Redeemer Church of Charlottesville VA First to Leave Sovereign Grace Ministries
From Brent Detwiler’s site comes the following (you can access his original, which contains his commentary on the separation, here):
————————–
The following joint statement was sent out yesterday to all the SGM pastors.
July 24, 2012
A Joint Statement: Redeemer Church of Charlottesville, VA and Sovereign Grace Ministries
We want to let you know that Redeemer Church of Charlottesville has decided to end their association with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Though saddened by this news, we are supportive of their decision. We are very grateful for the humble and careful way they have worked through this and the peaceable and respectful way we have been able to discuss our differences. But mostly, we are grateful for the long relationship we have had with Keith Breault. He continues to be a man whom we love and respect. We wish him, his leadership team, and Redeemer Church great blessings and success in the future. Though separating in formal association, we are not separated in mutual affection, mutual respect, and mutual passion to see God glorified through gospel-centered local churches.
Below is a letter from Keith explaining this separation from their perspective.
##
I’m writing on behalf of Redeemer Church of Charlottesville to inform you that on July 9th we separated from SGM.
As you can imagine, this decision was difficult for every member of our leadership team and for many in our church — who have a long history with SGM. We have enjoyed a rich partnership with SGM and thank God for the ways in which we have been trained, strengthened and fed through this wonderful group of believers. The relationships we’ve forged within SGM over the years are some of the dearest we possess, and we hope changing our affiliation won’t alter the deep fellowship God has wrought and nurtured.
Over the past year, we have been watching events unfold while simultaneously planting this new church in Charlottesville. Naturally, we have been evaluating SGM’s leadership in light of how it corresponds with our own priorities and values. “Consistent divergence” describes the dynamic between SGM’s leadership and our own instincts and convictions. We love the people of SGM and we love the leaders of SGM, but differences in some key areas make peaceful departure our best option.
This decision and its rationale were expressed in detail to SGM by letter on July 9, with our commitment to uphold respect and goodwill. In phone calls the following day with C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, and Mickey Connolly — and a conference call Thursday between Mickey and our leadership team — we exchanged expressions of mutual encouragement and respect for our varied perspectives. We also exchanged commitments to conduct this transition peaceably, with the Gospel in mind, wishing each other maximum joy and fruitfulness as we all continue to follow Jesus.
Thank you for your friendship and support throughout our years of SGM partnership. We invite your prayers as we continue spreading the Gospel in Charlottesville.
With our brotherly love, in Christ
Keith Breault
August 4th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Kris 146
I agree with you. I believe we follow Jesus’ example best when we both share the Good News along with ministering to the physical needs of the lost. That is an example of being a most faithful friend. You don’t have to leave behind one for the other.
August 4th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Hey Sopy-
I was not picking on you, or meaning to criticize. I was simply noticing how many of the videos were from your links, that’s all.
A friendly poke if you will. I am in no position to criticize those that make good use of media, social or other. My companies are involved
in all facets of such things. Expression in every form is better than oppression in any form.
August 5th, 2012 at 2:14 am
Sop -
No frustration here. I do think that the way you communicate is often way too roundabout for my tastes. You throw out links like they’re subtle jabs, and it ends up looking like a whole lotta spam. But that’s OK. Different strokes, and all that.
The thing is, it seems to me that instead of it being an either/or thing, Eagle’s online interactions with Christians could be more along the lines of both/and. It’s nice that he got attention from the self-proclaimed blog queens. And maybe it’s not such a bad thing, either, that someone else tells him to repent and quit rejecting the truth.
There’s room for both. But people will like what they like. That’s cool with me.
August 5th, 2012 at 6:39 am
Kris, Sopy — ‘For it is God who is at work in us/you/Eagle both to will and to do of (all) His good pleasure’. What anyone else does or says is a part of what God is doing, but ultimately it is He who does what gets done.
Praying for God’s will to be done today throughout our great nation. “Come holy Spirit and speak Lord, for your servants are listening”.
August 5th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Kris,
Hey,
I concur with the understanding that the body of Christ is diverse. We each have been called. In us He has place His spirit, and is happy to dwell. This in itself has always amazed me. That this Awesome God would care enough to sacrifice Himself for Man, is beyond my comprehension.
It has also amazed my that you & Guy would take the time out of your busy schedules and engaging lives, to minister to those who fortune has not been so promising.
There is not enough thanks in anyone’s book to repay you both for your great contribution to this corner of the Lord’s house. But that does not stop many of those here from trying.
Although my methods are in themselves controversial, my prayers & intercessions for His church are not so much so. If we are called by the Lord we serve, will He not also provide that which is necessary to accomplish His intended purpose?
That is my “hope”.
The Lord has moved heaven & earth under your watch for so many, with the tender care of a hen who gathers her chicks. Far be it for me to criticize your methods.
It is my hope that the Lord will fill you to overflowing -his mighty spirit and direct you continually with His word.
That the dark lord will have none effect.
As we fight not against flesh, may our precious Lord graciously provide you both with the tools that necessitate a sound victory in both “light” and “the release of the captives”.
Please Note: You have never failed to publish my “foolishness”. For that I am in your debt.
To Prayer, To Service…the Lord knows who are His.
In closing, may our Lord keep you in the hollow of His hands, and grant you every success.
Blessings!
In His service,
Sopy
August 5th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
“Lord, You are the home where brokenness finds healing”
*
Oswald,
*
Hey,
*
Your words (#154) and your heart is very precious. I drink in your words and am refreshed. Thank-You!
*
…♪♫♪ “Once again, my words cannot describe You
Once again, I am small beside You Have mercy on me, I am so unworthy Shadow me beneath Your wings.”
*
…♪♫♪ “I was a fool who searched the world for empty places And I was a fool to look beyond your living spaces You are the home where brokenness finds healing I have found where I belong. Abide in me Jesus live here as I wait for you.”
*
…♪♫♪ Abide in me Jesus live here In the place I save just for You Abide in me Jesus draw near As I wait for You. Once again, I am lost without You Once again, there’s no peace without You Have mercy on me, I just want to know You Gather me into Your wings. Abide in me…” - Ana Laura
*
*
Gathering in His name…
*
Blessings!
*
Sopy
August 5th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Sovereign Grace Church of Apex is continuing its current series on church government, which provides additional insight into the Nathan Sasser/Phil Sasser/Daniel Baker perspective. The 29 July sermon is about bringing charges against elders --
Elders -- Shepherds of God’s Sheep (15 July) — http://sovgracenc.org/teachings/?sermon_id=480
Elders -- Part II (22 July) — http://sovgracenc.org/teachings/?sermon_id=481
When Elders Stumble (29 July) — http://sovgracenc.org/teachings/?sermon_id=482
August 6th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Oz,
As always, the hyper-application of the metaphor. The ultra-literal interpretation. You are sheep, and thus, you are dumb animals who need to be compelled against your stupid natural tendencies. But notice that the thrust of their sermons is always on the “sheep” part of the metaphor, which, in reality is the aspect that should obviously be most LOOSELY applied (for humans are not animals, they are not to be forced to go here or there…which is what shepherds did, as opposed to guide, and they don’t exist for the sole purpose of providing meat and clothing to the shepherds and land owners).
Really, the way that metaphor is most aptly applied is to the PASTOR/ELDER…and notice that whenever Paul or Jesus uses the metaphor he is speaking to the Pastors, not the flock. The church leaders of the day would have understood shepherd as a proper metaphor for their role. The pastoral/herding history of Israel, the humility of the position, the requirement of men with particular patience, an acceptance of their place as men who were not likely to inherit land or fame or riches.
SGM should spend more time preaching this metaphor to THEMSELVES at pastor’s conferences and less time inflicting the flock with their irresponsible, hyper-literal interpretations of what it means to be good, obedient little sheeple.
August 6th, 2012 at 11:38 am
@Argo, 158 — Ding, ding, ding!
Bells went off in my head when I read your post. Brilliant.
So obvious, really, now that you say it, but it is amazing how much brainwashing I have unconsciously absorbed. I am discovering more and more how much my take on certain passages of Scripture has been colored by all the teaching I’ve heard connected with it.
It is so refreshing on the outside now to see Scripture in clearer context.
August 6th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
And I understand how one might argue that the thrust of Daniels first message was to defining shepherd. I assure you this is not the case. This sermon was in service to the authority of the pastor over the sheep, and this can only happen when the sheep understand that pastoring ultimately has nothing to do with them. This is the massive irony of Daniel’s sermon. He says verbatim “it’s all about the sheep”, but if you listen carefully you’ll realize that by his own interpretations, the sheep are utterly incidental to the whole equation. It is only the “work” of the pastor that means anything to God. Never the work of the sheep. Thus, pastors are divinely ordained to occupy a ruling place over the depraved, unable masses, who, by definition of the metaphor of the “sheep” can do nothing for themselves. SGM pastors have successfully convinced themselves that it is really about them and God…not so much you or me.
August 6th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Argus, I too am amazed how much you can see when you, you know, recognize that you aren’t actually a spiritual imbecile
August 6th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
And here is the thing. Sticking with the “shepherd” theme: not only is it never all about the sheep, it’s really not about the sheep at all. In the profession of shepherding, it is only ever about the sheep insofar as the sheep are able to provide for the economic welfare of the shepherd and the land owner. That is, the sheep’s only intrinsic value is its mutton and wool. Shepherds do none of their shepherding simply out of an interest for the well-being of the sheep apart from their economic value as livestock. That is a fact. No, the sheep were animals in the Bible, and that distinction was never blurred…there was NO equality with the shepherd ever considered or implied. That, of course, would have been ridiculous.
Now, do we think this would apply to the pastor AS shepherd? Of course not. So, in taking the metaphor well beyond its mere tangential meaning, which would have been understood back then to mean “humble, patient, not self-seeking” (THE definition of servant leader, and the metaphor for “feeding”, which is simply giving them the gospel, not telling them how to interpret every verse in the Bible, SGM and New Calvinist pastors make the metaphor effectively their literal JOB description, which is ludicrous. They are NOT shepherds in any sense other than it applies to the attitude they bring to the task. Instead, though they acknowledge the metaphorical sense of the term “pastor”, they bring to it a very literal understanding of what that title says about them (the Man of God — superior spiritual knowledge, revelation, ultimate authority over the “sheep”, divine mandate to pronounce what is and is not orthodox interpretations) and what it says about the sheep (the “animal or beast” — ignorant, prone to wander, incapable of having divine relationship apart from the medium of the pastor, needing to be forced/coerced into order and into “goodness”, needing to be told where to go and what to do..I would add “what to think”, but thinking doesn’t ever enter into the equation for them, you are a sheep). This is why we need to be people who really study the Scriptures…to see if what they preach really, well…really makes sense. We need to be Bereans, yes…and remember, the Bereans? They never acknowledged that Paul was “infallible”. They said, we need to look into this ourselves. They went back and researched all he told them, and they were called NOBLE. Now, I’m not saying that Paul’s writings aren’t divinely inspired, but my point is that if it was not sinful for the Bereans to question Paul, it certainly isn’t sinful that we should question our SGM pastors in ALL they teach. And we should be free to arrive at different conclusions. But we aren’t. Try disagreeing with your pastor’s doctrinal assumption on this or that one time over coffee at starbucks (and I’m not talking whether you should you watch South Park or not; no, I mean, tell him that you no longer want to go to homegroup because you don’t feel it’s biblically supported; tell him you are an Arminian) and see how fast the sheep metaphor turns literal…it will make your head spin. Remember, we are more LITERALLY sheep than figuratively to them.
The metaphor is only a metaphor to them insofar as you don’t walk on all fours and aren’t covered in wool.
August 6th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
(Off Topic)
Be sure and listen to the video Karen Campbell posted on her blog today. Here’s her post. You’ll find the video on the link.
http://www.thatmom.com/2012/08/06/another-reason-to-keep-our-eyes-on-jesus-and-not-man/
August 6th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Argo -- You are not helping me to be a “Joy” to my Pastors. ;)
The SGM trinity = Spend, Attend, & Obey!
August 6th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Unassimilated: “Argo — You are not helping me to be a “Joy” to my Pastors.”
Unassimilated,
GOOD!! :-)
August 8th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Understand the foundational thrust of these sermons of Daniel and Phil in Apex: do not expect any real change.
We need to understand that this is what Daniel and Phil are saying. Notice that the sermons all rest on this premise: we are the sole arbiters of TRUE Christian orthodoxy. That is, our interpretations, according to our sound doctrine, are the only correct ones. All others are false doctrines. And thus, we accept as truth that, regardless of how we actually do our jobs, the way we have defined and designed them is categorically biblical and right, and our revelations on Scripture are directly from the Holy Spirit, and thus our interpretations are infallible. So, to effect any real change to polity means that we would have to deny our orthodoxy, or “sound doctrine”, which would be against God. Meaning, THEY are the source of divine revelation and ALL truth. Folks, this is Gnosticism 101.
So, it doesn’t matter that there is story after story, website after website, and a thousand pages of primary source material from Brent D (who was there and who helped DESIGN the doctrinal foundations) and a proven history of pastoral abuse of authority, which indicates a huge, empirical disconnect between the divine “perfection” of the ideas and the disastrous practical outcomes of their application. Nope, as Phil says in the beginning of his sermon, Part II, when you put men in place who are doing our perfect orthodox government right(or if you put them in ANY government, he says…this statement is so, so unsettling I don’t even know how to process it), then everything will be all peaches and roses. See…it’s not the doctrine. Our doctrine is sound. It’s got to be the HUMANS just not getting the stuff right in the depraved places between their ears. If we just got men who thought right, none of this stuff with Brent and Ceej would be happening (the irony is that according to their doctrine, they are right…Brent has no authority to do anything other than submit and obey; that’s all they would have needed to say…if they didn’t think we were such idiots, they could have just said this and avoided all this polity bunk in the first place; but if they didn’t think we were idiots they wouldn’t be keeping to their reformed “sound doctrine”, so…paradox, man).
So, the answer is not to change the polity or to rethink the doctrine…no the answer is to apply MORE control so that we can effect outcomes better; that is, so that we can make sure stupid people get their minds right and DO the right thing and stop getting in the way of our perfect doctrine. See, it’s not that their doctrine is bad. No…they have the monopoly on orthodoxy; it’s just people being sinners. And, you know, shrug, that’s just what we all are (see how this works…they can’t be blamed for any wrong they do! They are just little ol’ sinners, too…boo, hoo. It is quite genius, actually). No need to really change anything. We just need to try better as pastors to get or minds right, and you, the sheep, just need to stop judging and understand that if we fail, we are just sinners like you, and if we succeed, well, we have simply proven our doctrine is indeed correct. But in either case, it’s never the doctrine or our interpretive methods, so you NEVER have any just cause to bring a grievance; you never have any just cause to leave; you never have any just cause to expect any change.
Folks, we need to understand that this speaks volumes about what SGM leaders think of us. Their contempt for people is so thick you can almost plant stuff in it.
August 8th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Argo #166
You are spot on.
August 8th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
After reading all these comments, I keep wondering what Carolyn ACTUALLY has experienced and what she ACTUALLY feels sometime. If CJ is as proud as his behavior suggests, no matter what Carolyn says or how many books she writes about Biblical womanhood, there’s GOT to be some tension at home on this matter. . . just wondering. . .
August 8th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
If I had to guess, I really think Carolyn has been dealing with this in the marriage but would never say a word about it.
August 8th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Argus 62 -
SS’s activity was not at Kurth’s church but at the other SF Bay Area church which at the time was the only SG church out there. SS had to apolgize there for using language that was disparaging to some ethnic groups. Additionally, sources there say he had a part in the mishandling of staff issues there. This all happened 3-4 years ago.
BTW, the covering over of all wrongs is not limited to SG royalty. At the last college summer camp for SG, in 2008, one of the prominent internationally known speakers at the event had a meltdown in front of the assembled college kiddos and a couple of dozen SG pastors. The outburst was so bad that an SG staffer left the camp crying and drove back to Gburg. Said speaker got a pass …
FWIW,
Former SG Pastor
August 8th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
If Ceej is going to set up shop at an SBC seminary, then be a Southern Baptist. Their President serves a one-year term, and they can serve a maximum of two comsecutive terms. By the way, Southern Baptists believe that the last Apostle died about 1900 years ago (apologies to Ceej-and Brent too), and-get this-congregations are INVOLVED in sending delegates to the convention to elect the President! The heresy!
Real change is not coming until the open-ended reign and the nepotism is eliminated. If CJ doesn’t have the integrity to institute the change, then someone needs to have the intestinal fortitude to. We should trust that God will sovereignly provide leaders once CJ has served and moved on.
August 8th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
FSGP
Was that speaker with the breakdown an SGM associated employee or from the outside? Sad that especially a speaker like that would get a “free pass.”
August 8th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Callan 169
From close observation over several decades, I never saw one SG pastor’s wife do anything but support and defend her husband. They were also taught to look to their husband’s direction about anything they would do or say.
Any major disagreement, if there was any, was brought behind closed doors. Carolyn was no exception. The closest she ever got to teaching other women to confront their husbands’ sin was mentioned in her, “Watch your Husband” teaching. And, even that teaching was an effort to help husbands avoid public humiliation and ‘degifting’.
Hmm, I wonder if she feels any responsibility for CJ’s public shame and humiliation this year?
August 8th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Steve240 -
The speaker was from outside SG and this occurred at the Clash conference in 2008.
Former SG Pastor
August 8th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
FSGP
Thanks for clarifying. Was that same outside speaker invited again to speak within SGM somewhere after that?
Just curious. Wouldn’t surprise me if he was a well known person or one who endorsed Mahaney’s books that he would be invited back even after what he did.
August 8th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
I noticed this announcement for the 2012 SGM Pastors’ Conference:
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/events/pastors-conference/default.aspx
One unusual thing about this supposed “pastors’ conference” is that this conference “is for pastors and their wives and anyone who hopes to someday be a pastor or church planter.”
I find that unusual that it is open to “anyone.” Perhaps opening this to anyone is way to subsidize the expense of having this conference where they have to pay for the facility vs.when in the past they had it at CLC. If it is speaking only and not having conference discussion sessions then would be OK to have it so open. On the other hand, when has SGM Leadership really listened to the input of those below them on the leadership pyramid.
I am assuming having this open is a new practice. Can anyone confirm this? One would think they would want to restrict this to just pastors for various reasons but as they say additional $’s can always be a factor.
August 9th, 2012 at 8:51 am
“In Plain English”
HowDee YaAll,
I am reminded of a story:
…His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, while trying to make a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools And ran to the bog.
There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death.
The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman’s sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved.
‘I want to repay you,’ said the nobleman. ‘You saved my son’s life.’
‘No, I can’t accept payment for what I did,’ the Scottish farmer replied waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer’s own son came to the door of the family hovel.
Is that your son?’ the nobleman asked.
Yes,’ the farmer replied proudly.
‘I’ll make you a deal. Let me provide him with the level of education my own son will enjoy If the lad is anything like his father, he’ll no doubt grow to be a man we both will be proud of.’ And that he did.
Farmer Fleming’s son attended the very best schools and in time, graduated from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin.
Years afterward, the same nobleman’s son who was saved from the bog was stricken with pneumonia. What saved his life this time? Penicillin.
The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill .. His son’s name?
The Sir Winston Churchill.
*
Do unto others as you would have done unto you?
Hmmm…
…Interesting concept!
(grin)
hahahahahhaha
Sopy
August 9th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
And from speaking with pastors and their wives who left THAT was one of the problems. God did not make every woman like Carolyn and they received pressure to conform to that pattern. . . And not everyone’s child was as compliant as the Mahaney girls either . . .
August 9th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Perhaps they are now inviting everyone to the Pastors Conference so they can fill up the hall. With the numbers who support CJ/SGM falling it would be embarrassing if a Pastors Conference was held and only a small portion of the seats were filled!
August 9th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
And why would anyone want to go to the Pastors Conference. Oh ya, they have free kool-aid at every session.
.
August 10th, 2012 at 6:40 am
Steve240 -
Yes, the speaker has been back at least once at a major SG function.
I think SG events like the Pastors Conference have been open in the past. I know that there were leadership and pastors conferences that I attended that had folks from outside SG. There are closed meetings like the mandatory formation before T4G but even that had a few observers from outside.
Why would anyone want to attend? A lot of the meetings are mandatory. When I attended the T4G pre-meeting in 2008 my senior pastor/boss complained the whole time about how he HAD to be there. No complaints from him about blowing the congregations money, though …
Cheers,
Former SG Pastor
August 10th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Callan -as one of those non-Carolyn-ish wives…..always thought that was one of our reasons for my dear Defender NOT getting “promoted”! He was too good to me!
However it seems that when it comes to handling the more non-compliant children the Mahaneys didn’t do all that great with their own son’s high school years, did they?
The whole sociopath concept keeps ringing back in my brain with regards to Mahaneys. Anyone else remember a conference in CO where Carolyn talked about being pregnant, nauseous & hungry, and driving from MD to Richmond and CJ NOT being willing to pull over and buy his pregnant wife some food because he himself wasn’t hungry? Who else was at that meeting on “Hannah” and was horrified at that one? If CJ is a sociopath or at the least a narciccist it would answer her not being cared for because he wasn’t hungry.
August 10th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
I remember Carolyn telling the story about them as newly marrieds, and he would spend all day Sundays preaching then talking with people through lunchtime, and she would be starving but he would not be hungry so she would miss lunch. She excused him by saying that they were young and he just didn’t know how to care for a wife. I have never been to Colorado, and the details are different, so it seems like it took him a long time to learn how to “care for a wife” if we have both newly and pregnancy missing lunch stories.
August 10th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I think your stories are very telling QE2 and Defended. Thank you for sharing. . .
August 11th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Interesting comments about Carolyn.
I know a narcissist/sociopath and he treats his wife and kids similar.
I guess it’s the marks of such.
Can a narcissist/sociopath change? I’ve read “yes” and I’ve read “no.”
August 11th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
A Kindred Spirit 185
I think selfish spouses are sometimes ‘enabled’ by extremely unselfish spouses.
However, I believe, if the unselfish spouse can learn to confront their spouse is their selfish behavior, change can happen more readily.
Carolyn has had a habit of excusing CJ’s neglect and insensitivity and he has no clue how domineering he is.
This is one area Josh and CJ dramatically differ. Josh is significantly more sensitive and caring of Shannon.
August 12th, 2012 at 9:32 am
Thanks, Persona. I agree.
Folks would accuse people of speculation with Carolyn and CJ, but people’s speculation comes from years of observing the two of them and knowledge of what the various symptoms of a narcissist/sociopath/extremely-selfish-person look like, and what the marriage of such a match looks like. No, we can’t know for certain, but if it looks and acts like a duck, those who are in a position to do so ought to move in a little closer for a better look and address it if it definitely appears to be a duck, for both CJ and Carolyn’s sakes.
It’s amazing, isn’t it…how so many pastors that have risen to power in recent years suffer from such -- celebrity pastors with massive followings. Seems like I read of one being exposed and biting the dust every few months now.
August 12th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
New Brent post up
August 12th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
And he used the “C” word….my goodness
August 12th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Used it like a Boss…well a former Boss.
http://favim.com/image/120346/
August 13th, 2012 at 6:54 am
I know (from comments and other reader feedback I’ve received over the years) that any discussion of CJ’s and Carolyn’s personal lives together provokes an intriguing variety of responses.
Some folks -- this would include a lot of our male readers -- see these conversations and just sort of glaze over with disinterest. Some feel like we have no business talking about what their relationship might really be like. Some think all SGM pastors’ personal lives have little to do with SGM’s larger issues.
I can see how people might come to those conclusions. But I would disagree that the actual quality of CJ’s and Carolyn’s relationship, or how they really interact with each other and feel about each other, is irrelevant to SGM’s dysfunction. I think it’s all kinds of relevant.
For one thing, the Mahaneys have created something of a brand identity out of their marriage and the way they relate to one another. Carolyn Mahaney has a nice little following solely because of the fact that she’s CJ’s wife and has come to be viewed as the go-to person for “Biblical Womanhood.” CJ himself has repeatedly brought their personal lives into his teachings, frequently citing himself and his wife as examples of what to do and how to be. They obviously see themselves as role models and believe that it is appropriate -- even necessary -- for pastors to put their wives and their successful marriages and families on public display, for people to use as inspiration.
So I think it matters, big time, what they’ve said over the years about their relationship, and how it really might be in real life, behind closed doors.
That being said, it strikes me that Carolyn is likely Enabler-In-Chief when it comes to CJ’s overblown sense of his own importance. The way she and her daughters and their husbands all reacted to CJ’s “season of reflection” last year shows us how unable or unwilling they are to step outside the comfortable lives CJ’s power and fame has provided for them and really see and speak the truth to him.
I can understand why it would be difficult. After so many years of putting in her time, standing by her man, gazing submissively and admiringly at him, and basking in his reflected glory, Carolyn has just as much to lose through any loss of influence as does CJ himself. So do his daughters and sons-in-law.
So I think there’s probably a huge gap between what CJ’s supporters believe about the Mahaney family’s private interactions and what really goes on behind closed doors. I can imagine that they are all, to varying degrees, in major amounts of denial about what CJ is really like, and what his problems really are. Who’d want to get off the Mahaney gravy train, anyway? There are still enough loyal followers out there that will “gift” them reduced-rate (or perhaps even free) beachfront vacation homes and whatnot, and provide them with influential internships and special breaks at seminary, and keep the ministry funds and the book deals flowing their way.
It would take a tremendous amount of objectivity and character and a huge willingness to experience personal discomfort and loss in order to see the truth and speak it. After entire lifetimes of living under CJ’s thumb and deferring to him (because that’s the only way to live out “biblical womanhood,” after all), the women in CJ’s life probably honestly believe what he’s taught them. They all have some degree of Stockholm Syndrome.
But I bet he’s just as autocratic and full of himself in private as he was in the glimpses of his behavior that we got from Brent’s documents.
August 13th, 2012 at 9:03 am
Kris, I agree with everything you said.
CJ has a “heart” issue and it’s reflected in EVERYTHING he does…that would include his marriage to Carolyn.
Proverbs 27:19
As water reflects a face, so a man’s heart reflects the man.
Matthew 12:34
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
Matthew 15:18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Mark 7:21-22
For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
August 13th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Fascinating insight into Brent in his latest post: I have concerns over his integrity in his accusations of Mickey Connolly and cult-like tendencies etc.
He claims Mickey abuses the Scriptures, and then says this to a member of CWCC -- “God commands you to pursue justice [Prov 18:17].” He repeats this in an e-mail to another CWCC member who had e-mailed him asking him to stop corresponding with them. (One in which he claims to be a watchman in the manner of Ezekiel)
Two issues arise -- firstly, the Proverb is not a command from God, it is an observed ‘norm’ in life passed on from a King to his son as wisdom for his role in judging disputes. It is immoral of Brent to claim Mickey abuses the Scriptures as long as he is doing so himself.
Secondly, the claim to be a watchman in the manner of Ezekiel is proof-texting at best and deception at worse, since this side of the Cross the question of whose blood is to be spilt over which sin is answered only in Jesus. So whether Brent warns people or not, he will not be judged in the manner that Ezekiel was warned of since Jesus’ blood was spilt for Brent, and he does not need to add to that sacrifice.
Brent is in poor taste at best, and at worst he is worthy of the claim of divisive behaviour, if he continues to contact people who have asked him to stop.
The great sadness I feel is that the man had a point, one that has far too easily been missed by the watching world because of his questionable choices and manner -- if he would just point the finger at himself and say the control, manipulation, sin-sniffing and other practices are laid at his feet as well as the other A-team members etc, he would get more of a hearing in most quarters than as at present.
Here’s hoping the CLC reforms prove who has responded rightly to the discipline of God here.
August 13th, 2012 at 10:50 am
How is contacting someone who has asked you to stop contacting them “divisive”? It might be disrespectful, obnoxious and importunate, but I’m not seeing divisive. In fact, it would seem that the one who has cut off discussion (“Don’t contact me.”) has been divisive, placing a barrier between himself and another.
I probably shouldn’t get into this, as I don’t follow what Brent writes, but that stood out to me in Gareth mcnab’s post. You should be able to listen to someone whether you like his choices and manner or not. We should be more concerned with substance than style. That is something that has always impressed me with this blog.
August 13th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Gareth @193 -
Many men can be accused of the same actions. Scripture is being used throughout the Christian realm for people to throw darts at one another and to subjugate people to obedience to leaders. This is not the purpose of Scripture. It is quite sad to see this. We saw Satan try to use Scripture this way when Jesus was tested. The Pharisees also used scripture this way.
I agree that Brent has something to say, but he has yet to say publicly and to the entire movement that he was part of the bigger problem. I don’t think he sees that he is part of the bigger problem that affected the entire movement. For Brent, the error is a moral failing with individual leaders and not a misuse of Scripture that resulted in heavy handed authority by leaders and a minimizing of people (who are filled with the Holy Spirit and made in the image of God) to subjects that need to submit to the man above them. Jesus warned his disciples about leading like this.
August 13th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Reminder, gentle readers: the Mahaneys received a huge promotion by DesiringGod/JPiper at the 2004 DG conference where the M’s addressed elective her/his sessions on “Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God”.
I still can’t figure out why the RBDs associate and promote this dysfunction.
Scratching my head,
Former SG Pastor
August 13th, 2012 at 11:37 am
RE: FSGP
It will be interesting to see the Louisville chapter unfold.
August 13th, 2012 at 11:50 am
If an individual who has received the documents etc is choosing to remain part of CWCC and wants to submit to the leaders’ authority (rightly or wrongly, and whatever that may mean) and asks in the way that this person has asked (see Brent’s blog to see what I mean) -- It is profoundly disrespectful to that person to continue to pursue them in the manner in which Brent is admitting to in his own blog post. That is surely the behaviour that Mickey et al are labelling divisive.
I did not believe Brent deserved the label when CWCC first came out and told the church not to listen to him; but if he is still actively pursuing members of the congregation not only against the will of the leaders, but also against the will of those he is pursuing, then he is demonstrating that he is deserving of that label.
Bridget -- many men may be accused of the same -- but that doesn’t excuse Brent from being judged by the same measure with which he judges (judge not, lest you be judged? speck in brother’s eye and log in own?) -- he cannot accuse Mickey in the way that he has and abuse the Scriptures himself. He has lost any moral high ground that he once had, and I fear that the effectiveness of his arguments, that I think would have done the churches good, have been forever compromised by this.
Rose -- the person who says no thank you to further contact is not being divisive from the point of view of the unity and integrity of a particular local church. I accept that they may appear divisive to any potential relationship with the person they are asking to stop contacting them, but that was not the context of my argument.
I am developing the same reaction to Brent as I have to SGM as represented here and in other blogs -- :In-pain: If an individual who has received the documents etc is choosing to remain part of CWCC and wants to submit to the leaders’ authority (rightly or wrongly, and whatever that may mean) and asks in the way that this person has asked (see Brent’s blog to see what I mean) -- It is profoundly disrespectful to that person to continue to pursue them in the manner in which Brent is admitting to in his own blog post. That is surely the behaviour that Mickey et al are labelling divisive.
I did not believe Brent deserved the label when CWCC first came out and told the church not to listen to him; but if he is still actively pursuing members of the congregation not only against the will of the leaders, but also against the will of those he is pursuing, then he is demonstrating that he is deserving of that label.
Bridget -- many men may be accused of the same -- but that doesn’t excuse Brent from being judged by the same measure with which he judges (judge not, lest you be judged? speck in brother’s eye and log in own?) -- he cannot accuse Mickey in the way that he has and abuse the Scriptures himself. He has lost any moral high ground that he once had, and I fear that the effectiveness of his arguments, that I think would have done the churches good, have been forever compromised by this.
Rose -- the person who says no thank you to further contact is not being divisive from the point of view of the unity and integrity of a particular local church. I accept that they may appear divisive to any potential relationship with the person they are asking to stop contacting them, but that was not the context of my argument.
I am developing the same reaction to Brent as I have to SGM as represented here and in other blogs -- yuk does not do it justice
August 13th, 2012 at 11:59 am
@FSGP #181 -- “When I attended the T4G pre-meeting in 2008 my senior pastor/boss complained the whole time about how he HAD to be there.”
With coming polity changes, it will be interesting to see if SGM churches are required to send a pastor to these conferences or if it will be optional. Unless the pastors are voting on denominational matters (which has never been the case in the past), I wouldn’t think attendance should be mandatory.
August 13th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Gareth -
No excusing on my part at all. I think all leaders that do this are wrong. You may have read something into what I said.
You can’t assume that everyone has read the docs, though, and then still decided to stay. Some people have read nothing because they do whatever the pastor says, or they just don’t want to read the docs. BUT that is their choice as well.
Brent is not going to change anyone’s perspective by force. I would think that Brent would know this.