Every day, I get a lot of interesting email. Some people write to ask questions. Some people write to tell me how horribly sinful the site is. Some folks – for whatever reason – want advice. But mostly, people write to tell me their stories.
I read every one of these emails, and even when someone sees fit to give me a good tongue-lashing (or would that be “keyboard-lashing”? :-) ), I really do enjoy hearing from people. I’m a fairly speedy typist and love to write, so if you email me, you’ll probably get at least one reply. And if your original email strikes my fancy for whatever reason, you might even find that I have quite a lot to say in response.
So anyway, over the past few months, I’ve had many conversations with folks about their Sovereign Grace experiences. I’ve never done an official tally, but I know I’ve heard far more SGM stories via email than have been shared on the site itself.
One striking aspect of so many of the stories people have told me is the almost palpable fear that lurks behind their words. Often, their entire reason for sending email rather than posting their stories to the blog is because they are afraid that if they share publicly, even if they do so anonymously, they might be recognized. Apparently, if their fellow SGM-ers were to find out that they are dissatisfied with aspects of their Sovereign Grace experience, and are sharing about these on a website, terrible things could befall them.
I have to say, for a long time, I never gave these writers’ fear much thought. I understand what it’s like to worry about disappointing people. I have my own reasons for not blogging under my full identity. Because we did not have a bad experience at our Sovereign Grace church but were instead treated very kindly by our SGM pastors, we’ve always believed that they do not deserve to have this site reflect personally on them or their particular church, especially because we’d still like to believe that their congregation is far more grace-based than some and does not manifest the problems that others have described here. Why should they have to suffer because we were bothered by nagging undercurrents, had questions, and then blogged about them?
So I can understand the desire for secrecy.
But the other day, after receiving email from four different individuals who all, in one way or another, expressed their desire to maintain even more anonymity than the website affords, I got to thinking about just how strange it is that a Christian organization could engender so much fear in its people. What, after all, could befall your average Sovereign Grace person if it were discovered that he or she had expressed dissatisfaction online?
Certainly I could not imagine anything truly sinister. I couldn’t picture CJ Mahaney or any other pastor sending out his goons to rough up the individual who had, for instance, shared that she’d been castigated and reprimanded by church leadership for daring to pray for a married woman when she herself is still single. I couldn’t see an angry mob of men with shaved heads and oversized shirts all wielding baseball bats and coming after the gentleman who told of being disciplined for not tithing. I certainly couldn’t envision what was so scandalous about the story of the family who had decided to leave because they’d been rebuked for asking hard questions about their church’s ambitious building program.
Why were they so desperate to keep the stories of their dissatisfaction anonymous?
What power does Sovereign Grace Ministries have over all these folks, especially now, as many of them have already left?
I really don’t know.
I am aware, of course, that many SGM families worry about losing their social lives, which, after some years, tend to revolve around the church and its activities. Some writers have told of extended family whose livelihoods depend upon maintaining good relations with SGM. I guess many people feel like they just have too much to lose, and that it’s too risky for them to come out and even semi-publicly express any dissatisfaction.
Like I said, I can understand this, to a point.
But isn’t it a little odd that a Christian organization could exert such control over its people?
The other day, my sister and I were talking about how many emails I receive from frightened people. That’s when it suddenly hit me that this sort of fear is a very obvious sign that SGM is NOT a normal Christian organization. My sister and I reminisced about how many people we knew during our growing-up years who sort of “made the rounds” of the different churches in our small town. They’d be loyal and involved members of our church, and then something would happen and they’d show up at the church down the street…soon to be loyal and involved there. And then something again would happen, and they’d come back to our church, where it didn’t take a terribly long time for them to be back to their same level of involvement.
Although of course these folks received their share of patronizing smiles, and although some people jokingly referred to them as “church tramps,” their personal embarrassment was really the ONLY consequence of their leaving. Nobody ever spoke ill of them or tried to frame stories about their departure. To the best of my knowledge, they retained their standing in the community and did not see any disruptions in their significant relationships. It was relatively easy for them to return, and they did not have to work to “re-earn” their “credibility” so that they could once again be considered “qualified” for service.
Doubtless, lack of commitment is not a desirable trait in a church member. I’m not in any way saying that it’s good for a church to encourage its people to be flaky. But the level of fear that comes through in the emails I receive is all out of proportion to what’s actually at stake, if Sovereign Grace Ministries is truly a family of “regular” churches. The body of Christ – the “church universal” – is a wonderfully varied and diverse group these days. No single Bible-believing, Bible-teaching denomination or group has a corner on the market of “correct” doctrine or proper methods of fostering fellowship. If you are having serious doubts about your church, or if you have been hurt or harmed by church discipline run amuck, you can find another place to worship and to serve.
If you find yourself irrationally fearing otherwise – if you find yourself laboring under the notion that you cannot leave your current church without horrible harm befalling you and your family - that might be the most obvious sign that it’s time to get out of Dodge.
I never got the "meeting" thing, either. 
March 6th, 2008 at 8:18 am
One Mom,
Thank you. My email is sgmcasualty(at)gmail.com. I was actually going to ask you if we could take this offline as well.
Please know that I KNOW you never meant to cause me pain. You didn’t even know who I was when you came in here. I would have never been able to predict that dealing with Larry and Doris’ story would have ripped the scar from my own discipline processes wide open, when I thought they had long healed over. I still can’t believe the indescribable pain that has resurfaced in the past day. I really did think I was past it, aside from little blips here and there as I read different stories.
I have also tried so hard to keep my experience with Sovereign Grace more theoretical and my perspective fair and balanced since coming to the blog. I wish you could have experienced that more reasonable side of me. But when I read about how leadership dealt with Larry’s pride and arrogance, it was like I was (unbeknownst to me at the time) reliving that out-of-control feeling of having your back against the wall with two options: submit to all of it or leave in disgrace. There are no other options.
SGMers come in here and talk about how open their pastors are to their input and how they’re free to disagree with them. That may be very true. I know it was for me with the pastor who had been like a spiritual father to me. I could tell him just anything I didn’t agree with and question things. I enjoyed talking with him about my disagreements b/c he was a thinker and would pull in scriptures to counter mine. It was energizing.
But let me just tell you that all of that freedom goes out the window in a discipline process. There is no room whatsoever for dissent. I think the rawest stories I’ve heard here have been the result of these types of processes: where an ultimatum is issued and you either agree and obey or you move on. And, like in exintern’s case, if you decide to move on, anything could be said about you. You lose everything … all of your relationships, your kids’ friendships, the comfort of walking into a church where most everyone knows you and you can always strike up a warm, friendly conversation … everything.
When Hippie shared about how people look at you with this feeling of pity and remorse, I could see it. I’ve seen it. I’ve probably given that look to SGMers who have left, as a result of the story that was passed on afterwards in their absence. But I definitely felt it when we decided we just couldn’t take any more and left.
So back to my original point … You didn’t cause my pain. And there’s no way you could have predicted it. I didn’t. You also didn’t really make me feel worse by calling me friend (like you shouldn’t have done that). I just already felt so terrible that I went off on you; to be treated with kindness just made me feel more acutely guilty of my sinful anger that should have never been directed at you to begin with.
I look forward to hearing from you … friend.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Oh, totally forgot to give a shout out to Dennis! Thanks for post 239. That was really sweet. What a great response. I read it several times.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Theoden,
You’ve brought up the subject of apostolic authority before, and while a few folks have responded to your observations, I’ve always felt like your remarks have then gotten lost in the shuffle.
I’m really curious what everybody thinks about Theoden’s view, that we can trace every one of SGM’s issues/problems back to SGM’s belief in apostolic authority. Do you believe that Theoden is correct?
(I’m not so much interested in engaging in a raging debate about whether the office of “apostle” could exist today, although that’s certainly part of it. Rather, I’d like people to focus specifically on whether they think SGM’s unique problems – as evidenced by the stories told on this site – are because of SGM’s authority structure. Is that the source? Or are there other factors at play?)
March 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I guess I’ll go first and answer my own question. :-)
I believe that if you HAD to boil it down to one factor, then I’d say yes, SGM’s “fatal flaw” is that they do believe that the men at the top are walking in some sort of extra apostolic authority.
Yet…CJ goes around and gives the same sermon (“The Happiest Place On Earth”) at other churches that don’t necessarily believe in the office of apostle for today. So I believe that it’s not so much SGM’s belief in APOSTOLIC authority. Rather, it’s SGM’s beliefs about authority in general.
And specifically, SGM’s belief in CJ Mahaney’s authority.
Then you couple this with Seedge’s own family history and unique outlook on life, and…well, there you are. Give absolute authority to someone who probably has a tendency toward perfectionism and wanting to control everything anyway, and the fruit of it is going to be a ministry that has a huge theme of control (and submission) running through it. Even the fact that CJ eventually found hyper-Calvinism appealing would jive with the idea of “control.”
March 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
As I’ve said before, I whole-heartedly agree with Theoden. I don’t think that anybody at headquarters sat down one day and said “Hey, let’s start an abusive ministry”. Rather, with the unbiblical leadership structure in place, the abuses gradually popped up and got worse and worse. I really think that the abuse, manipulation, etc. started as over-compensating for poor performance in a role that these men in “apostolic leadership” were never meant to have biblically and for which they aren’t equipped by the Holy Spirit.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Hey Kris, re 253,
I know I jump in a lot with my 2 cents and that I’m an outsider…but to answer your question as an outsider, the answer has to be yes (see “other factors at play” at bottom).
Whether it’s condemning:
1) Non-SGM praise songs;
2) Parachurch organizations;
3) Dating;
3) Public schooling;
4) Non-traditional gender roles; or
5) Watching the TV w/out following CJ’s instructions;
it all falls under control. They might preface some of these things as suggestions, but the fact that so few areas of members’ lives are left for them to figure out for themselves (w/ the HS, of course) can only mean one thing: Control.
*The only other thing you can chalk it up to is them being overzealous in their quest for holiness. But if that was it, there could still be checks and balances in place to prevent distortion and control– but it doesn’t sound like there are.
Am I over simplifying?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Kris-
TK’s comments have never gotten lost in the shuffle for me!!! I completely and wholeheartedly agree with his analysis. His quote from the OPC’s stance on apostleship is one that everyone should go back and read.
My husband and I were discussing this issue last night. There are several problems with the title of Apostle:
* Am I wrong or am I right when the definition of an apostle means that the individual has actually seen Jesus Christ with his own eyes? You cannot assign a new meaning to a word to serve your own purposes. I carry Christ in my body, but I do not refer to myself as Jesus.
*I believe they call themselves apostles because that term carries a significant “spirtual power” to it. If an ‘apostle” speaks into your life or church or pastors life…the name “apostle” subconsciously carries more weight than “leader” or “overseer”.
* Using the term “apostle” is a manipulative tool used on the laity to exert more control and power over them. I am not sure if this is conscious…I would hope not…but it does allow for more control. I mean if you are using the name moniker as the “Apostle Paul” who is the average Joe to challenge YOU…the “apostle”?
So, Kris, I think there is a cancer in SGM and it is an over-reaching power in the “apostolic leadership”. SGMers like to just refer to it as a “term” or “descriptor”, but I can think of a million others ways to call yourselves leaders without calling yourself an apostle. I have said this before, but it reeks of arrogance. IMHO :-)
March 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Kris:
CJ does NOT believe in “hyper-Calvinism.” He is “reformed,” however. One can be a a 5 Point TULIP Calvinist and not be a “hyper-Calvinist.” A hyper-Calvinist not only believes in TULIP Calvinism, but also believes that anyone who does NOT buy into all of Calvin’s theology is condemned to hell. Furthermore, many hyper-Calvinists also deny the efficacy of ANY efforts at evangelism, taking a biblical doctrine-the sovereignty of God-and distorting it to fit their own warped understanding of the church’s role in winning the lost. Spurgeon was a TULIP Calvinist and was attacked vehemently by hyper-Calvinists of his day. William Carey was a Calvinist and was attacked by hypers.
Also, I disagree, Kris. It IS about “:apostolic” church government. I have seen the same errors replicated in Charismatic, Arminian churches locally. Apostolic church government was NOT meant to be replicated after the death of the apostles. It’s why the Apostles themselves were appointing elders, deacons, bishops in every city where churches were established. The laid the foundation. Once the foundation was laid, the office was complete.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:13 am
High Church:
Amen. One can’t just passively treat this spiritual cancer. It must be completely excised.
SGM MUST return to a Reformation understanding of biblical, church government. Otherwise, you can get rid of CJ, Brent, et al, shuffle the faces, and a new authoritarian will eventually emerge.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:16 am
SGM Cas-
Your willingness to publicly confess your errors are commendable. I kind of got a weird vibe when I read OneMom’s initial comment myself (no offense OneMom…you sound like a fantastic person in your subsequent posts), I sensed a bit of dismissiveness myself. But, I have never been in the discipline process so it obviously did not strike a nerve like it did for you. Just wanted to say the more I hear of your story, the more my heart breaks. Isn’t it strange that out in the secular world (I know because I work in healthcare) if there is one tiny suspicion of one’s intent to hurt themselves you take immediate action….shouldn’t the church be even more ready to spring into action???? The glossing over of your very real hurt and pain makes me sick in the pit of my stomach. I am so sorry you endured that all. But, Glory to God Almighty who brought you through it all and you still have your faith. No doubt he will use your experience to help another of his children in the future. No doubt.
Blessings to you!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:18 am
TK-
You said:
It’s why the Apostles themselves were appointing elders, deacons, bishops in every city where churches were established. The laid the foundation. Once the foundation was laid, the office was complete.
That is right!!! That is right!!! That is right!!!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
High:
I’m one with you, sister!
It is time for a NEW REFORMATION that will strike to the core of SGM’s perverted understanding of authority. We need a Luther who bring down this unbiblical power structure, who will say as Luther did at the Diet of Wurms, “Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me, God!”
March 6th, 2008 at 9:28 am
TK-
I think the problem is that SGM is trying to reinvent something that needs no reinvention. (I am sure it is born out of a reaction to mainline church liberalism in the 70′s…Jesus Movement, etc.). The foundations were laid by the apostles, instructions on church gov’t given and we just need to “trust and obey”. Why the need to equate yourselves with the 12 people God used to establish the Christian church 2 millenia ago? UNNECESSARY!!!!!!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
HiC and TK,
Amen and Amen! TK, as I’ve said before, I love your emphasis on church history. A casual glance at history reveals that we’ve tried the authoritarian fake-apostle thing before, and it’s why we needed a protestant reformation in the first place.
Kris, I also have to agree with them that the term “apostle” IS the issue. The leadership structure is derived from their understanding of this term, and their unbiblical view that Seedge and the gang deserve the title.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Ex:
Omein! (Hebrew version of Amen) :-)
As CJ says, we need to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is the unbiblical attempts to replicate something which God, in His sovereignty, allowed to pass away once the canon of Scripture was completed and once the foundations for the church were laid.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Question: what do people make of the distinction between “apostles of the church” and “apostles of Christ”? So… the Twelve (and maybe a couple of others) were “apostles of Christ”, while William Carey or James Hudson Taylor or Terry Virgo might be “apostles of the church” (like Paul writes in Romans that “Andronicus and Junia… are outstanding among the apostles”). The authority of the latter is still strong, but is of a different nature to the “apostles of Christ” and is built upon the foundation laid down by the “apostles of Christ”.
Do you get me?
Would there be any room for accepting a certain kind of continuing apostleship, without suggesting it must be accompanied by authoritarianism?
Also: Dennis… when is the Larry Tomczak conversation happening?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
TK,
Definitely true. The Apostles: often imitated, never duplicated.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
High Church re 263:
“I think the problem is that SGM is trying to reinvent something that needs no reinvention.”
EXACTLY!! I thought that many times!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:45 am
It’s a “worldly” saying, but maybe folks had it right when they said “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. When we heard stories of the early days of TAG and even Brent’s early campus ministry, it sounded like there was an honesty and Spirit led zeal for the lost…in whatever state they were in. But then the power began (and I don’t mean Spirit power). Then it turned into something perverse. I find myself alot more cautious about buying the words of folks anymore at face value. Actions speak way louder than any words ever will. No matter how eloquent those words may sound
March 6th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Joe,
My main concern with this distinction is that the Bible never makes it. The NT only ever speaks of one type of apostle, and it makes it clear that there are two qualifications to be called one: a) you have to be an eyewitness to the resurection, and b) you have to have received a commission from Christ Himself ( I don’t have my sword handy, so I can’t give you scripture references). William Carey et al have had significant ministries, and the Lord has used them in mighty ways, but they can have neither the title or authority of apostle, since they don’t meet the qualifications.
My understanding is that the Greek in Romans implies that Andronicus and Junia were known to be outstanding by the apostles…anybody want to correct me/ add to that?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:50 am
A quick note…by “eyewitness to the resurection” I meant that you have to have physically seen Christ after He rose. I really doubt Seedge and the gang would claim this for themselves.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Hi Joe,
I called Larry T’s former Atlanta church yesterday, and they said they would have Larry call me, but they did not give me a time. He has relocated to Nashville. Actually, I will be very surprised if he does call me, but I guess there is a slight possibility. The secretary at the church was the one who suggested that she contact him, and have him call me. I was shocked! So time will tell.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:55 am
We’ve probably all heard one or the other of the SGM leadership team make the comment that we don’t “add to or take away from the words of Scripture”. How can they redefine apostle and not add to and/or take away from the Scripture?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Concerning C J’s teaching about “keeping the main thing the main thing”, Peter Lord had been teaching that exact message many years before C J did. Is that plagarism?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Joe:
IMO, No. The office has NO need of being utilised in this period of God’s covenant relationship with His church. Furthermore, attempts to revive it are doomed to ultimate failure. Carey, Virgo, et al are/were NOT apostles. Also, read the repost of an OPC document on “apostles.”
March 6th, 2008 at 10:03 am
IGO:
You said, “e’ve probably all heard one or the other of the SGM leadership team make the comment that we don’t “add to or take away from the words of Scripture”. How can they redefine apostle and not add to and/or take away from the Scripture?”
Pertinent question. I think they are doing just that.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Theoden and HighChurch (and others as well)
I was following with interest your discussion about apostles and the apostolic “authority” that we believe CJ and his “apostolic team” have falsely presumed. Personally, I think this is the key to understanding the reason why SGM is false (in my opinion) and why their authority structure is NOT (in my opinion) to be followed, submitted to, and obeyed. Quite the contrary. Christians SHOULD NOT give their allegiance this false authority structure. This goes beyond just disagreements over certain teachings or emphases, or personal problems with leadership, etc. The core of the whole thing is bad. Rotten.
I completely and totally agree with Theoden when he says:
We should continue to hammer away at this, in the same way Luther hammered those 95 theses to the door of the Wittenburg Church. Seriously.
I was doing some reading and while there’s more to glean from this, here is a snippet from this webpage (which, btw, is not easy to read)
http://www.pbministries.org/William%20Cunningham/historical_theology/chapter02_section06.htm
March 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Ex, you said,
“My main concern with this distinction is that the Bible never makes it. The NT only ever speaks of one type of apostle, and it makes it clear that there are two qualifications to be called one: a) you have to be an eyewitness to the resurection, and b) you have to have received a commission from Christ Himself ( I don’t have my sword handy, so I can’t give you scripture references). William Carey et al have had significant ministries, and the Lord has used them in mighty ways, but they can have neither the title or authority of apostle, since they don’t meet the qualifications.”
Dude, another intellectual nail in the coffin of “apostolic government.”
March 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Claireon:
YES! YES! YES!
We must strike, not once, nor twice, nor three times, but, as Elisha indicated to King Jehoash, we must strike until we defeat the enemy! The enemy is the unbiblical power structure in place in SGM and OTHER circles as well.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
In my humble opinion, I agree wholeheartedly that the connection between Sovereign Grace’s position on apostolic authority and the abuses that run rampant in its churches is a no brainer. It’s the reason shepherding churches are so dangerous. One puppeteer ultimately controls all of the strings. If you get caught up in the cords and just happen to asphyxiate, it’s just a risk you assumed for getting in his way (or any of his minions).
March 6th, 2008 at 10:32 am
SGM Cas:
You said, “It’s the reason shepherding churches are so dangerous.”
Amen! And, BTW, one of the biggest advocates of the shepherding movement, Charles Simpson, spoke at a Celebration East several years ago. And that was just chance?!?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
OK! So now that we all agree that the entire structure of SGM is rotten to the core, should the entire ministry be disbanded? I say it should. What say ye all? Has anyone changed their mind from “NO”, to “YES” it should be disbanded?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I totally, 100% agree! We saw it, we lived it, we brought our observations to the leadership of our local church regarding this particular issue (and even took it higher, to the next “tier” of leadership), we got kicked to the curb. :-)
My question is: do you think they see this in themselves, therefore doing it with forethought and knowledge, or do you think they truly are blind to it?
Not trying to judge their hearts here, nor make excuses for them, just trying to make sense of it all (if sense can be made, that is!).
On another note, SGMCas… I was humbled and inspired by your posts. I,too, have deep hurts that I am working through, by God’s most amazing love and grace. As I was reading through your and OneMom’s exchange, I saw your open wounds and immediately identified with what you are/were feeling. But I also saw where your wounds seem to have grown smaller, they are healing, evident by your quickness to repent and ask forgiveness.
But even in the healing process, wounds still hurt! That brought me such hope! I know that the deeper the wounds, the longer they take to heal. I can be very impatient, in that I want all of this to be over like, NOW! :-) But, through your posts and others like it, I am seeing that you have come a long way, and so will I. I just need to be patient and trust God to work it all out in His perfect way and in His perfect time
And OneMom… :-) Thank you for the gracious kindness you have shown here.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The “Criticisms” section on Wiki has been deleted again.
This wouldn’t have anything to do with apostolic control, now would it?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Dennis,
the structure needs to go.
BTW, read this:
hepherding
Usually heavy-handed discipling in which each person is “shepherded” by someone in “over him”. Generally, it calls for unquestioning obedience.
Example: Floyd McClung, when he was a top leader in Youth With A Mission, told people they should obey him even if they thought or knew him to be wrong. He justified this by claiming God would reward people for obeying their leaders. Questioning was seen as a form of “rebellion.”
This was taken from an apologetics web site. Do you see? Such abuse is NOT peculiar to SGM. Tear the corrupt, top-heavy structures. They gotta go.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hi TK,
Even the one man Pastor and the Sr Pastor role is unbiblical and top-heavy. So what is a church to do?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Dennis,
I agree that Sr. Pastors are unbiblical. I think both congregationalism and presbyterianism offer more or less biblical models. The chapter on elders in “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church” is a great start in reading about these things.
Also, for anyone interested in a scholarly intro to why apostles aren’t for today, read appendix A in Wayne Grudem’s “The Gift of Prophecy”. Even many charismatics agree that apostleship has ceased.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Hi ExI,
I have Wayne Grudem’s book. Doesn’t he teach sometimes at the Pastor’s College?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Ex:
Agreed. The voice of the body is biblical.
Dennis: I agree with Dennis.
TK
March 6th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Dennis:
I meant I agree with Ex. ;-)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Hi TK,
I have been a radical for a long time and I do not know how to respond when someone agrees with me. It comes as a shock! :-)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I sent my reply before your correction. If you agree with Ex, I can deal with that, but please do not agree with me or people will feel the need to pray for you. :-)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Dennis: LOL! ;-)
TK
March 6th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I guess the reason I don’t necessarily think it’s the title (or role) of “apostle” that is the problem is because I’ve never heard any direct reference to (or teaching about) CJ’s “apostleship.” I know SGM’s highest leadership is referred to as the “apostolic team,” but SGM’s rationale for why people need to obey leaders’ authority has nothing to do with this title, when you get down to it. (Otherwise, Seedge would have remained Catholic – after all, the “Holy See” has been in position for centuries.) They say that you have to obey authority because it is, simply, AUTHORITY.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Hi Kris,
You bring up an interesting point. Who decides exactly who these authorities are? Isn’t CJ a self appointed authority? And what exactly does this word “authority” entail? What is the authority of the “prophet”, or the “elder” or the “deacons’” etc etc. Do we have any biblical guidlines that define and explain these leadership positions and our submission to each of them? Does a pastor submit to a prophet? Are not we all told to submit “one to another”. Where did all of this hierarchy teaching start? Isn’t it just bad leftovers from Catholicism?
March 6th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Hey guys, just curoius, (my precious) where exactly in the Bible does it say that we should vote for our pastors? (Gollum cough)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Tony:
It doesn’t. What the weight of Scripture does teach is that pastors, leaders, etc., are accountable to the body.
BTW, Smeagol was actually a Stoor prior to morphing into Gollum, a Hobbit-like race that lived near rivers. :-)
TK
March 6th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ok, where does it say that they are “accountable to the body?”
March 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Kris:
BUT:
SG DOES teach said form of church government. I was told that I could not continue in good standing as a member of our local SG church because I denied “apostolic” church government. I was told that my belief that the voice of the body needed to be a part of decision making was a significant doctrinal difference.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Tony,
What I think is interesting is that anytime a “family of churches” begins, the so-called “apostle” (in this case, CJ Mahaney) initially does get his authority conferred on him by the people. That is, by their tacit approval of his leadership, and by their willingness to submit to him and look to him as their leader, CJ (and of course Larry) got the PDI ministry off the ground.
Had there been no people recognizing CJ’s (and Larry’s) authority and through their actions giving these men their approval, there would have been no People of Destiny, right?
In that way, SGM’s original governance was democratic. It may not have been through a formal voting process. But nonetheless, the PEOPLE had to be willing to submit. It was still the people who initially gave CJ his authority. He could not round up a group of Christians by force and MAKE them submit to his leadership. It was something they chose to do.