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 12:03 pm
Hi all,
I thought maybe it would help to clarify a bit that SGM doesn’t hold that the “apostolic leadership team” wield authority on any level similar to the original twelve apostles that fulfilled the definitions above. I’m sure most here are already aware of this, but just to avoid confusion for those unaware of the “official SGM position” on it. Here’s a snippet from their book on Polity.
“If one equates being “apostolic” with enjoying the clout of the original twelve, exercising the authority of the pope, or having your letters canonized as Scripture, then alarm at the notion of present-day apostles is entirely understandable. However, as F.F. Bruce has said, “Paul’s use of the term ‘apostle’ embraces more than the twelve.” That is, Scripture appears to offer a second type of apostle—one who neither writes Scripture nor possesses an authority like that of the twelve. In fact, within the New Testament there seem to be at least eight other apostles, apart from Paul (Acts 14:4, 1Co 9:5-6, Gal 1:19, 1Th 1:1, 2:6, 1Co 4:6, 9, Php 2:25). Additionally, Ephesians 4:7-16 indicates the ongoing validity and necessity of the apostolic gift as given to the Church by the ascended Christ.”
There’s a lot more in the book, but I just wanted to make clear that point.
Thanks for the good discussion!
Philip
March 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Theoden,
I see what you’re saying. But just because your views on the office of apostle were used against you, to disqualify you for membership, that does not mean that SGM requires a belief in apostolic authority to validate their thinking on submission and obedience. Mahaney teaches even non-apostolic congregations that they need to unquestionably obey their leaders and submit to them.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Tony:
Read Matt. 18 Applies to ALL members. Read how the council of Jerusalem was handled. Most in attendance were NOT Apostles. Read the scriptures which refer to the process of rebuking an elder. Read the scriptures which speak of mutual submission.
Then read extra-biblical sources on church history. Read about the structure of the early church as authority passed from apostles to elders. Read about how the Reformation restored this accountability. Read about Calvin’s view of church government. Read about the early Anabaptists. Then read about how frequent abuses of power occur in churches lead by apostles, NOT just SGM.
BTW, no such apostles existed in Protestant circles until the advent of the Pentecostal movement around the turn of the early 20th Century. Does that tell you something? Read about the shepherding movement.
Finally, the Bible says nothing about Sunday schools, coffee houses, Senior Pastors, or Pastor Colleges, etc. Maybe we need to do away with them! :-0
March 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Kris,
Are you saying that a church is democratic becuase the memebers can leave if they don’t like the church leadership? In that case, SGM is democratci is it not. Everyone could leave.
Also, how they got started, whether right or wrong still doesn’t answer the question of why voting for a pastor or why a pastor being accountable to the congregation is biblical. (accountable in the congregational or presbyterian sense)
March 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I would have only one question, who ordained CJ?
Can you have a claim to Apostleship without Apostolic succession?
You see, that is why this is odd. All the talk of authority in groups that ordained themselves. They never had to submit themselves to others for their office, they were self appointed. But to be self appointed and to claim apostleship takes the cake!
March 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Kris:
Right. BUT: they hold this view. They do. Yes, they also teach unquestioning obedience to all authority. However, within the context of whole-body accountability, there is a type of check/balance built in. There is none in “apostolic church” government.
TK
March 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Tony,
I’ve never said anything about democracy as it applies to people who leave a church. Obviously, since we don’t live in some Papal state, SGM has no legal authority to force its members to remain members. But through their actions, they do all in their power to make it very difficult on those who do choose to leave, though. Everyone who has left tells of losing their friends. Even we, who left on amiable terms and had never embraced membership, found that our “friends” wanted nothing to do with us once we made it clear we were not “one of them.” Also, if you consider what Josh Harris and CJ have written about their desires to expand church discipline so that all churches across the board would agree to recognize and submit to all church discipline processes, I believe your phrase, “the members can leave” takes on a whole new list of qualifiers.
So yes, “members can leave” SGM. But in so doing, they are treated as though they’ve essentially left the body of Christ altogether. Many have reported being lied about. And even those with little at stake – people like us, for instance – are still viewed as non-persons once they leave.
Doesn’t sound democratic to me. Doesn’t even sound Biblical.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Kris, you said, “So yes, “members can leave” SGM. But in so doing, they are treated as though they’ve essentially left the body of Christ altogether. Many have reported being lied about. And even those with little at stake – people like us, for instance – are still viewed as non-persons once they leave.
Doesn’t sound democratic to me. Doesn’t even sound Biblical.”
Amen. And, yes, if you try in any way to communicate the truth of what happened, you are accused of “gossip.” We were lied about when we left.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Hi Tony,
The word Pastor, is found only one time in the entire NT in Eph 4:11. That is all we have. There is not one word about this specific position, how it functions, or who is qualified, or how they are appointed etc. So the modern church has made up it’s own defintion and position, where the Bible is silent. What we do have is the qualifications for elders and bishops (overseers). But how they function or the extent of their authority is not clearly defined. So once again, each church has it’s own set of rules on these matters. There are no Biblical mandates for exactly how church government is chosen, set up, or how it functions. So what we usually have is the blind leading the blind.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
JP:
Right. If you are gonna have “apostles,”at least be Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. At least then you have an unbroken chain of succession.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Okay, here is a scenario….let’s say that I have some ability in the “creative movement” department. Then someone recruits me to be on a “dance team”. Would it then be fair to say that I am a “dancer”? Then, someone says to me …”oh, you are such a gifted dancer”. Then, I say something to the effect of.. “oh, it is just a term. I don’t claim to be a dancer.” Come on now. It is ludricious to dismiss the “apostolic team” as just a term. There is weight to our words. Everything we breathe out means something.
Phillip, I would have to say that I and probably many more would take FF Bruce to task on his liberal view of apostleship. I am sure that you have read the previous posts. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The foundations were laid by the actual apostles and we need to abide by them. It is irresponsible to use these terms willy-nilly to serve your own purpose.
I believe in our last thread which addressed Semper, Jesse P (not hostile one, friendly one) made a good point. SGM is trying to do the right things. So, why don’t they align themselves with a denomination with some historical basis and a “figured out” church government and LEARN something. Quit dragging thousands along for the ride as you figure out what leadership should look like, which doctrines are actually sound, views on the gifts, what church discipline really looks like, etc.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
J.P.,
Welcome to the site, and thanks for your comment.
I think you just said – more succinctly – what I was trying to say in my comment #300. Modern-day “apostles” initially have to just TAKE authority over a group of willing participants. They have to have people who will simply take their word for it that somehow God bestowed their authority upon them.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
JP-
you said:
I would have only one question, who ordained CJ?
Can you have a claim to Apostleship without Apostolic succession?
You see, that is why this is odd. All the talk of authority in groups that ordained themselves. They never had to submit themselves to others for their office, they were self appointed. But to be self appointed and to claim apostleship takes the cake!
Uh, yeah. EXACTLY. Good point.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Dennis Said : There are no Biblical mandates for exactly how church government is chosen, set up, or how it functions.
I think this is exactly right. In light of this, it seems (at least to gollum here) that it might overstepping to say that the SGM model is unbiblical and that another is biblical. None are found in the bible. The clossest thing to what is found is when Paul tells Timothy to appoint leaders (thus maybe the catholics have it right – no I don’t really think that). He doesn’t say to nominate and then vote. Nor does he say vote and then have the session approve (presbyterian).
March 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Read this very disturbing article about an Arminian Charismatic church and how it governs:
Plaster Rock church leader inspires fear, devotion
The New Brunswick Telegraph Journal/March 5, 2001
By Bob Klager
Plaster Rock — A picture of extraordinary pastoral control is emerging in the Village of Plaster Rock, as residents grapple with a church controversy that touches many in this rural community of 1,200. More than eight decades after the First Apostolic Pentecostal Church’s roots were planted in the Tobique Valley, a defamation suit filed against its current leaders has triggered new accounts of the sect’s ultimate authority over its members.
Quiet speculation in Plaster Rock has for years surrounded the church’s influence in the community and with its congregation of about 450 – many of whom are believed to have moved from as far away as Middlesex, a small community about 25 kilometers southeast of Moncton. However, revelations of church members bound by authority so strict they follow dictates against jewelry and toss wedding rings into collection plates, of parents so fearful their children will be damned to hell they enroll them in the church’s Apostolic Christian School and of public humiliation or shunning are drawing parallels to something beyond the love of God. It’s that very shunning, says one former church member, that leaves people afraid to speak publicly about their concerns.
“The church is split down the middle; there are those who idolize [Pastor] Dana McKillop and there are those who…are scared to open their mouths,” she said. “At one time, I would have done anything that Dana McKillop told me to do. I am scared of the power that he has.” “It’s a scary situation for those of us who are not of that congregation who live in Plaster Rock,” said another long-time resident of the community. “Mr. McKillop is the Alpha Omega in that church.”
Both residents, consenting to interviews on condition of anonymity, are among several people who have recently come forward, but refuse to be identified for fear of reprisals from the church and within the community. Darren McKillop, son of the controversial church leader, last week renounced the allegations surrounding his family’s Plaster Rock organization. Speaking on behalf of his father, he continued to decline requests for interviews. “You prove that [concern] is widespread in the community – with names – and I’ll give you an interview,” said Darren McKillop, adding “…time is on our side.”
He said the congregation has advised its leadership not to rebut the accusations, which have included claims of extreme control and unorthodox financial obligations. There are reports, however, that congregants themselves have been ordered not to discuss their views of the controversy.
Founded in the late 1920s by Pastor William Rolston, an Irish immigrant, the ministry now known as the Apostolic Pentecostal Church has evolved from tent crusades and early revival in rural New Brunswick to become a powerful independent church body headed by the McKillop family. Originally affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church, the McKillops broke away from that governing body in a bitter split that still simmers in congregations across New Brunswick.
The recent civil suit brought by a former church member – its allegations have all been denied by the McKillops – points to Dana McKillop’s undeniable authority and influence over members who followed him from the split. The claims within the defamation action have not been proved in court and no trial date is set in the case. Rev. Robert Pardon, executive director of the New England Institute of Religious Research near Boston, Mass., says the Plaster Rock situation seems to mirror a culture of “aberrant” church doctrine growing more prevalent in today’s society.
Considered one of the United States’ foremost experts on the Western world’s religious landscape, Mr. Pardon was recently interviewed on NBC’s Dateline about his organization’s involvement in the case of a Massachusetts church group whose connections stretched into the State of Maine. “This really sounds, unfortunately, like what we deal with all the time down here,” said Mr. Pardon. “When you’ve got no accountability, then you’ve got all kinds of perversions that go on. “The Bible speaks a tremendous amount about God’s grace and of provision in Christ, but what actually occurs in these aberrational organizations is it’s law that rules. Even though they talk about grace, it’s law that rules.”
When Plaster Rock congregants are prohibited from questioning the pastor’s authority, when Mr. McKillop preaches against having to answer to a greater church organization and, from the pulpit, calls Bible schools that ordain mainstream pastors “the great orphanages,” there are signs for concern, said Mr. Pardon. “It’s similar to a number of groups we work with…you can’t speak against the pastor or the leader or the elders, they control the information that you’re able to access, you can be humiliated publicly,” he said. “There are so many of these kind of independent models that are out there where, essentially, somebody has a direct pipeline to God – no accountability.”
Dr. Steven Lambert is an ordained pastor and author who has spent the past 25 years studying authoritarian abuse in churches across North America. Based in Florida, his ministry focuses a commitment on revealing Christian truth. But it also sits in a hotbed for the type of “discipleship-shepherding” control that was eventually exposed within the charismatic movement during the 1970s. Leaders of independent churches in Florida and beyond are frequent guests behind the pulpit in Plaster Rock. The First Apostolic Pentecostal Church Web site provides direct links to several of those organizations. And combined with a vulnerability in the Pentecostal realm “much greater in Canada” to unorthodox teachings, Dr. Lambert said the Plaster Rock situation is disconcerting. “I think it’s absolutely a concern, and I don’t think it’s just abstract,” he said. “I think it’s very real and it certainly has the potential of controlling a lot of people. “I think people would be very shocked to know that this sort of thing is going on and that it’s not innocuous,” said Dr. Lambert. “It’s much more widespread than what even people in the church could possibly imagine.”
In his book Charismatic Captivation: Authoritarian Abuse and Psychological Enslavement in Neo-Pentecostal Churches, Dr. Lambert addresses a religious domination he says has snared many believers. The uncanny power of leadership in Plaster Rock, the fear of open reproof, the threat of lost salvation and apparent economic obligations that draw, among other things, 15 per cent of members’ net family incomes fall into some of the more than a dozen common control mechanisms he identifies in the book.
Wary of his work being used as a tool to attack churches like Plaster Rock, Dr. Lambert said the presence of a few of these techniques doesn’t mean church leaders have knowingly embraced authoritarian doctrine. “I caution not to always view it that way,” he said. “But if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck…”The fact of the matter is these very characteristics are manifest in a lot of places that no one would consider them a cult,” said Dr. Lambert. “But yet their structure, their government, the way they run it – it is indeed a cult.”
An almost stoic “under-siege” mentality church leaders often bestow upon their congregations when under public scrutiny, is also a text-book response, he said. Being aware of speculation, the way leaders attempt to keep the sheep in the fold, so to speak, is to pre-empt the questions. “They tell the people what other people are saying about them, and then try to counter it with all kinds of spiritualization,” said Dr. Lambert. “The fact of the matter is there is great credence in what is being said. “Primarily, I think they know they have a lot to lose. And you can just hang your hat on the fact that, ultimately, we’re talking about money somewhere here,” he added. “It’s inevitable. These things become their private little kingdoms. They become their business.”
Mike Kropveld, executive director for Info-Cult, a Montreal-based resource organization for education, support and research into cult-related problems and cultic thinking, says his organization received two calls about the Plaster Rock church last year. But he warned against quick labeling. Be it images of evil and danger or theological deviation that the word cult invokes, “people toss it around too quickly,” he said. “You have to look at what’s going on,” said Mr. Kropveld. “And to understand the level of abuse or risk of harm, you have to look at the structure of the group and the role of the leader…at how cultic or how closed or how controlling is the group or the environment.” In the absence of supervision or a church hierarchy, the potential exists for problems, he said. “One should not be surprised at the possibility of this,” said Mr. Kropveld. “If the pastor is the top person, you don’t have that mechanism and you run the risk of [experiencing] more problems. Especially if the individual believes he has a hold on the truth. “And anyone can believe that,” he said. “It’s the actions, however, that point to the risk for abuse.”
That many former members of the Plaster Rock church are reluctant to be identified as they recount their stories isn’t surprising, said Mr. Pardon. He said leaving situations like that which appears to exist in this community doesn’t necessarily mean escaping the burden such experiences place on people’s lives. “It’s horrific,” said Mr. Pardon. “The biggest issue is helping the individual come to a point where they’re able to trust once again and [when thinking for themselves] don’t believe that they’re speaking out against God. “Even though, intellectually, they might know that this is not a healthy organization, that’s not where they live emotionally,” he said. “It’s always a very, very painful experience and some people never recover from it. They’re damaged. Badly.”
March 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Hey all-here’s my 2 cents.
The real issue here, as I see it, is their belief in authority. Authority is the imperial myth of Sovereign Grace. We could debate the apostle issue, nail it down, and even have CJ read the argument and decide he should no longer be called an apostle or have apostolic teams as a label. The problem is that it wouldn’t change their/ his belief that people are best served to grow in Christ by properly understanding and submitting to authority.
Just imagine, CJ announces his new conviction that they were mistaken or perhaps, more easily misunderstood by using the title apostle. How would this change any ot there practical day to day dealings in the church? When PDI/SG moved from a more Charismatic theology to a more Reformed Theology, the one thing that didn’t change was their view of leadership in the church. Yes, the used a lot more Reformed buzz words (means of Grace). But the structure of church government and function stayed the same.
This is my take on what SG believes:
1. Most problems in the Christian life are a matter of being in relation to proper authority
2. Proper authority alignment for the Christian begins in a local church, led by men, overseen by a Senior Pastor
3. Any Christian who does not submit to these ideals of authority and submission are to be pitied for their immaturity and exhorted for their dangerous and maverick spirit of individual freedom apart from the blessing of proper church authority
March 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Music:
Agreed. But vocab frames the debate. And the title of apostle is a powerful weapon.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Read this description of power structures within a typical “neo-charismatic” group:
Neo-charismatic groups are, by nature, strongly hierarchical. Somehow, the modern church has grasped (and refuses to let go of) the idea that a successful church is the one which has a strong leader with a strong support group. It is an idea that the apostate Catholic Church seized upon centuries ago and which they continue to practise today as popery. It is the overwhelming pattern of leadership dynamics within neo-charismatic churches and may be described as pyramids within pyramids.
Within a neo-charismatic group, one is likely to find the senior pastor, the man with the supposed initial vision from God. The senior pastor will command a small body of elders or advisors; men (and sometimes women) who will function to support the senior pastor accomplish his vision and ensure that the group is ruled and coached towards the fulfilment of their founder’s vision. Although the neo-charismatic groups are mostly independent operations, almost all claim some kind of allegiance to a larger ministry run by a neo-charismatic celebrity who assumes the role of a modern apostle; some of these apostles are even given to speaking with infallible authority to the groups under them.
Given that neo-charismatic groups are strongly hierarchical, have a heavy leaning towards authoritarianism and tend to teach doctrines that are not accepted by mainline churches, it is sometimes a little surprising that people flock to these groups in the numbers that they do.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Agreed. Apostle certainly adds weight to the authority in their “Faustian” myth. But I don’t think the title done away with would do away with the abusive authority practices.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hi Tony,
Let’s look at what SGM has that is NOT Biblical. Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor, Pastor in training, Apostolic team, Pastor’s college, Care Group Leaders. Now let’s look at what SGM does not have that the Bible does have. Elders, Bishops, and Deacons. When I was in SGM, none of these titles or positions were used or recognized. Also, they believe in Prophets being for today, yet there were no recognized Prophets at SGM that I ever heard of. It seemed like every church needed a SR Pastor, but there was no need for Bishops, Deacons, Elders, Prophets, Evangelists, etc!
March 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
TK-
you said:
Finally, the Bible says nothing about Sunday schools, coffee houses, Senior Pastors, or Pastor Colleges, etc. Maybe we need to do away with them! :-0
I had to chuckle at this. I wonder how Jesus would react walking into the “temple” these days with everybody ordering their half-caff, double foam, soy latte before the service. I think espresso machines would be toppled. :-)
March 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
NoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-Jesus must love cofeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m just kidding
March 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I disagree that SGM does not have those positions. They just use a different name for them. They see elders as pastors and deacons as home group and ministry leaders. It is not the title that is important it is the roles and the requirements (from timothy and titus)
While they beleive that prophecy is for today and there are people who have that gift (prophets) they do not beleive that people with this gifting are meant for full-time vocational ministry.
If you say that just because the bible doesn’t mention the term it is unbilical (meaning against the bibles teachings) then you can only attend non-denominational churches becasue denominations are unbiblical. ANd the church you go to can’t have a senior pastor and the overseers would have to be appointed by titus or timothy because no other form of selecting a pastor is in the bible. – That would also make your elders very old – older than even gollum.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Music:
Right. The title has to go, and so do the structures. Cut to the core, baby! :-)
TK
March 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Tony,
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. No, you can’t find specific church charters and by-laws laid out in Scripture, but there are definitely overall principles. The first is the equality of all elders. There simply are no senior pastors in the Bible. Period. The second is accountability to the congregation. See all the examples TK listed a while ago, i.e. the Jerusalem Council, Matt. 18, etc. The third is, since the apostles have passed, there is no hierarchy over the church.
Within these principles, I think there’s some wiggle room. That’s why I’m ok with either Presbyterianism or congregationalism. But to deny these principles altogether (and SGM denies all three) is to deny the NT teachings on polity.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
hmmm- what else could be added. The word Bible isn’t in the bible. Trinity, electric guitar, drums, sound team, hospitality team, softball team, overheads, powerpoint, sermon outlines,sermon tapes/CD, Church internet site,
have I missed any?
March 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Yeah TK, I draw the line at eliminating coffee houses…
March 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Ex, you replied to Tony thus:
“Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. No, you can’t find specific church charters and by-laws laid out in Scripture, but there are definitely overall principles. The first is the equality of all elders. There simply are no senior pastors in the Bible. Period. The second is accountability to the congregation. See all the examples TK listed a while ago, i.e. the Jerusalem Council, Matt. 18, etc. The third is, since the apostles have passed, there is no hierarchy over the church.
Within these principles, I think there’s some wiggle room. That’s why I’m ok with either Presbyterianism or congregationalism. But to deny these principles altogether (and SGM denies all three) is to deny the NT teachings on polity.”
Touche!
As per caffeine:
No, we won’t ban it! In fact, we will affirm it!
Charles Spurgeon once said that he smoked his cigars to the glory of God. I drink my caffeine-be it Dew or Jolt Cola-to the glory of God! ;-)
March 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Tony-
You said:
They just use a different name for them. They see elders as pastors and deacons as home group and ministry leaders. It is not the title that is important it is the roles and the requirements (from timothy and titus)
Why do you take hundreds of years of church history and dismiss their terms…ie elder, deacon, etc. and replace them with some, sorry, made up stuff!!!!! The title is important as (I mentioned earlier) OUR WORDS MEAN SOMETHING!!! God put elders, deacons, in the scriptures, but there not even a mention of a small group or small group leader. So, why is more weight given to small group leaders when they aren’t even scriptural in nature??? I am not trying to be a jerk here, but come on. SGM is always talking about not adding or taking away from scripture. Then, provide a scripture that says that you need to submit to your home group leader and have no elders. You won’t. It is silly.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Hi Tony,
I do not agree with any denominations, nor will I ever be a member of one. I am not interested in man made churches nor man made forms of church government. Where does it say that the Pastor is a full time salaried position? Since when is there such a thing as a part time Prophet? Maybe the Prophets should be leading the church, and they should be paid! Where are the known evanglists at each SGM church? What is their function? Why are you defending all of this? Are you still a part of SGM? Have you accepted all of their teachings just because that is what leadership teaches? Have you weighed and compared what you have heard and learned from them, against the Word of God?
March 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
TK-
Interesting excerpt on neo-charismatics. Where do you find this stuff?
March 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Tony,
“It is not the title that is important it is the roles and the requirements (from timothy and titus)”
I agree. The problem is that the roles and requirements aren’t fulfilled biblically in SGM.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Tony, you said, “ANd the church you go to can’t have a senior pastor and the overseers would have to be appointed by titus or timothy because no other form of selecting a pastor is in the bible.”(sic)
Dude, that is a total non-sequitur.
Next…
March 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Music:
http://www.emeth.co.za/shepherdsch3.html
March 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I didn’t personally witness a heavy influence of apostolic authority while in my local SGM church. However, in my interactions with leaders and with conferences I found the core of the business to be sort of an absurd reverence to CJ. My local pastors seemed to wield their own personal authority. The senior teaches at Pastor’s college. They were under Mickey and Brent, and they exhibited similar characteristics.
Any quick buy-in or unquestioned acceptance of apostleship claims in our day is absolutely wrong. For an apostle to be proven it would take extensive understanding of scripture and for people to have extensive understanding of their understanding, especially without having Christ calling them in person or having been tutored by a real Apostle. If Apostle Paul was criticized and doubted as an apostle, then how much more should CJ and Virgo be “laviciously” scrutinized?
I like Joe’s questions. I don’t know what I think about modern day apostles, but I believe they would be more than just teachers of right and wrong actions.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
By the way, I think SGM represent a sort of tough-love gospel, in contrast to the prosperity gospel.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Tony, I’m with TK on the non-sequitur bit. That doesn’t follow at all. How about we choose them like deacons are chosen, congregationally? Ah yes, the congregation does choose deacons. In Acts the apostles ask the congregation to identify the seven, including Steven. Sure, I can’t extrapolate to include elders, but the congregational principal is there.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
HighChurch,
Why do you take hundreds of years of church history and dismiss their terms…ie elder, deacon, etc. and replace them with some, sorry, made up stuff!!!!!
Even if I were wrong, please keep in mind that I did not do those things that you claim. I have yet to set up my denomination or replaced anything. I merely attend.
Second, I am not dismissing hundreds of years of chruch history and using my own terms. Jonathan Edwards was a pastor. Charles Spurgeon wasn’t elder spurgeon. I think I stand in line with church history to say the term “Pastor” is an acceptable term.
We use the term elder with pastor at our church interchangably at my church. The home group leader’s and ministry leaders fulfill the role of caring for the members in the ways that the deacons cared for the practical needs of the chruch. We don’t use deacon regularly becuase home-group leader or whatever ministry team is more descriptive of the actual role we play. With that said, our pastors would consider us deacons and have said as much.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Quote, “Second, I am not dismissing hundreds of years of chruch history and using my own terms.”
SG does dismiss hundreds of years of church history-at least Protestant church history.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Hi Tony,
You never answered my question. Where are the recognized positions of those who are evangelists or prophets? Everyone at SGM knows who the Apostles and Pastors are, but know one seems to kow who the Evangelists or the Prophets are! Why is that? Are Prophets not leaders in the church? Does the Pastor submit to the Prophet? Look at the list in 1 Cor 12:28 “God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers,…. Not even a mention of the pastor! And please note that Prophet is second! Not at SGM he is not! I never knew one recognized Prophet during my 10 years at SGM! Not one! 1 Cor 14 says to let 2 or 3 prophets speak, and to let the others judge. How can we let the prophets speak if we do not even know who they are? The only one speaking on Sunday morning is the Pastor! Everyone else is a mere spectator.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I do not neccessarily think the SGM way is the only way or even the best way – I posted previously that I prefer the presbyterian way. I am saying that the episcopal form of church government (whether there called apostles or bishops) fits within our christian liberty and is not, in itself, sinful.
I don’t think that we can look at the way the early church functioned and say “that is the way the bible teaches church must be done.” It doesn’t teach that it MUST be done, it is merely recording HOW they did it.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
The other positions are there but are not considered full-time vocational jobs.
If you only hear the pastor than i guess your church’s prophecy mike must be broken, but the one at my church and at celebration worked just fine.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Hi Tony,
You said: “It doesn’t teach that it MUST be done, it is merely recording HOW they did it.”
So does SGM have a better way than the Bible’s way??? Do they have a better example to follow that God’s Word???
March 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TK
SG does dismiss hundreds of years of church history-at least Protestant church history
So does every Charismatic to some extent or another.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Dennis:
I like the title MacArthur used for one of his books:
“Charismatic Chaos.”
To be fair, though, SG prophets in SG churches usually just read a scripture-usually “cross-centered”-and comment on it. Occasionally, someone will say something like, “I get a sense that God may be speaking to someone about…” Usually, it’s very general, like, “I believe some of you are struggling with depression…” Well,that could include a fair number of folks on any given Sunday.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Dennis,
No church does things the exact same way as the early church – nor should we. The early church had unique people and time and culture. Our time is different. We are not better – just different. We can differ in some practices without someone being wrong.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Tony, you said, “TK
SG does dismiss hundreds of years of church history-at least Protestant church history
So does every Charismatic to some extent or another.”
Well, dude, we just “outted” you. That is why the Charismatic movement is flawed.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Modernism is a pill, aint it?
Which is why the dismissive attitude toward tradition will ultimately be the downfall of groups like SGM. The saints of old, the bishops of old, don’t get a voice though they had the Spirit as well. Instead, the team steeped in the modernism they grew up in gets to filter and cherry pick what they like from any particular tradition but they never are forced to reckon with their own biases (Look at the Cov. Life statement on sacraments for a prime example!).
Which is why confessionalism is important and if you don’t think so wait until Postmodernism is done with the Church, it will be worse than when the Hippies took over after ordaining themselves (like the independent anti-establishment crowd they ALREADY were as Hippies. Again, no tradition to check bias).
March 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
except that I don’t think that church history is the basis of what we believe or needs to be held to.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The protestant church ignores thousands of years of church history as well