efforts to engage with Mr. Kober via email back in December and offered to help AoR in any way I could.)
Also, since it is my understanding that AoR was hired to examine and evaluate Sovereign Grace Ministries, NOT “the blogs” or SGM’s victims, it was especially bizarre to see so many peevish references to all the ways in which bloggers and SGM’s victims did not meet AoR’s expectations.
That being said, I can truly say that AoR’s report was, unfortunately, essentially what I had expected it to be. I’m sorry that that turned out to be the case, but I can understand why a “reconciliation” business with only the most rudimentary outsider’s understanding of SGM’s history and culture would lack the perspective and the knowledge to look beyond SGM leaders’ pretty words and shining surface behavior and see how twisted the organization actually has been.
We don’t want anything from AoR. But if they would like to grow from this experience, I would suggest that they consider the ways they failed SGM, SGM’s victims, and themselves by being so quick to accuse bloggers of sins without taking the time to explore more deeply where the bloggers are coming from – and why they themselves felt it was OK to castigate “the blogs” in their report without first following their own rules for conflict resolution.
Blessings,
Kris
##
From: Mole
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:45 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
As most people understand, it is extremely difficult for anyone who has been abused to report the offense, even to the proper authorities for a myriad of reasons (fear of retaliation, fear of more abuse, ostracism, fear of revisiting the feelings and emotions relevant to the abuse, embarrassment, shame, etc.). Everyone who shared their stories of abuse with A of R were hoping that by entrusting their story to the perceived “proper authority,” in this case A of R, justice and resolution would occur. The very last thing abused individuals expected was for the proper authority to essentially turn on them. This is a great travesty. These people are now doubly harmed and have had emotional and psychological problems aggravated by their experience with A of R.
Our interviewer [Ed Keinath] was moved to tears as we shared [our] story. He gave every indication that he completely sympathized and understood the tragedy of our situation. When we were finished with the interview I looked out the small window of the office door and saw Gene and Liz sitting there. I asked the interviewer to please escort Gene and Liz down the hall so we could leave without interacting with them. He did so and said, “I absolutely understand.”
Personally, Marsha and I feel betrayed. We were told by another couple who interviewed with A of R that their counselor had indicated with dismay and shock, that in fact, 104 pastors had come forward in an effort to expose SGM for their abuse. He gave every indication that he completely sympathized and understood the tragedy of our situation. When we were finished with the interview I looked out the small window of the office door and saw Gene and Liz sitting there. I asked the interviewer to please escort Gene and Liz down the hall so we could leave without interacting with them. He did so and said, “I absolutely understand.”
Prior to the interviews starting I wrote A of R asking them to reconsider the venue for the interviews because they were asking the abused to come back to the place that represented where the abuse occurred. I also mentioned the Pastors Conference was simultaneously being held where those reporting abuse would likely see their abusers face to face (which of course they already knew). In light of the emotional trauma this would likely engender in those reporting abuse, I asked them to reconsider where they had chosen to do the interviews. They ignored this request (which further demonstrates and lack of appreciation and knowledge in dealing with abused people).
Looking back, now that the report has come out, I am convinced A of R simply did not and does not comprehend what has happened to those who have experienced abuse at the hands of SGM. I’m afraid rather than resolve any problems or being ambassadors of reconciliation, they have stirred up a hornet’s nest and are complaining as to why they are being stung.
Thanks,
Bob
##
From: Larry Tomczak [mailto:1larrytomczak@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 5:41 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: An Appeal to Ted Kober
To whom it may concern:
I have been asked my thoughts on the AoR report. First, I appreciate all the hard work that went into this project dealing with very sensitive matters in scores of people’s lives. I trust AoR was well compensated.
Second, after waiting and praying for almost a year regarding this endeavor (regularly not daily), I was EXTREMELY disappointed with the results. I could scarcely believe what I was reading. I believe multitudes share this perspective.
Third, my wife and I believe the report was a serious disservice to scores of people who invested incredible amounts of time and effort to serve the AoR team. Doris and I gave over 250 hours to prepare for our contribution in addition to travel time and the days given to the interview. Addressing the illegal, immoral and documented blackmail plus the reprehensible conduct that shattered our reputation, relationships and family ties (plus our livelihood) was afforded a dismissive SIX sentences in the report! Unbelievable.
Finally, we are of the opinion that if the SGM leaders had simply done the report on their own, they would have been more forthright and harder on themselves than this most favorable AoR document.
When we shared our experience with Ted and his assistant, one wiped away tears and the other dropped his head in shocking dismay at our traumatic experience, manipulation, falsehoods and numerous examples of unChristlike behavior we experienced that could have destroyed our Christian lives as a family of six. We, like hundreds of others who experienced spiritual abuse from SGM leaders, now wonder if some of the apologies and asking of forgiveness will have to suffice.
We love you Ted and the team but inquire if your labors represent the accurate picture of the systemic problems that multitudes hoped would be addressed and corrected so SGM could begin a new season in humility and integrity.
Trusting God’s sovereign grace, I am, yours in His service,
Larry Tomczak
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Ted Kober
Cc: Jim Pappadeas; Kris; Mole; Larry Tomczak
Subject: Private Appeals Continue
Importance: High
Dear Ted,
It has been over a week since I first asked you to call me. I don’t understand how you can reject all my attempts to engage you. I believe you have sinned against me and I am happy to hear how you believe I’ve sinned against you. I’ve sincerely sought to engage you in a redemptive and biblical manner but you appear obstinate in your rejection of all attempts at reconciliation.
Jim Pappadeas, Mole, Larry Tomczak and I would like to meet with you. We all have concerns for your Report to the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries from April 10, 2012. We would like to discuss our concerns with you personally.
In obedience to Scripture and for your godly good, I’ve also asked these men to join me in helping you see how you have sinned against us and others. I’ve included their appeals and perspectives [above] but this is inadequate. We also need to meet in person. As it stands Ted, you are rebelling against the commands of Scripture and living contrary to everything you have taught and demanded of others.
I have many things to say about the report regarding inaccuracies (e.g. AoR’s confidentially requirement), bias, unfactual assertions, and dereliction of duty. That is, how you largely failed to address what you were tasked to do. There are some good and bad parts in the report but the most important parts (e.g., C.J. and the Board’s deceit) are left out. I will write you in private about these matters and give you the opportunity to correct my perspectives before I share them at large. The report is public. It requires a public response.
Of greatest importance for now is your failure to meet, hear our offenses, or pursue reconciliation. Your indifference undermines all your credibility and the entire ministry of which you are the President. If you have not done so already, send my previous appeals to your Board of Directors along with this correspondence. I hope they will reprove you and hold you accountable to the most basic tenets of the organization.
Ted, I have faithfully sought to obey Scripture in my pursuit of you. Please text, email, or call me today. I’d like to keep this matter confined to Jim, Kris, Bob, Larry and me. Whether I appeal to a wider audience is up to you. Contact me by the end of the day so we can set up a time to meet in the near future.
God’s grace rest upon you.
Brent
### EDITED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING POSTSCRIPT:
I would add that my own interview with Ed Keinath also was in complete contradiction to what AoR published. Ed told me that since last summer he and Ted had been concerned about the the board’s blind devotion to CJ. He also expressed whole-hearted agreement when I indicated that at the heart of SGM’s problems was a culture of selfish-ambition. Ed also indicated that he and Ted estimated that about 20-30 churches within SGM were already prepared to leave SGM.
I don’t pretend to know why the report does not match what was communicated to many of us but the disharmony between what we heard with our own ears and what was published casts a significant cloud of suspicion over the report and the SGM leadership.
I plead with you that if any of you fear God and know why this disharmony exists that you would come forth.
Jenn Grover
Pittsburgh, PA
April 27th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
To Beth Young,
It is good of you to take the time to post to us and remind us not to get so caught up in the details that we become unproductive. While, I do see much forgiveness through the fruit in my life, I can not simply stop desiring reconciliation.
Perhaps it is foolish to wait for something that will not take place as we look at the terrible events that continue to unfold. Still, many of us are separated from family and hope these pastors will someday teach and bring reform to their flock.
It may be more difficult then you realize for some of us to “move on” when we can not be with our familes. Being shunned by those you grew up with and are blood relatives..relatives that God gave us, is very difficult indeed. I must believe that God can and will DO something to stir hearts, convict and prayfully change the ones that can and will have the scales fall off their eyes.
April 27th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Christiana 149
Thanks for the clarification.
April 27th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
5years #150 I hear you on this one. I kind of wonder if he wouldn’t take his top dog position back too. I really appreciate what he has done to shine the light big and bright on sgm, but I get mixed feelings too.
April 27th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
An appeal to all SGM pastors:
I pray that you will all consider the following message as it may pertain to you personally.
Many of those in your congregation have turned there back on those that have left Sovereign Grace.
Do you have people in your congregation that are not speaking to family members for ANY reason? Are these ex-members of SGM ALL to be treated as divisive? Have you encouraged your sheep to go looking for those they are estranged from BEFORE they go to the alter?
If we are to be labeled as anything on these blogs you must take into account ALL of us..just like we do you. Some of you are Godly and some of you are exactly what you think we are. You can’t all be right ALL the time, can you? You do see us appeal to you. You see us humble ourselves..seek restoration, kindness and care for our own wounded. What is the matter with you? Stand up, help us!
We want the truth. We fight for justice and you read and read and read the blogs. There is truth in these stories and heart ache and all you can do is write and read reports. Your knees should be scarred from crying out to God on them for the ministry that you are involved in. Look at yourself. What if you just started with…”I could be wrong?”
How can you look the other way when that AoR report came across your desk? You KNEW that these blogs were serving hundreds that had been in your very own care. How bad does it have to be… to see bloggers scrap people off the pavement after they have been treated so cruely by ANY church group? Have you no compassion? Where is your heart of kindness that drips off of you each week to those who stay in your church? Can you only care and reach out to those in your house? Why do you show “grace” to only those you like?
What priciples are you holding to if you can not help us “sinners?” WHERE IS YOUR COURAGE? Why do you not fight for the weak? Why do you let AoR IGNORE those who have been ruined by these men? Are you one of them? Please show me how to continue to pray for you. I am losing heart in your ability to hear.
GO and be RECONCILED…GO!
April 27th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Beth Young #145 — Well said, and thanks for your gentleness and compassion. It reminds of the story of Elijah as mentioned in the CLC message this past Sunday. Elijah is very discouraged and tells God he’s done everything right and he’s the only one who is not turning against God, and God says ‘I have a job for you, go and do it. And, by the way, I have 7,000 who have not turned to Baal’. God reminds Elijah that he’s not the only one waiting on God’s way, and also, that God has a job for him to do, so go do it. In other words, God says ‘move on, I can handle this’. God reminds Elijah, and us, that He is still at work even if it looks like nothing is happening or changing. God is not necessarily going to go by our plan. We can’t predict how God will work or even when He is at work. He is past finding out. We can only trust.
April 27th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Brent has no viable claims and he doesn’t want to hear that. Believe me, I tried. He was not an employee of SGM when he lost his job. He was an employee of one of the churches in NC so his wrongful termination case would have to be brought against that church (which no longer exists) and would have to be based on NC law. Wrongful termination is nearly impossible to prove in NC and, as Unassimilated pointed out, it has been gutted by the Supreme Court where churches and clergy are involved. His other “claims” are equally baseless. 5Years is absolutely right and the person who said “Get a clue” might benefit from some more research. A lawsuit simply should not be considered, not only because it’s a giant waste of time and money but because scripture prohibits it:
Brent now claims he wants to bring a suit for the betterment of SGM and those in its wake. That’s a great way to try to get around 1 Cor. 6 and a great way to get your encouragement but it ignores scripture and the law.
April 28th, 2012 at 12:14 am
If anything, I think Dave Harvey has a lawsuit in the making for Brent’s “Hardball” post. I wonder if he will let it go himself as per 1 Cor?
Someone at Refuge said Brent is addicted to SGM and the individuals he used to work with. I thought that was a very good point. For an organization he is no longer a part of, he just can’t let it go. “Justice is mine”, says the Lord. Brent, we want you to be happy and relaxed and loving God. Maybe instead of collecting emails and pursuing a war of words you will never fully win, just enjoy another career, your family, your hobbies, your current church, your relationship with God. Let Him fight the battle and the war. We want you to have peace.
April 28th, 2012 at 12:21 am
Beautiful Lies,
I agree with you. I’m torn because I think Brent makes some good points, but at the same time he is overly relentless. If he was emailing me the things he’s emailing CJ and Ted Kober and the board, etc, I probably wouldn’t respond either. I think he’s obsessed with SGM and just can’t let go. His approach is almost harassing and it makes him sound less reliable and more like a madman.
There reaches a point where you just have to let go and not let it affect your life anymore.
April 28th, 2012 at 6:26 am
I agree with 5Years (#150). It seems like Brent still doesn’t get it. I feel like he hasn’t owned up to his part in the SGM fiasco. He was the “resident theologian” on the apostolic team for many years and he is responsible for teaching much of the bad doctrine that led to the abusive authoritarianism that damaged so many lives. He’s the one who hammered us with the doctrine of sin over and over again. He’s the one who preached that courtship and homeschooling and wives staying at home are next to godliness. He told us that it was disgraceful for a man to have a ponytail, that we shouldn’t go out to eat or shop on Sundays and that we shouldn’t read the newspaper on Sunday morning because we should be preparing our hearts for the “Sunday Celebration.” I remember a sermon when he told us that it’s not true that God loves everyone, but that He hates sinners. I could go on and on. Brent did a lot of good, but he did a lot of damage that didn’t effect only those in the churches he pastored. From his position of supposed authority, his influence spread throughout all of PDI/SGM. He needs to own up to it. But I just don’t think he sees it yet.
Res Ipsa (#156) -- Thanks for weighing in. I was thinking that Brent’s idea of a lawsuit was unrealistic.
April 28th, 2012 at 8:46 am
I confess to having mixed feelings about Brent’s latest post, and mixed opinions about what he should do.
I’ve actually grown to appreciate Brent over the past year. Sometimes it’s crazy to remember how I used to think of him, back when he was all apostolic and putting out patriarchal and weirdly SGM-centric materials like his Questions For Courtship document, in which he outlined the supposedly ideal courtship, which included keeping the girl totally in the dark about the guy’s interest in her until after the guy had gotten the go-ahead from the girl’s dad. Then, Brent suggested, the guy could “surprise” the girl -- after the big dramatic relationship had already practically been decided upon by the girl’s dad and the guy!
(I could not believe the level of disrespect for women that such advice revealed -- like young ladies are such vapid fools that if they thought a guy liked them before their dad could give the green light, the A-OK, they would just dissolve right there into helpless puddles of giggly wedding planning, coupled with inappropriate sexuality…so therefore, to prevent such out-of-control reactions to a guy’s attention, the girl had to be deceived into thinking the guy had nothing more than platonic interest in her until he’d jumped through the dad’s courtship hoops. Ugh! “Surprise her,” indeed!
Just the fact that anyone would believe that such a scenario would be both A) desirable and B) possible demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humanity!)
Considering how that Questions For Courtship document made the rounds and was widely distributed among SGM churches -- and thus widely influential -- I took to thinking of Brent as “Uncle Brent,” for the way he apparently viewed himself as some wise elder with enough familial authority to weigh in on a topic like courtship in such elaborate and socially weird and emotionally wooden and clueless detail. It was almost humorous to think about the dysfunctional relationships that Brent’s guidelines, if followed to the letter, would have produced.
And Questions For Courtship was just one segment of the wake of legalistic control that Brent’s leadership seemed to leave behind. There were many other stories, many other teachings.
So I found Brent both sort of scary and sort of silly, like how could someone obviously so smart be at the same time so insular and clueless about SGM-style legalism, especially how it would seem to the rest of “normal” Christianity?
After interacting with Brent over the past year, though, my opinion of him has changed a great deal. I’ve seen him demonstrate a good sense of humor and even some irony about all the SGM stuff.
I’ve also -- as I’ve said many times -- grown to have a considerable amount of respect for how Brent stuck to his guns with respect to the SGM principles that he taught to others. Think what you will of those principles -- particularly the ones relating to confronting others in their sins and holding others accountable -- but you have to say that at least Brent was about the only one who has remained consistent. He’s really the ONLY one who has genuinely lived out what the SGM system supposedly claims to stand for. That is really the source of his fury, his indignation, over everything that’s gone down with CJ and CJ’s enablers. Brent has been (and continues to be) ferocious in his desire to get all the others to stick with what they all claimed to believe.
At the same time, I’ve talked several times before about how I think Brent is still somewhere in the early stages of seeing SGM for what it is. You can discern in his many blog posts the reality that he is currently still under the delusion that all could be made right in his (and SGM’s) world if only the right people would repent and go back to living out what they supposedly believed about accountability and confession of sins. Brent has not yet reached the point of seeing the flaws in SGM’s ideas about authoritarian sin-sniffing and finger-pointing…and how few of the other guys in power truly wanted those beliefs to apply to THEM when the rubber hit the road. Brent is still mired in the old idealistic mindset and hasn’t yet rejected it.
But I’ve said all along, seeing SGM for what it is -- and thus being able to know what to reject -- seems to be something that happens in a flash of Holy Spirit-inspired insight. I loved what “Sea change” wrote yesterday:
So, SO true!
I think it’s safe to say that Brent is nowhere near that moment where he “sees the picture,” so to speak.
(For all you fellow Seinfeld fans out there, remember the episode where Elaine’s rich old codger boss Mr. Pitt became obsessed with staring at one of those pictures and grew increasingly frustrated with his inability to see it? Well, right now, Brent = Mr. Pitt. Snicker. I’m sure Brent, if he’s ever even watched Seinfeld, would not be too thrilled with being told he’s Mr. Pitt.)
So, all of this is to say, yes, I actually sort of agree with “5years’” analysis of Brent’s latest post. I think Brent probably does need to step back and try to let it go.
But at the same time, Brent’s journey is Brent’s journey. He is where he is right now. And some of that can’t be helped. He’s not at the place (yet) where he’s “seen the picture.” Consequently, he can’t be expected to react and behave the way we think he ought to. He’s mired somewhere in a post-SGM no-man’s-land. Like I’ve said, “You can take the boy out of SGM, but you can’t as easily or quickly take the SGM out of the boy.”
I think we need to pray for Brent, that he’ll “see the picture.” Which would include seeing his own part in creating that picture. He has to get to that point before he can be expected to step away from the sometimes cringe-worthy over-the-top efforts to make all right again in his SGM world. He has to understand that that world never really existed in the first place before he can be expected to know how to wisely put that world behind him and move on with his life.
April 28th, 2012 at 10:15 am
However discerning, I still don’t get it. One of the chief things that abusive leadership counts on is that those affected will give up, ideally right away but, if necessary, as long as it takes. SGM is classic and expert. The recent move to Louisville is just that kind of action writ large.
There is a difference between the psychological need to ‘move on’ (or as some on this blog rightly put it, forgive) without confusing that with taking appropriate actions (which may be ‘leave SGM church’ but also may be ‘call for SGM Board to examine evidence’).
Whether or not Brent ‘has a case’ before either a church or civil panel/court is a fine question, but different than whether Christians have a biblical right to proceed down that path. They do, providing that they have not yet been given a chance to be heard justly. Why one should give up (‘move on”) before that has taken place puzzles me since again, it is precisely what the offending party wants to achieve to consolidate their injustice.
I wish that LT had not ‘moved on’ but done what Brent is doing today … still, that was its own situation. Brent may have been and may still be spiritually blind as a bat, the world’s biggest prig and hypocrite or not. I’m not smart enough to read people’s minds.
But as to what he is doing, how is it biblically unsound, unless one is convinced that a believer must never find themselves in court with another believer? Undoubtedly, that should be a last resort. Has not Brent waited years before making anything public? And a year before raising the bar because SGM has stiffed him yet again and, indeed, slandered him continually? Isn’t he still calling for this to be resolved by (unbiased) Christians?
Paul did not imply that Christians should never resort to civil courts. The instance he cited was an egregious effort to circumvent church order first. He himself appealed to civil authorities when he considered it vital for the gospel. Paul’s case also helps to answer the question,”but how/where will a church court be convene?” Matters were hardly ideal then, either! The Jews were scarcely behaving in an orderly way and the Romans were bestial. Even so, Paul saw the Roman leaders as having been positioned by God so they would do the right thing under Him. Paul was not naive, nor was he super-spiritual and gnostic.
What bothers me, I suppose, is the lack of biblical support for opposition to Brent’s intention juxtaposed with our generation’s ‘don’t hassle it’ mentality, since the latter paves the way for so much of SGM’s dysfunction. If a church ‘court’ cannot or will not convene and a civil court throws Brent’s charges out (assuming his lawyers feel he has a case), I will be the first to pray/encourage this brother to ‘let it go’.
Until then, I pray he does not let it go and that SGM does what it should have done all along and could have done privately: examine Brent’s evidence objectively in the fear of God.
April 28th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Kris, your words are both wise and generous in your assessment of Brent--I thank you for that. I am tempted as I watch the Brent--SGM leadership saga go on is to just think that they deserve each other--in a sense Brent’s relentless legalistic demands are a mirror for SGM. I think perhaps what would best serve Brent is if he could gain an awareness that what has happened to him is what he, along with others in SGM leadership, have with gusto meted out to others through the years. If he could come to understand the mercy he needs for his past, perhaps mercy for those currently in leadership would be awakened in him. Either Brent, or the SGM leadership, will willingly have to lay down their sword first--I doubt that SGM leadership is structurally capable of doing so. I have sadness for Brent in this; the hardest part of forgiveness is the necessity of dropping our expectation of seeing justice this side of heaven. Kris, your words help me to see Brent with more mercy, less judgment.
It is also why I caution those with high expectations of reforming leadership from Josh Harris and others; in a great sense their identity is so fully integrated into the historical structure of SGM polity and practice. To quote the comic strip Dilbert, for CLC and other ‘dissenting’ leadership to radically change their practices would be “a paradigm shifting without a clutch”. A few degrees shift here and their from their historical course is occurring and will continue to occur--but watch them closely. Members only meetings where all the questions addressed have to be submitted in writing and screened--the fear of loss of control is palpable on their part. The recent message on grumbling--and the lack of candor regarding past abuse. The addressing of CJ,s issues only after the documents went viral on the internet. The need to continually verbally reinforce how ‘precious’ past leadership at CLC and SGM rather than letting their actions speak for themselves.
Again, thanks--anyone who reads this blog with an open mind would see wonderful expressions of grace.
April 28th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Strange how it seems everywhere I go there is discussion that leads to this dang church and its members, leaders, and actions: So I am participating in a discussion with PolySci students in my class about political corruption starting with individuals and how little the public may know about a politician until they are exposed, and randomly one of them mentions how he used to live in Avalon Farms and had a neighbor a few houses down from him named Claude Allen who was a top white house aid under Prez Bush but was also a vocal member of (what this student termed)”a huge cult called Covenant Life” and even a position of the groups legal team, and how he seemed to be making a pretty good living from the looks of it. The neighbors thought it was strange he home-schooled all of his kids and even more odd that there was a rapid influx of other cult members all moving into the neighborhood at the same time that year(major reason the other neighbors assumed they must belong to a cult). Turns out while living there Allen ends up being investigated and arrested for stealing items from Hechts and Target stores and running a long term “return the item for cash” scam on the stores. Of course when the papers all came to try to interview neighbors about the scandal, all the new cult members who had moved in came out of the woodwork to talk to the reporters to defend him and he (this student)assumed then that was possibly why they all had moved near each other — to provide resilience and public protection in numbers. When I mentioned they were actually a church all the students laughed and said “yeah right, that’s not normal stuff a regular church does”. They weren’t going to get an argument out of me of course. I looked up Claude Allen online and came up with this time article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1172159,00.html
….no surprise, it was true. It used to surprise me to hear CLC or SGM come up in random conversations with other people, and it used to be normal to have to explain to the average random Montgomery county resident just who this CLC/SGM organization was. But they seem to be becoming pretty well known by their works and needless to say their public image is not a pretty one. But this wouldn’t be the first time a corporation moved their headquarters or “home base” in an attempt to find more neutral ground, a change of venue of sorts, where public image can be reinvented after scandal had rocked their reputation in their former location. Nothing seems to surprise me anymore…….
April 28th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
exCLCer -- There were a number of people that used to rally to Claude’s defense in CLC, some even claiming Claude was taking the
fall for a twin brother.
Prior to the arrest, the CLC Pastors and CJ would point to Claude as a confirmation of God anointing and the deep desire God had
for them to influence the world at large. CLS would pray fro him regularly as if he were some ambassador of the SGM Gospel.
Funny you bring this up as Claude was one of the first people that came to mind when I read this on Brent’s Blog the other day.
April 28th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Unassimilated -- wow, just wow. I mean I knew they had their hands deep inside the beltway, with Grange being legal counsel for The Fellowship (the secret society with the now somewhat infamous C street townhome), and with JH flying in Grudem to speak at the church and himself admittedly giving a month long series of sermons on political culture etc…I can not agree with Brent about the need for this kind of influence in DC and I welcome seeing them leave my hometown area, but I do feel sorry for the possibly unsuspecting victims in Louisville who may not even see it coming.
April 28th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Rick, AMEN!!!!
April 28th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
exCLCer -- BTW, Most Attorneys in the Moco area know CLC as a cult as well. Particularly those practicing in the area divorce.
CLC’s position on spanking always seems to be a hot topic. The only pseudo positive comment I ever heard was, “Your wife has to
say yes when you feel the urge.” Not a glowing endorsement if you ask me.
They are well known in the real estate world as well, not only for the number of agents that belong/network in CLC. But also for
being easy to sell to if you can place a member close to a chosen CLC family and/or one of the elected neighborhoods.
We did take over Avalon Farms. Pricey homes with acreage just around the corner from the mothership.
For all SGMs/CLCs thoughts and hopes of reputation and influence, it is the term cult that is used most often when most of the world speaks of them.
April 28th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
I too am concerned that the world of Louisville wont know what hit them.
April 28th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Gosh, I kept thinking to myself “Avalon Farms sounds so familiar…..” but I couldn’t place it. When I looked it up I realized that is the neighborhood near the airpark, like you said right aroiund the corner from CLC) where for the one year (after CLC cut all tuition assistance from my family)I was supposedly being “home-schooled” and one of the “charitable” higher status church couples offered to my mom to “help teach” me, and I spent day after day, left alone at their house, babysitting their extremely disabled infant child, while the parents would be gone for hours. What an education that was. I wasn’t at all being taught, but I definitely learned all about underlying motives, false charity, usury, and social status that year. Anyway, yeah, I’m not surprised to hear attorneys, social workers, and other officials call them a cult. I guess it only surprises me to see people still IN it that continue to think the extreme practices over the years are normal when they are clearly odd to say the least.
April 28th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
While I’m a pretty regular participant on this blog, I try to be pretty careful to get my facts straight before I post. There have been a couple of times that I haven’t and have reposted to correct or going forward not posted until I verify the facts. With that said, I agree with Rick #162 above that you can’t just all of a sudden believe that the leadership in SGM churches is changing dramatically. SGM is all some pastors have ever known. It’s deeply engrained in their pastoral being. There are 2 areas of clarification though “members meetings where all the questions are submitted beforehand and pre-screened”…the recent coffee and questions meeting that pastors did request questions beforehand. I saw this more as a way to organize questions and they also had an open mic for some questions at the end. Also the recent message on grumbling was a talk given to a small business network meeting at CLC not a message during a sunday meeting.
April 28th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
May I ask, what the Claude Allen incident has to do with any of this?? He lives in Avalon Farms and home schools his kids so he’s in a cult???
I guess SGM doesn’t give you all enough topics to discuss…
April 28th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Now I don’t know where I am…
I read Kris’ 160 and totally agreed with it and then I read Epaphras’ 161 and totally agreed with THAT.
Both had a lot of spiritual food for thinking Christians..
ATC, Bristol, UK.
PS: And, Rick at 162 -- “Again, thanks–anyone who reads this blog with an open mind would see wonderful expressions of grace.”
Yes. Amid the pain, grief, wisdom, anger, unrighteousness, unbelief, cynicism, hope, truth, joy, despair, gossip, disbelief….. There is also this.
April 28th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
MAK -- Claude was part of the SGM/CLC inner circle, did you miss that? Did you miss how we as a church, CLC would put him on stage as an
example of Gods favor and influence. Did you miss the part about how SGM and CLC originally chose DC as a headquarters as the best place to
have national influence. Do you see how them turning tail to Louisville is turning their back on 30 years of work and planning?
Or was that not spelled out enough in the post.
If your commentary was on the times article, post it there.
What would you like to rant about my sweets, other than how we chose to spend our time, which is not your business. Don’t like what I post,
ignore and move on.
April 28th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Folks, please stop with the 1 Corin 6 rebuke. You are interpreting that in a wooden way. Think about this…so far there have been NO brothers and sisters who can decide this fairly with wisdom. Why is that? Because you are not dealing with Brothers who want that sort of “reconciliation”.
If I were Brent, I would move on. He is taking on big dogs and won’t win. Churches and with the protection of their church position, church leaders can pretty much do what they want and people rarely win. Most sue because of discovery and getting stuff out in the open. It is a way to get documents and make them public. The key is NEVER go to work at a church. This stuff happens all over the place.
Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not mean you have no biblical right to sue them. Same goes for having a Christenese title. YOu guys are treating the title or label as a talisman.
I want to say this as gently as possible. Some of you are still reading scripture through your SGM lens. According to your wooden interpretation a woman who has been abused by a “christian” husband could not “sue” for divorce.
And for those of you who think the T4G leaders don’t really know the bad stuff. They do know. They admire CJ. They admire the “strong leadership”. They are a lot like him. You just don’t know that. And they will continue to protect him and help him. The person who should be the most worried is Mohler. He is just an employee of the SBC. He has forgotten that fact. But he has stuck his neck out pretty far. We will see how much power he really has in the next few years.
The SBC is 90% NON Calvinist. And they are starting to wake up to the authoritarian non priesthood follow the human bent of this New Calvinism and they don’t like it one bit.
April 28th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
MAK at 170, thank you for your clarification--I misunderstood a previous post and thought the grumbling talk was a Sunday sermon. I have somewhat of a sensitivity to the matter of having questions written and screened--for years I was an elder in a non-SGM church. There were times we had community meetings (similar to the coffee and questions meetings) and we required the questions and comments to be written down, rather than an open mic. It was for purposes of command and control--something I should have objected much more strenuously to than I did at the time (though I did object early in my time with this format). I was unaware of the open-mic at the end and gladly accept your correction and clarification.
Comments from members of the congregation regarding that format is that we didn’t do a very good job of hiding our true motivation, which was to maintain a comfortable control over the meeting. It also effectively cuts off the opportunity for follow-up questions, and robs us of both tone and body language in the communication. I remember reading some of the more controversial questions in a very flat tone and affect, also a method of deescalating the importance or gravity of the question--to my shame--I was very unfair to the questioner. Probably because of my experience in being on the manipulative end of this I bear a hypersensitivity to it. I am glad to know CLC is taking the bold step of the open mic.
Again, thanks.
April 28th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Thanks for the kind words Rick. There’s been a lot of dialogue regarding open mic/controlled meetings. It appears that the CLC leadership is somewhere in between right now. Keep in mind that one of the main items they came under fire for and earned SGMs rebuke and eventual cut off was having open mic/discussion at members meetings. You know people should not be able to speak their minds because that is gossip and slander. Even AOR mentioned this in their report and advised against it.
Also, CLC’s format is one pastor moderates and asks the questions of a panel of pastors. One pastor answers the question and then other pastors that have anything to add chime it. I find it an acceptable format as it answers a lot of questions in a short amount of time. Also, the pastors welcome follow up emails after the meeting and normally hang around for a while after if anyone wants to follow up personally.
April 28th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
One more quick note--if AoR or SGM leadership did read the blogs comprehensively--in context, they would take note of the self-correcting factors present when communication is allowed to flow freely and uncensored. What MAK offered to correct my lack of understanding is, I think, one of the necessary reasons that questions and concerns should be encouraged and welcomed in the midst of this living organism we call the church. If the truth is our priority, then we should fear nothing. Speaking as one currently enjoying a rest from leadership responsibilities, if we are insecure hearing the perceptions of others regarding our leadership, that should be a provocation to humble ourselves and seek input regarding our blind spots. I have been the recipient of some unfair criticism; however, the larger part of criticism that I/we received for our leaderships decisions, in retrospect, was deserved. I wish I had been quicker to discern rightly--but I am utterly grateful for the grace demonstrated toward me as I better understand my humanity expressed in that risky place of leadership. Giving up the desire to be in control is quite freeing.
April 28th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Rick, :Approve: Excellent comment. For years we were taught to be humble when receiving “input” or “correction” but yet now when the congregation is giving “input” which disagrees with the leadership they get defensive. I couldn’t agree more with you when you say “Giving up control is quite freeing”. Yes, pastors will give an account but ultimately the church is in God’s control. Who are we to think that we control the church.
Rick, if your season of not being in leadership ends, I think we have a few openings at CLC vacated by CJ’s son-in-laws. We’d be glad to have your perspective, LOL!!
April 28th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Guy, what happened to the old Emoticons???? There’s a few I miss!!
April 28th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
MAK, I laugh heartily with you regarding future leadership. My whole view of leadership changed after a sermon series done by a beloved teaching elder on the parables. I discovered, as Philip Yancey would say, the Jesus I never knew. I was transformed by the invitational Jesus I met in the parables, in contrast to the very imperative Jesus that I heard about in the 38+ years of sermons and exhortation I experienced. I found that I not only loved Jesus, but I liked Him, an important rounding out of my spiritual life.
I was told by one of the leaders in the association of churches we belong to that the transformed leadership vision I had acquired was “dangerous”--I had just finished an explanation of how I thought that it was up to leadership to set a positive example that would invite people into loving relationship with Jesus, rather than pushing them to conform to whatever ‘vision’ leadership felt compelled to project. I think leadership should be risky--if we are truly following Christ, won’t the fragrance of that be attractive enough to draw others to follow Him as well? I knew my days were numbered after the ‘dangerous’ label was applied.
The other men in leadership were/are good men; it is risky to invite, rather than compel--people can turn down an invitation. We may look as though we have failed. I’m OK with that now, but I was never salaried, so the fear of having my financial security threatened was never an issue. I have empathy for professional leadership--I am currently reading the book by Mataxis called Bonhoeffer; I love that the Christians that dissented from the state church in Germany before WWII chose to call themselves the Confessing Church. It would be better for us all if we were more confession oriented than profession oriented.
Blessings upon all the readers this evening,
April 28th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Guy, I’m with MAC.
Ya know, I could just sit and watch that train crash again and again for HOURS.
(Yeah, I’m easily amused.)
April 28th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Rick said in 161————”the hardest part of forgiveness is the necessity of dropping our expectation of seeing justice this side of heaven.” Rick, that is so true and wise!!!
I think exClcer brought up the whole Claude story simply to illustrate how easily CLC’s cultish ways can come up in random conversations in the community. I had long heard about CLC’s cultish ways, but didn’t believe it for myself……
April 28th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Many months and many threads/conversations ago, Brent was seen by several posting here as analogous to Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the cathedral. “Well done,” some said in essence, “now pack it in and move one with your life.”
Now, it appears, the metaphor has changed. Here is Luther, post-excommunication, petitioning in some way to get the Pope disciplined and to regain a standing in the R.C. church. Odd.
As to the civil action threat, I think Res Ipsa answered best: Brent has no standing in the civil court for wrongful termination, as that was determined by the local church and its immediate advisers. If Brent has standing to validate a civil decision, what does he hope to win? Also, if Brent has standing in civil court, then why doesn’t “Friendly Fire” have equal standing for the treatment he received from BD and MC?
Could this be analogous to the man from La Mancha tilting at windmills? I mean no disrespect for Brent, but he’s beginning to remind me of a bull terrier, hanging tough — but for what ultimate cause?
April 28th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
(I posted this at Refuge and wanted to say it here as well.
I just listened to the message from T4G by Ligon Duncan. Titled ‘The Underestimated God’. As I listened I was thinking, both Josh Harris and CJ Mahaney were part of the audience and heard this message and I wondered what each of them took from it. It’s a very moving and informative study of Elijah’s experiences and God’s ways with him. I also wondered if Duncan had any thoughts of anyone in particular as he prepared or if he had all hearers, as human beings, in mind.
http://t4g.org/media/2012/04/t…..mated-god/
April 28th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Sorry, badly copied link @#184 — good one below.
http://t4g.org/media/2012/04/the-underestimated-god/
April 29th, 2012 at 1:01 am
@ATC you said: “Now I don’t know where I am… I read Kris’ 160 and totally agreed with it and then I read Epaphras’ 161 and totally agreed with THAT.”
I agreed with both too.
April 29th, 2012 at 4:33 am
Concerning Louisville: You may recall that someone posted a link on the last thread to a blog called gracelouisville.org. It had a very positive article about SGM coming to that city. I wrote a comment questioning some of the things in the article. (It’s still there, six days later.)
The author, Darin Anderson, emailed me, and admitted that most of his info came from the AOR report. He was eager for more input, so I gave him a summary and some links. He wrote back to thank me, and said that he realized there was more to the story and wanted to be accurate to the facts.
Though it’s just a small blog, without, he said, much traffic, he might be someone who is not beholden to SGM and will be open to criticizing them. It’s a start.
April 29th, 2012 at 10:07 am
JeffB #187 — It’s good to see someone who is open to hearing truth, and not shutting you down as if it were g/s. I wonder at your choice of words in saying ‘he might be open to criticizing them’. Is that really the goal of having him know some truth? I pray he will check out the things he’s heard before saying anything and sounding foolish. After all, he has no ‘dog in the race’.
April 29th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
I had to do some spring cleaning, and the emoticons were a casualty. Maybe I can be convinced to go back, but for now we’ll have to do with the big shiny ones ;)
April 29th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Oswald -
After I posted the comment, I wasn’t happy with those words either. What I meant was that he might be more accurate positively and negatively.
April 29th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Thanks JeffB.
April 29th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
:I-Wish: …for the train wreck back!! :Cry-Out:
Please?
Please?
:Angel:
Put those emoticons BACK!!! :Bully:
How can I persuade you?:Thinking:
I know, I’ll get my champion to help!
:Superman:
April 29th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Thanks for the help Luna.
I just want to play with the trains again…..
April 29th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Chug chug chug chug…Woo woo!
:Happy-Grin: :Pleasure:
(hee hee)
April 29th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Yes, the train wreck is classic but how can we live without the beating the dead horse, the little guy puking, and of course Mr. Koolaid!!!!
April 29th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
lmalone #174 wrote
I disagree. There are plenty of wise brothers and sisters who could decide this fairly. The fact that the parties can’t agree on who should decide doesn’t mean that fair-minded, godly people capable of reaching an equitable decision don’t exist.
April 29th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Res Ipsa -
Yes. Out of 28,000 members across the country I’m sure they could find brothers and sisters that could reach an equitable decision :)
SGM does not think very highly of those 28,000 members.
April 30th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Bridget --
SGM doesn’t WANT brothers and sisters that could reach an equitable decision.
They want to do what they want to do. For over a year now they have done what they wanted, mostly. They have made excuses and tried to avoid getting blamed for anything.
The three panels were the closest they came to real accountability. The facts came out pretty well but the conclusions were still all SGM.
SGM wants to keep the kool-aid flowing to those who drink. Everyone else can get lost!
April 30th, 2012 at 10:57 am
On a different topic --
CLC stopped paying and Fairfax stopped paying. Those two churches accounted for over a million dollars a year to SGM.
AoR has cost SGM $425,000 so far.
The moves will cost money as well. They can purchase something in Ky to move into but it will take some time to sell their offices in CLC (there is a condo arrangement with CLC so hopefully CLC will buy the offices back at a fraction of what SGM paid for them! The economy is down and SGM has to leave in a hurry! Hopefully CLC wont do like they did with the sons in law.)
If 10 or more churches leave SGM as a result of the new draconian polity CJ is writing up, and those churches dont send people to the NEW pastors college, I can see a time when SGM has to sell properties to have enough operating funds.
As they canabalize their savings, selling MoCo townhouses, to build up a presence in Ky, hopefully the kool-aid crew will see this as a desperate attempt to put a good face on a sorry situation, and decide to go elsewhere. Only Melinger and Sasser devotee’s will be left. How long can SGM continue under those circumstances? The SGM/CJ/Loftness/Harvey leadership model will slowly crumble under the weight of continued bad publicity, poor leadership and diminished attendance.
(Mark Lauterbauch of the San Diego SGM Church preached last week at the Fairfax Church. He explained how the regular overbearing SGM model slowly drove people away from their church. The only way they avoided closing was to go to the people. They opened up to the congregation, ran the church like most churches where the people had some say in the direction and operation of the church and now the church is back up to a level that they are talking about planting a new church. Check it…there is hope.
http://media.sovgracefairfax.org/mp3/San_Diego_Church_Plant_Announcement.mp3 )
April 30th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Oswald said (in response to JeffB):
I also agree that is is nice when someone is willing to hear both sides. A number of people I have interacted don’t even want to hear or “entertain” the possibility that there may a number of issues in SGM including with C.J. Mahaney.
When possible it is good to interact with people and share the other side that they may not know about.
My thought is that some of those that aren’t open are so closed because it would destroy what they see as their perfect world. The more you have invested in a group like SGM the harder it would be to admit that it wasn’t what you thought. It is hard to admit that you were duped by a leader who didn’t practice at least some of what he taught.