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.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
I’ve been mulling over this blog post for a few days, ever since my sister and I had our conversation about fear. What finally prompted me to publish it was an email I received this morning. It contained an attachment, which turned out to be a document – an obituary. In the email itself, the person had (anonymously, of course) written, in part:
Thoughts, anyone?
EDITED TO ADD THIS DISCLAIMER, FROM COMMENT #7: I need to point out that we cannot assume causality between the individual’s suicide and his withdrawal from his SGM church. Many, many other factors were probably at play which brought him to such despair. I do not believe that we can hold a church responsible for an obvious manifestation of mental illness and the devil’s own destructive whispers.
I mention it here, though, because SGM’s relatively new membership covenants and waivers do seem designed to help them avoid such legal culpability.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Kris-
Your post left me dumbfounded. It is so true. I still often feel these surges of fear when I openly criticize SGM methods. I think it is a combination of 2 things that are under-the-radar Roman practices:
#1- The emphasis on the sin and worthlessness of the laity.
#2- The leadership is held up as nearly infallible and as having special connections to God that the laity does not have.
This is bullying. This promotes fear.
Your first comment broke my heart. I would love to say that I can’t ever imagine it happening, but unfortunately I can.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Wow, I don’t know what to say. I wonder if the pursuit was to get him to come back or for him to keep quiet. I think most times, once you leave – you don’t exist.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Interesting new thread, Kris.
I’ve got some thoughts about this, but it may seem like I’m taking the meandering back road to get to the gist of it, so plz bear with me.
In the gospels we see Jesus being confronted by and confronting the Pharisees. The teachings of the Pharisees were completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and He vehemently addressed those differences. We also see in Matt. 16 where Jesus sharply addresses the disciples when he said to them,
The disciples were told to watch out and be on guard against that which distorts the Truth and Jesus stressed the importance of protecting His doctrine.
I share that that story from scripture to point out that there is a very real tension, a very real hostility, a very real threat that issues forth from pharisaical people and their doctrines – doctrines that always compete with the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The same thing that happened to Jesus and the disciples, continues to happen today because the teachings of the Pharisees are still very much alive. The Pharisees distorted the truth, robbed the people, and tyrannized Jesus and his disciples with fear. It isn’t surprising to me at all that people in SGM who have disagreements would feel the same kind of threat from them as Jesus and the disciples felt from the Pharisees. The Pharisees modus operandi was “conformity to the law”, but they missed the heart of the law which is love. SGM’s modus operandi is “submit and conform” as well.
I’ve said this before, but I believe there is a real problem of pride within the ministry of SGM. My opinion is that this pride was present when CJ made Larry look like a traitor and took his place. I’m talking about the kind of pride that is spiritual in nature, the kind of pride that was present in the Pharisees and that resists anything that does not conform to their teachings. When present, this pride, which is competitive in nature, will seek to gain the upper hand in order to remain in control. And the weapons of choice they use are fear and intimidation. Consequently, the way people who disagree with SGM feel threatened by SGM doesn’t surprise me in the least bit. In fact, I would surprised if that were NOT the case.
So, what should the response be to this? I say have no fear. Jesus never focused the disciples attention on the fear tactics of the Pharisees (and He was well aware of the fact that they would kill Him and the disciples), but rather on being vigilant to protect the Truth because that is where He taught the real danger lied.
My pastor said something yesterday that caught my attention. He said that before Jesus went to the Cross, He as fighting for us. He fought against the doctrines of the Pharisees and won for us the Truth that we are warned to guard and protect against the leaven of the Pharisees. He fought to deliver to us the pure, unadulterated Truth. As His disciples, we are called to protect those precious truths and not to be afraid of what happens to us as a consequence of standing up for the Truth.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
I don’t think someone would commit suicide b/c they were “lovingly pursued” to come back. My experience has been that it’s either to come to agreement with them by any means they feel appropriate (they have a history of employing very heavy-handed tactics) or to keep quiet.
I was blown away to read about this person’s suicide. But, sadly, I’m not surprised at all. Having been there myself, I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t more cases of suicide following someone’s experience with Sovereign Grace Ministries. The mind games they play, the crushing guilt tactics they employ, and the power they wield are not forces to be trifled with.
We’ve talked about this elsewhere on the blog, but b/c of SGM’s insularity, it’s not uncommon at all for people to be isolated from outsiders, including family and former friends. So when people consider leaving, one of the first costs they have to weigh is the reality of losing all of their friends and their kids losing all of their friends. And why do they know that this will inevitably be a cost? Because they’ve seen it happen over and over.
And if you do leave, they will pursue you if they hear that you told anyone why you actually left. Case in point: I went back to the city where I had lived to attend my students’ high school graduation. We had already left Sovereign Grace altogether, but while I was there, I saw a bunch of old friends who were all still at the church and even attended the Sovereign Grace church with one of my friends. This friend who I was staying with also had a get together at her house, and I was asked questions by various members on the down-low.
A couple of the people would (literally) look askance over their shoulder to make sure no one was too close and would talk to me in hushed tones. I was very careful to screen out questions that just seemed more curiosity based. My policy was big questions get big answers; little questions get little answers. And I didn’t share any of the reasons we left (except the scrubbed down version, of course) unless they first told me specifically why they were asking and what their concerns were. This church had a number of zealous “scouts” who would pursue people who left and then take what they shared back to leadership.
I also genuinely have a fear of God about “stirring up dissension among brothers.” I didn’t appreciate it when I was aggressively pursued by those who left, and I wasn’t going to do that to anyone who was still in SGM.
After I got back home, I received a voice mail from the senior pastor that sounded cloyingly sweet … thanked me for coming, told me how good it was to see me and see that I was doing well, and asked me to give him a call back. I thought, “Yeah, right. I’m so sure the senior pastor (who I wasn’t close w/ at all) just wants to get chatty with me.”
I didn’t return his call.
So he called again and left another message saying that he had “received reports” that I was sharing things with people that were uncomplimentary of leadership and told me that if I had concerns about the church, I should talk to him since they aren’t (you guessed it) “part of the problem or the solution.”
I was furious. I mean, really livid. I wanted to call him back immediately and read him the riot act. But I realized that he would then be able to use my “sinful” response — when he shared w/ others about just what a threat I was and how they should stay away from me — as damning proof of my departure from “sound doctrine” and, hence, “right living.” So I decided to send him an email instead … since writing out my concerns would afford me more ample opportunity to be led by the Holy Spirit. (It took multiple rewrites to winnow out all of the scathing “scarcasm,” as one SGMer would call it.)
I told him that I took issue with a culture that supported “reporting” on others — and that if anyone had an issue with anything I shared, it was their responsibility to come back to me, NOT go to him. I also told him that he had a responsibility to direct them to me since he was not, in fact, “part of the problem or the solution.” But using nebulous reports that had no specificity to them whatsoever as an opportunity to try to silence me is fool’s play and smacks more of WW2 tactics than anything I see in Scripture.
But how sick is a movement that makes you sign a waiver, as a requirement for membership, that even sacrifices your right to litigation if their brutal tactics result in disaster??? That’s a new low.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
That’s a very interesting post and really touches deep at the heart of what I have realised my problem with SGM is. My fear is for a slightly different reason. I don’t fear the leaders anymore – I have left the city and stand no chance of running into them. I (like SGM Cas) have rejected “kind offers” of meetings to sit down and “discuss what they sought to do with me” because I have do not feel it would be “profitable” in the slightest.
No my fear is that unfortunately my entire family is in SGM (aside from my older sister) and from reading some of these accounts on SGM Uncensored, it would not be beyond the leaders of the church at all to put pressure on my family to excommunicate me from them. Indeed when the inital meeting happened, and I was told that I was being “put out to Satan” – my dad was so concerned that he asked the senior pastor if this meant that the family too were included in not being allowed to talk to me but only to urge me to repent and agree with the leaders ultimatums. However he was told – no apparantly at that stage they were “allowed” to keep seeing me.
I love my family to bits and it breaks my heart every time I visit them to see the entrenched legalism that runs so deep. What concerned me even more was that I do try to have honest conversations and find out what the teaching and preaching they are exposed to is all about. I was told that the church is running “Family Matters” courses by the “apostle”. I asked – genuinely interested – what that teaching entailed and was told that the first course was on the “Gospel and Marriage”. So I asked what the Gospel had to do with marriage and they couldn’t answer because they couldn’t remember!! When they retrieved their notes, the teaching was (surprise surprise) all about resolving conflict and women submitting.
My fear? That one day I will be told by my family that they cannot speak to me anymore because the leaders have made them choose between their son and the church.
I hope that day never arrives but when I read that someone has been driven to suicide by being “lovingly pursued” by SGM, I really believe anything is possible!! Fortunately I have put an email block on the SGM pastors email address and they don’t know my new address so I don’t think “loving pursuit” is coming my way! I hope! ;)
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
I need to point out that we cannot assume causality between the individual’s suicide and his withdrawal from his SGM church. Many, many other factors were probably at play which brought him to such despair. I do not believe that we can hold a church responsible for an obvious manifestation of mental illness and the devil’s own destructive whispers.
I mention it here, though, because SGM’s relatively new membership covenants and waivers do seem designed to help them avoid such legal culpability.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Claireon,
You wrote,
Wow. This is really insightful. Apart from recognizing evidences of Pharisaical pride in the leadership, I never made the connection you have here about just how much Sovereign Grace’s modus operandi align with the practices of the Pharisees. But I do think it’s a striking parallel in so many ways.
Having been part of a church now that was more like the churches Kris reminisced about, it just wasn’t a big deal at all when people left. In fact, our care group was so close, people who left the church continued to come to the care group. And people still maintained the friendships they had developed with other people in the church and still attended other church functions, like the amazing Tue morning women’s Bible study. (BTW, how pathetic is it that I had to battle feeling like I was engaging in acts of treachery by attending a Bible study taught by a woman for the first few weeks?)
There have also been pastors who have left this church and taken advantage of other opportunities. And they were never treated like Larry was. I look back now on the way Larry’s departure was handled and grieve for his family. I even heard from a friend who was close to Doris (Larry’s wife) that she was essentially shunned by even her sisters, who were still in Sovereign Grace.
How do Christians justify that? Here’s a family where all of the sisters are Christians, yet there’s no fellowship b/c Larry and Doris dared to draw a line in what I can only imagine now was a ridiculously trumped up discipline process. (I’ve heard since that there’s been reconciliation now since another sister’s husband was removed from leadership for similar issues that the Tomczaks were removed for.)
But the fact that Sovereign Grace leadership has expunged all of their historical records of his existence indicates — almost more than any other piece of “evidence” I’ve heard — suggests that his departure was more the result of a coup d’etat than anything else. It’s really downright dishonest and unethical. Of course, when leadership made this dubious decision, they probably never foresaw the ubiquity of the Internet giving rise to sites like Wikipedia that would expose their duplicity and blogs like this one that would detail their dangerous doctrines and methodologies.
Evidences of Pharisaical behavior? Yep. I’d say that’s pretty right on … right down to the resurrection-less cross they preach, their morbid emphasis on indwelling sin, and the dependence they encourage on leadership for guidance and direction.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Hi Kris,
I have not shared this experience before, but I think now is the time. I was asked to leave my SGM church because of taking sides against the pastor on a couple of marriage issues, and other situations where I went against the counsel of the leadership. Soon afterwards, I was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, and was home bound for about 4 years. At one point, I was so week that my wife had to feed me.
I found out later, that there were others in my church who were suffering from this same Fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome (and still are!)
I believe this now to have been a spiritual illness, and not a physical illness. There was a verse given to me from Proverbs, that was a word of knowledge from the Lord to another gentleman. (Long story). The verse is “A merry heart does good like a medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones.” The Lord had shown this man, who had premed in college, that the immune system is based in the bone marrow. When your spirit gets wounded, this immunty function gets hindered (dries up the bones!)
There are a lot of very wounded spirits on this web site and in your e-mails. I would love to hear how many people are suffering as a result from Fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome. or any other related spiritual manifestations of illness.
I got over mine by forgiving all those I could think of, who had broken my heart and wounded my spirit (not just those at SGM). It was a long process, but I am now totally healed and free from this illness! To God be the glory!
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Kris,
You said,
Although this is true, I think it is safe to extrapolate from their heavy-handed tactics in dealing with those who leave and the fact that they shored up their membership document to include a legal waiver the plausibility of a causal connection. And even if there wasn’t in this person’s case, it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for this type of treatment — in conjunction with any other vulnerabilities that could drive a person to this degree of hopelessness (such a lack of family support, mental illness, previous trauma, etc.) — for such treatment to result in disaster of this magnitude.
I do feel strongly about this topic b/c their prohibition on getting outside help has, I believe, led to many people plunging depths of darkness that could be, at minimum, abated — and in many cases successfully treated — with competent, professional help. But I was also part of a church where they brought a man on staff who was a licensed counselor to add more weight to their extreme stance on any type of therapeutic treatment for any reason. I also think that leadership should not be able to hide behind a legal document to avoid accountability for their more treacherous practices. If their practices didn’t have so many inherent risks, there would not be the need for legal immunity.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’ve never heard of the doctrine of pursuit-can someone sum it up for me?
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Dennis,
Wow, I had no idea that you were among those who suffered from auto-immune diseases/disorders. Someone pointed out a long time ago how just anecdotally, they knew of many people who had lupus, rheumetoid arthritis, Epstein-Barr syndrome, and the like. When this person wrote that, I recalled that even in our short time at our SG church, I’d known of at least three SG individuals who had similar problems.
I can’t remember if I ever wrote this in a comment, or if it just was one of those things that I’d pondered, but although this is sheer speculation, it seems like there could so easily be a connection between auto-immune disorders and theology that teaches people to focus so much on their own sinfulness.
Think about it. If you are convinced at a deep level that every natural thought, impulse, or feeling you have is inherently evil and infected with “indwelling sin,” and if you are taught that you consequently cannot ever trust your own instincts, isn’t that a form of self-loathing?
And since we are spirits housed in bodies, and our spirits and bodies are inextricably connected, wouldn’t it make sense that one’s body would essentially “turn” on itself, attacking its own immunities?
Again – pure speculation – but fascinating, and with a ring of truth to it, at least in my way of thinking.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Musicman,
Doctrine of pursuit? Are you being tongue in cheek? There isn’t an actual doctrine of pursuit. We’re talking more methodologies here, rather than doctrines … although their doctrines of indwelling sin and unquestioning submission to leadership certainly underpin these methodologies.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Musicman,
I’m not sure that the concept of “pursuit” is actually a doctrine. Rather, I believe it is a principle embedded in SGM’s view of what it means to be a part of the body of Christ.
They teach that church membership in their local body is binding. CJ Mahaney and Josh Harris have even pushed for universal recognition of church discipline, so that if you “get into trouble” at SGM, for instance, no other church would be free to accept you into their fellowship unless you’d first submitted to SGM’s discipline process and had received a “clean bill of health,” so to speak, from your SG authorities.
So in this way of thinking, if you remove yourself from your SGM church, you are essentially separating yourself from the entire body of Christ. Therefore, they feel duty-bound to “pursue” you and attempt reconciliation.
On one level, this sounds good. And if the “authorities” were always right in their assessments of people’s problems and heart attitudes, it might work out. But when leadership is wrong and yet pushes forward to steamroll errant members into submission, I think this can become a scary thing.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Kris:
You said:
“CJ Mahaney and Josh Harris have even pushed for universal recognition of church discipline, so that if you “get into trouble” at SGM, for instance, no other church would be free to accept you into their fellowship unless you’d first submitted to SGM’s discipline process and had received a “clean bill of health,” so to speak, from your SG authorities.”
I *thought* I had read this on another thread, but thought maybe I misunderstood. Are you serious — they really expect a non-SG church to recognize SG’s “authority” and “jurisdiction” over a former SG-member?
How far have they gotten in this pursuit? What churches, if any, have complied with this ridiculous command?
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Dennis and Kris,
Yes, we have discussed the high number of cases of auto-immune diseases in Sovereign Grace. But since Sovereign Grace is teeming with defeated, self-loathing broken spirits, it’s not surprising at all that there would be so many w/ autoimmune diseases. Of course, not every instance of Fibromyalgia — or any other autoimmune disease, for that matter — is necessarily indicative of an underlying spiritual condition. But I do think that where you have a broken spirit, it probably won’t be long before palpable, physical symptoms emerge.
Lynn,
Yes, it is true that Sovereign Grace — in cooperation with some other ministries — is pushing for more universal recognition of discipline processes. In order for this initiative to gain any serious credibility in the rest of the (more reasonable) body of Christ, I would think there would have to be some sort of appeal process put into place to prevent one ministry’s more liberal use of the concept of church discipline from polluting the process. I doubt that’s gonna happen … or that this policy will gain any serious buy in.
But let’s suspend reality for a moment and say that this plan gains serious ground. As soon as other churches find out some of the ridiculous issues people are being “disciplined” for in Sovereign Grace, it could really put some pressure on Sovereign Grace leaders to mollify their practices in regard to church discipline and keep the scope of their church discipline processes limited to those sins that are clearly defined in Scripture.
However, if someone in the church is exposed and remains unrepentant in an area of sin that places others in danger, I think that other churches would be wise to recognize another church’s discipline efforts (although I know nothing about the pragmatics of how they propose to carry that out). I actually think that’s probably more the intent with some of the other churches that have gotten on board with this increased application of church discipline.
But most churches who practice church discipline limit it to cases of clearly defined sin. And the discipline doesn’t go public unless the person remains unrepentant in his/her pursuit of a particular area of sin. Some of the discipline processes Sovereign Grace promulgates can be initiated over issues that aren’t clearly defined as sin (such as disagreeing w/ leadership on a doctrinal issue that leadership capriciously defines as being “rooted in sin”) and can last long after a legitimate sin has been been repented of and dealt with.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I had to rush out this morning, so my first comment was short and I wanted to add a thing or two.
There are other reasons for fear besides the oppressing of the laity and the over-emphasis on the “wonderfulnes” of the leadership.
I believe Cas brought up some WW2 tactics….she is right on. When we first expressed some difference of opinion on doctrine and that we were looking into other churches, some (now I can see) crazy stuff happened. First of all, we were asked not to visit any other churches until we had definitively decided to leave SGM. Then any correspondence between us and our small group leader was ALWAYS reported to the pastors. Ie…discussions/topics in small group, phone calls and emails were Bcc to the pastoral leadership. And, it was through this second hand info that we were called out on sin and pride issues.
So, why fear??? Because when you dissent, have a discipline issue or decide to leave…..EVERYONE IS SUSPECT of being some type of spy or informant. How unbelievably creepy is that? And, what makes it worse is that is labeled as care and love.
Kris, you got me boiling with this topic. :-)
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hehe, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about any other church complying with the command. On some level, I think the United States government might have an issue with an organization limiting the freedoms of its people. Anyways, the fact that I had to sign anything to become a member of the SG church should have been a warning sign (no pun intended) for me. I’m also concerned that the church is concerned about legal ramifications from the get-go. We are told to work things out together first before going to the secular system in the Bible. If church discipline is practiced biblically, there should be little concern about legal liability.
For those who leave on their own account like me, you can expect an “exit interview” by the pastors. The pastor did well to look civil and respectable in front of the associate pastor (his son-in-law). Much like a corporate exit interviews, the point really is to leave in good standing and negative feedback is usually left out by departee. They did say they thought it would be good for me to stay, but understood if I felt I need to leave. Their good standing display sort of got to me, so I wrote a bad, long email to associate pastor to try to get him to open up his eyes to what had gone on in the situation — must have been vindicating for pastor to see my sinful reaction.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
SGM Cas, you said:
“However, if someone in the church is exposed and remains unrepentant in an area of sin that places others in danger, I think that other churches would be wise to recognize another church’s discipline efforts (although I know nothing about the pragmatics of how they propose to carry that out).”
That’s where gossip comes in handy — KIDDING!! Just KIDDING!
But there’s something to be said of someone’s reputation preceeding them, especially if that person was planning on being in leadership at his/her new location. But that’s where, I suppose, we have to rely on the Holy Spirit’s guidance (and background checks).
On a more serious note, you bring up a good point about SG having to “show their hand” in order to get other churches on board with them. But I’m sure they could get around this by being vague in their reasons for bringing discipline, right? They could just say to Pastor Smith at the local non-SG church, “Ms. Jones should not be admitted to your church until she deals with an unresolved issue here.”
Pastor Smith: “What’s the issue?”
SG: “We can’t say; that would be gossip.”
Hmmm…
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Thanks for the info on pursuit-I’d been around SGM for @ 10 years but never heard the term before, especially not in relation to a legal waiver for the church.
Just the thought of that being a part of membership scares me.
As for fear-I remember trying to really play by their silly rules as we were leaving. My fear was that they’d call my current church and accuse me of gossip and we’d be forced to relive the whole nightmare again. I was greatly relieved to have them “bless” our departure without any unresolved “concerns” from the pastors. But never did I dream that they thought their discipline be carried over to other denominations.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Back in an earlier post, the issue was raised of the way Larry T was treated during his “departure”. A comment was made about his wife being shunned by her own sisters. I can tell you for a fact that this is true. I was a part of the church that 2 or her sisters were members of…one of them was the wife of one of the pastors. He (the pastor) told me on one occasion that family gathering were especially uncomfortable after Larry’s “pride issues” surfaced and that it had put a strain on the relationship of Doris and her sisters as well as Larry and everyone in the family.
Since when does our choice of churches interfere with family. God…family…church. Although we had it pounded into us that it was God…church…family. I’m sorry, that’s just wrong.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Our fear is based on the fact that some of our family remains in the local SGM church we departed from. They have not pursued any of us…indeed, they seem to be quite glad that we are gone since we were not shy about disagreeing (openly) with some of the doctrine, questioning the pastors, etc. But….they have, as we’ve shared in other sections of this blog, told bold face lies from the pulpit, and have essentially cut us off from most of our friends and remaining family. Additionally, the guilt factor really promotes a fear of God’s disapproval…not that we shouldn’t have a desire to please God, of course…but a fear of God’s disapproval that is based on disagreeing w/SGM–I don’t think so!!!!!!!!!!
IGO, they may say God, church, family but honestly, in practice I think they are often promoting church, God, family………
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Wow…now there’s a thought.
I think you may be right.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
My thought on this is that it came down to something between C.J. Mahaney and Larry Tomczak who were the two co founding leaders of the group. As other people have also pointed out, Mahaney is dictatorial over the whole group including who they call their “apostolic team.” With that being the case, I wonder how objective and fair of a “trial” Tomczak received.
I would have felt much more convinced that Tomczak truly had a pride issue had they brought in outside people to judge this. It wouldn’t surprise me if the goal of the “discipline” was make Tomczak change his views against Calvinism/Reformed theology that Mahaney was apparently leading the group towards. Maybe if Tomczak agreed to change his views or state that they were “heretical” then the discipline would have relented. On the other hand, it is possible that Mahaney’s goal was to keep Tomczak out of power and thus seal his position of authority.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Hi SGM Cas :-),
Your post #5 was so intriguing to read. I don’t know how you stood up alone under that kind of pressure. No doubt those calls from the senior pastor of your old SGM church were intimidating, and I would have been livid, too! Talk about the sending out the Thought Police! That’s off the chain!
I have a manager at work who is a nice guy and we get along, but he has a problem with always needing to be in control. In doing so he tends to quash ideas that didn’t come from him originally. Fortunately I have a good relationship with his supervisor and he hates the fact that we often have lunch together. Now and then she confides in me and likes to talk over situations that involve his decisions. She and I think alike and she understands how this other guy tends to be. She is normally there to validate my thinking and confirm my efforts even if my manager has responded negatively to my input or ideas. Talking to her builds my confidence.
While SGM views this blog as gossip, we know that talking about SGM helps us all to sort out the issues they didn’t “allow” us to talk about inside of SGM. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, when it comes to our like precious faith, Jesus warned us to be on our guard because there are spiritual dangers inherent in pharisaical people and the controlling forces they use to undermine our confidence. Thought and faith are important, and in order to develop discernment, we need to be able to discuss and talk about the things that confront us.
I admire the stand you took in not calling the guy back, and your gut feeling was right about his reason for calling you in the first place. My guess is he never responded to your email, did he?
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
That’s sad. Seems like a problem when you try to be a church, that you have to have all of your views figured out and then live by them. I don’t know what’s true of Larry and CJ’s situation, but the movement after some point seems to have had more identity crises than identity.
Sorry to hear about your story, Dennis (post 9), but thanks for sharing it.
All of this seems to make me think about what is more important: being in a “church” or being a Christian.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Steve,
You wrote,
Well, for those who were in PDI when Larry left, it was quite obvious how there was a sudden and drastic shift in the ministry’s doctrine and focus after he left/was ousted. The focus inward and morbid preoccupation with sin was almost immediate with CJ’s rise to power, as was the deemphasis of anything that swung charismatic. It was quite the gear-grinding transition. But initially the whole “paradigm shift” (as we heard a bajillion times over) was served up as a renewed emphasis on accountability and godly character. (And who’s going to argue w/ those noble intentions?)
As I said in an earlier post, it seemed like Larry and Seedge provided great balance when they were co-leading. But, in looking back, when a ministry experiences such a drastic shift in emphasis with the removal of one of its leaders, it sure does (at minimum) open up the door for speculation as to the possibility of ulterior motives at play.
Claireon,
You wrote,
This can’t be emphasized enough. Coming to this blog and working through the issues I had with Sovereign Grace has helped me so much. Ironically enough, if SGM leaders hadn’t maintained such a choke hold on communication — defining any discussion about questions about the ministry as gossip/slander — this blog probably wouldn’t have ever drawn the attention it has.
But when they dismissed each of us who came to them w/ questions and concerns and/or hurled accusations our way for daring to question anything that was sanctioned from above, they probably never anticipated that all of these individual entities would one day find each other and develop a cyber support group of sorts that just happens to be publicly viewable and searchable. Their dirty little deeds, which seemed to be done under the cloak of darkness, have now been brought into the light and are available for scrutiny by the masses so they, like Semper, can take note and take cover.
Heck, even Wikipedia noticed their self-serving wrangling and shored up their own page with a more balanced perspective on the ministry. So what started as one little link to this blog has now been transformed into a much more thorough history of Sovereign Grace, with the inclusion of specific criticisms summarized on the page itself. When will they see that their attempts to bury the truth have led to the truth being trumpeted even louder and more visibly? I was probably the main one editing the page, putting the blog link back up after SGMer(s) would take it down. But it never occurred to me to contact Wikipedia and appeal that a Wiki editor intervene.
I do wonder how many things these leaders would have done differently if they had been able to foresee one a forum like this sprouting up and growing at such a meteoric rate. Would they have been so cocky in their defense of their deplorable shepherding practices? Would they have been so glib in dismissing serious trauma as just God-ordained circumstances that were better than we deserved? Would they have been so eager to erase the indelible mark one of their original leaders made on the ministry? Would they have scrubbed their worship of all songs that speak of enjoying intimacy with the Lord or the Father’s great love — and purged all songs that speak of God as being our Friend b/c one man declared that it was arrogance to call God our Friend? Would they have completely stripped the resurrection from the doctrine of the cross — along with all of its implications for us?
With all of their navel gazing and emphasis on sin, how is it that these glaring doctrinal inconsistencies and abusive practices seemed to go unchecked with such wanton abandon? I think that’s the thing I’ll never quite “get” in all of my efforts to wrap my mind around my experience with Sovereign Grace Ministries.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Oh, Claireon, meant to answer your question … no, the pastor never responded to my email. Go figure. heh
But he never called me again either, so I was glad I set that boundary and kept him at arm’s length. It was a small victory for me in breaking free from their control … and staying free.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Re 27
Excellent post, SG Cas. You very eloquently captured so many of the emotions and thoughts I had when struggling with my SG friend and trying to understand the truth about all of this.
You said, “how is it that these glaring doctrinal inconsistencies and abusive practices seemed to go unchecked with such wanton abandon? ”
That IS the question, isn’t it? But then I think of your comments about dark deeds being brought to the light, and we do know that Scriptures clearly indicate that will happen. And in His way and in His time, it is happening.
I just want to thank Kris again and ask that we continue to lift her and this blog up in prayer so it can continue be the incredible tool that it’s been.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I also think that was an excellent post SG Cas.
But when they dismissed each of us who came to them w/ questions and concerns and/or hurled accusations our way for daring to question anything that was sanctioned from above, they probably never anticipated that all of these individual entities would one day find each other and develop a cyber support group of sorts that just happens to be publicly viewable and searchable. Their dirty little deeds, which seemed to be done under the cloak of darkness, have now been brought into the light and are available for scrutiny by the masses so they, like Semper, can take note and take cover.
I remember Mahaney quoting this Scripture:
Num 32:23-24
But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the Lord, and be sure your sin will find you out.
NASB
Perhaps soon his sin will find him out? If it does then I sure how he shows some humility and does what he said the ballplayer who used hormones should have done. It will be interesting to see if he practices what he teaches.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Wow! What a topic, and so many subtopics and points brought up that I’d love to comment on, so here goes:
Kris’s first/main question is WHY such fear? And what causes it? I think we all have pretty much gotten a grasp on the many reasons for this. But some other things came to mind as I was reading.
First of all, the type of fear that we are talking about here is not only very real, it’s the type that paralyzes you. And there’s only one place that comes from. I remember reading “The Bondage Breaker” by Neil Anderson years ago. In that book, he said something I’ll never forget, that went something like this: As Christians, Satan can’t harm us, but he has a tool that he uses to make us defenseless. That tool is Fear.
And there’s something else – Fear is a spirit. Prayer, in Jesus’ name, is our weapon against fear. And Scripture. And we need to remember that…
Perfect love casts out fear. AND the truth shall set you free.
Now, if perfect love (Christ is the perfect love represented in this verse) casts out fear, and so many people are afraid to TELL THE TRUTH, then maybe the people or organization they fear so much aren’t exactly filled with (Christ’s) love? (I know it’s the actual repercussions they fear, like the examples given above, and not always the people themselves, although sometimes that is the case. And I certainly don’t mean to judge anyone’s heart, I’m just saying, connect the dots.) I know the people who are pursuing, having meetings, or whatever, THINK they’re doing what they’ve been taught to do out of love, but if it actually causes fear in so many people, how could it be real love (as defined in 1Cor 13).
The truth sets you free – that is God’s Word. So, how can telling the truth – in love – be wrong? We need to check our motives of course. I know my motive for writing on this blog is honestly to warn others. (I am not advising you to start blogging if you really do fear terrible repercussions for your family. You need to take it to the Lord and let HIM lead you, not SG leadership.)
Kris said:
“I got to thinking about just how strange it is that a Christian organization could engender so much fear in its people….What power does Sovereign Grace Ministries have over all these folks, especially now, as many of them have already left?….But isn’t it a little odd that a Christian organization could exert such control over its people?” These people have been brainwashed! SGMCAs went to church, and it sounds like she was being careful who she spoke to and how she spoke, and still someone “reported” to the pastor! I have NEVER heard of such a thing – never! If their doctrine is so sound, they’d be taught to go to that person they have the problem with, like Cas said. I honestly believe SGM is a cult. I’ve said this in other places on the blogs. I’m sorry, but when a pastor tells you NOT to develop relationships outside your church, having people so brainwashed that they all report every little thing back to the pastor, plus everything else we’ve read here, how can you say it’s NOT a cult? Because they do have some good things? I have some Mormon friends – they do a lot of *good* things. They’re very strong on family, they help when disaster strikes, they do missionary work, they love God.
Dennis, SGMCas, Kris, et al,
“And since we are spirits housed in bodies, and our spirits and bodies are inextricably connected, wouldn’t it make sense that one’s body would essentially “turn” on itself, attacking its own immunities?”
There is a book by Dr Henry Wright Called “A More Excellent Way” (Dennis, maybe you read, heard about his teachings). He has a ministry at a place in Thomaston, GA, called Pleasant Valley Church. Here’s the link:
http://www.pleasantvalleychurch.net/
People are healed of physical problems and all kinds of incurable diseases every day, by doing exactly what you did, Dennis. He’s actually know around the World. He teaches how our physical bodies are sick because of spiritual reasons.
Claireon – You talked about how they act like the Pharisees. I just mentioned that the other day on one of the other blogs, where a situation (with leadership) at my church paralleled exactly what the Pharisees did. So, the “worst sinners they know” who always “talk” about humility, can never admit THEY might be wrong, or dealing with pride when it comes to their congregation. What’s wrong with this picture?
By the way, I just have to say, something awesome happened yesterday. We visited a church yesterday that we probably won’t make our home church, but they were having a special visitor who has a ministry speak – an “apostle” we found out during the service – uh oh…We were getting nervous with that “apostolic” ministry talk.
Well, this guy says to the church something like this:
If I have ever come between you and The Lord Jesus Christ please forgive me, and let me know. Don’t ever let me do that. There should be NO ONE between you and God, you and Jesus. You don’t need a priesthood, you don’t need pastors, you need JESUS. He will lead you!. Wow, what a confirmation, considering we JUST left very recently, and it’s been really hard. AND the SG pastor of course was telling us we needed THEIR counsel on what we should believe, and how we should worship, etc, they wanted another meeting, and my hubby didn’t give in. Well, my story is on another thread, but we were so excited about what we heard from this awesome brother in Christ!
Thanks Kris for the website, and for all you have to do to keep up with it!
Remember silent readers/non-bloggers- Perfect love CASTS OUT fear AND The TRUTH shall set you FREE!
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Hi, all…
My dad had to go out of town for a meeting, so my mom flew in to spend some time with us and her grandkids. I’ve been out of pocket most of the day and now have to do what some of you do – I have to catch up on the comments!
Thanks for all the great thoughts. Do keep the site in your prayers. I’ll be around some more tomorrow morning.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Francie,
That is so funny that you mentioned Pastor Wright’s book, because I actually read that book while attending SGM and gave it to my pastor to read. I asked him to take a look at it, and see what he thought about it. I never got the book back nor an answer. And then we left the church, and I just figured I would buy another copy. But the funny thing was, that this pastor’s wife struggled with Fibromyalgia. And do you remember what the book said about that one? I think (may be wrong) that it had to do with fear and a controlling spirit in their midst….like an authority in their life. Do you still have the book? What did it say? I can’t remember!! But I do remember reading a lot about fear, bitterness, and unforgiveness. And I agree with what many of you said in this post about the physical body being directly related to the health of our spiritual life. We are made of mind, body, emotions and spirit….and you can’t split them apart, as they are all connected. Oh my gosh I almost broke out into “The Lion King Circle of Life Song.” How funny… am I sounding New Age…omg….I need to go to bed!
March 4th, 2008 at 1:48 am
HiC #17:
You said “Because when you dissent, have a discipline issue or decide to leave…..EVERYONE IS SUSPECT of being some type of spy or informant.”
SO TRUE. Especially as someone who grew up in this environment… We, as kids, were encouraged to rat each other out for any minor offense. There was no such thing as “tattling”… It was holding each other accountable in brotherly love. (Personally, I think ‘tattling’ is a more succinct term on many levels.) How frustrating to grow up in an environment where you rapidly learn that no one can be spoken to “in confidence”! The moment a new crush was reported, every parent in the vicinity seemed to know, and of course children overhear most of what their parents don’t want them to. Growing up it felt as though there was absolutely no such thing as privacy of information, and indeed it was as strongly discouraged as the parents could make it.
Quite an interesting diversion from thestance taken on gossip or interference in church-mandated discipline, if you ask me. Leadership holds such a strong policy of the ‘neither part of the problem nor solution so don’t interfere’, yet when it comes to informing of potential infractions it’s quite a different matter.
This divisiveness breaks my heart. It caused particular distress in times when I was struggling… Whenever I was having a spiritual, emotional, just life problem, those were the times I most needed human connection and reassurance, but were also the times I felt most threatened by the connections I had since I worried that any doubt I relayed could, and probable would, be passed on to those in authority as some form of rebellion or sin issue.
Within many families, I saw this manifest by causing people to be afraid to discuss things that were bothering them, since nothing was likely to remain between the two parties involved. Again, connecting back to the line between what constitutes gossip vs. confrontation and counsel. The paranoia and withdrawal caused families to be further and further fractured by the slightest of offenses. Ignoring problems doesn’t make them go away!
IGotOut #21–
I second your confirmation. I have earler mentioned my familial connections to some of the pastoral families and Larry Tomzcak is included… I was a kid when all the drama went down but can certainly say that when the split occured he and all who left with him were pretty much erased from the family bible. He was a favorite relative of mine and I found it extremely confusing and upsetting. The reasons for his departure were never fully explained to me and even now most of what I know is through study and sleuthing. I wasn’t allowed to speak to Larry at all once he left.
EIsMom #22–
I hear you. Since I’ve left my sister has had to make a whole new circle of friends since those who knew us as a family ostracized her for my departure. She has hesitantly confessed to me that among the new friends she has chosen to not mention she even has another sister since the family has so thoroughly wiped me from the books and she is afraid that mentioning the ‘black sheep’ will inhibit her from church connections. She is eighteen so her connections are more peer-based than political but the sentiment still prevails.
SGM Cas #27–
Well, seeing as I found this blog through the Wikipedia link… I want to extend you my personal thanks for making sure it stays up. :-D Finding this site has been a lifesaver for me, honestly.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:18 am
My husband and I were talking about this post before I put it up, and he said something interesting.
I was telling him how I have a difficult time understanding why the SGM people who write me don’t just leave their churches, if they’re so unhappy. I mean, if someone is disturbed enough about his church that he writes an anonymous email to a blog moderator, isn’t that a sign that there’s something seriously wrong? Yet many of these people talk about their churches as though they could never consider leaving.
My husband said, “Well, I guess it’s like the way an abused spouse feels.”
I thought that was pretty profound. There IS a similar dynamic going on. In the classic “abused wife” scenario, the abusive husband is controlling, but he’s also demeaning, so that he causes her to believe what he says about her ability to take care of herself and be independent. Many controlling spouses (I realize that not all abusive spouses are male…but for the sake of our discussion here, we’ll just use the cliche) limit their wives’ social circles, often to the point where they really only have their husbands. Many abused wives believe that they will never find another man to take care of them.
I’m sure there are other similarities to the abused spouse scenario.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Kris,
I guess I’ve always seen the similarities because I was in an abusive relationship with a significant other.
The harsh abuse or physical abuse doesn’t come until later. What comes first is the slow mind control, the wearing down of one’s self esteem by the abuser. It’s the frog in the kettle scenario, where the frog doesn’t realize the water is gradually getting hotter until it’s too late.
I was going to post this yesterday in response to your first post in this thread, but IMHO, part of the fear that’s trapping at least some of these folks could very well be the “fear that I’m wrong and that they’re right.”
They might intellectually know that the things they’re hearing are wrong, but something inside them probably feels like it’s a cop out to believe what feels right in their heart. So they’re reading stuff here, getting validation from you, but internally they”re conflicted, afraid to believe it’s really that “easy.” They can leave, they can be happy once again, they can be free? Really? It probably sounds too good to be true because they’ve been taught that the easy way is wrong, the way that feels right is wrong, your heart is always wrong, etc.
I’ve been there, I know. I thought that if I left him, that all the he bad things he said about me were true.
Just my 2 cents…
March 4th, 2008 at 8:41 am
This is my first post, although I have been reading (almost unceasingly!) this blog since I found it just a few short days ago. My family and I could echo many of the stories shared here. I am greatly saddened that this kind of abuse has happened to others, but at the same time, I now know that we are not alone. Thank you all for sharing, I know how difficult it is to open up your hearts and your lives to all of us… thank you for your honesty and, especially for your courage!
Regarding this topic… I agree with Lynn’s thoughts (#36) in that, I DID feel like we had done something wrong (we had questioned leadership… GASP!), because that’s what we were told by the leadership of our church. This might sound weird to those of you who didn’t get involved in SG “up to your eyeballs” like my family and I did. It IS mind control, brain washing if you will, and it is a slow but steady process. The deeper you become involved in the life of the church, the more enmeshed you are in submitting to leadership without question. It’s what SGM’er’s are taught… “be good little soldiers”. And before you know what happened or how you got there, you are THERE.
Also, when we were “asked” to leave, we had no idea that this had happened to others. When people had left our church prior to our departure, we were told that it was “doctrinal differences” or they were “disgruntled”. Much to my shame, I never questioned this response, and therefore never tried to contact these families to get their story. (After all, SGM is THE only church… they must be crazy to have left… my thought processes back then… UGH!) So, if it had “never happened to anyone else”, we had to be at fault, right?
I am seeing now that, even though I’m sure we were wrong in some areas, we were not at fault in how our situation was handled. We were sinned against. Asking valid questions of leadership regarding wrong practices is not “sinning against them”.
At some point, I may share our story, our journey to “SGM’s Trash Heap” :-), but as of now, I feel the need to work through these issues, and I don’t want to share out of anger and/or bitterness. That would not honor God, it just wouldn’t be “right”.
One thought, though, before I go… has anyone else noticed what I perceive as nepotism that seems (to me, anyway) rampant in SGM? Pastor’s daughters marrying SGM pastoral interns, or, having married someone (in SGM, of course… I heard it was a sin to marry outside of SGM, even if they are a Christian… just kidding, but it does seem that way) they are suddenly “leadership material” and sent to the pastor’s college? Or, through the courtship teaching/process, leaders daughters are “matched” to young men that have been “identified” as leadership material? CJ’s daughters all married pastors, and, in my area, pastors sons and/or sons-in-law’s (regardless of gifting) are sent to the pastors college. It just seems to me that SGM has a new wave of up-and-coming leaders that are related to current leaders in SGM. Not all, but it seems to be happening more and more. Anyone else noticing this trend or am I seeing things that don’t exist? I could be, as that’s basically what we were told when we brought questions, concerns, and observations to our pastor… ;-)
Things that make you go Hmmmmm…
Anyway, thanks again for your hearts and for your honesty.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Prodigal Daughter,
I have seen the same culture of tattling among the youth at my SG church. It really does produce a fear of betrayal and a forced conformity to certain outward standards of behavior. There is also an underworld where the “bad kids” sneak around in secrecy and do all the “bad things” away from the prying eyes of the “good kids” and parents.
In many of these cases I as an adult would see obivious signs of drug use, sexual activity, etc and the parents were oblivious. The parents were so dependent on tattlers for information that they were not used to looking for other signs of problems themselves. BTW I believe in talking to the individual with the problem, not going to the authorities first.
I always felt unable to convince parents to stop this culture of tattling. Why would they listen to me when I have no children? I have tried to do my part by reaching out to those that are hurt and hope to make a difference that way. Some of these people just need to see what a heart-level relationship with God is like, not a set of rules.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Hi Lynn,
Your post #36 helped to put the finger on the effect the emphasis on “indwelling sin” has on everyone. I had always sensed that it was a means to an end, but what you said made me realize the intended effect:
I agree with you. The way SGM has taught and emphasized “indwelling sin” hasn’t been to bring people more “into the gospel”, but to sow seeds of self-doubt so that everyone would follow the leadership without question. People are trained to question themselves FIRST, and to NOT question the leadership. Questions raised about the leadership are turned on the questioner in such a way as to cause them to fear their own thinking, fear their own hearts, etc. Also, the leadership is like one big gang, and who are you? You’re just a mere individual and you’re not important because you’re not part of the leadership, right?
Well now, well now. Here we are. Now we have our gang
. I gotta tell you that I tempted to laugh at what SGM must be doing in response to this negative press.They’re only used to glowing reports about how wonderful they are and how humble they are, and anything other than glowing reports is just slander and gossip! Poor guys. What will they do? All they can do is act tough and dismiss dissenting voices as irrelevant while continuing to practice their game of control. But repent? As Amy Winehouse would say, “No, no, no!”
Well, I don’t think any of us should feel sorry for SGM in all of this. They had fair warning. We aren’t the first ones to voice these complaints. There have been plenty of attempts. And what was the response? “You’re the problem.” I’m sure they think that the effects of this blog will all blow over soon and they can get back to keeping their hair in place. Unless, of course, they’re bald. The bald guys will say the problem is messy hair and the solution is to shave it off! But hey! No worries! It’s cool to be a clone of CJ!
March 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Welcome, Voice from the SGM Trash Heap — can we call you V-SGM-TH? Sorry, the government has brainwashed me!
I’m glad you’ve found this site and are getting the healing and answers you need. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on various topics here, and I’m sure many others are, as well.
L
March 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Claireon,
Thanks for the chuckes! You dared to quote Amy Winehouse on a religious blog?? For shame!!
Other than what has gone on at Wikipedia, does anyone know the effects of this blog in regard to upper-eschalon leadership? Is anyone able to ascertain how far off our “rumblings” are being felt in various SG chuches country- and world-wide?
March 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Hi AVoice,
Welcome aboard, and great post! I think your observations are right on the money. There always semmed to be a very cliquish and elite group amongst leadership and their relatives. The courtship teaching made it easy for pastors to team their sons and daughters with others in leadership, just as you noticed. It seemed more the rule than the exception. When I was there, Josh Harris was befriending our assoc Pastor’s daughter, and there was much talk about them possibly getting together. Everyone was very excited about this possibility, but it never happened.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Hey Trash
,
I wish I had time to comment on your post further, but you really captured it when you said,
SO TRUE!
Thanks for posting!
March 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I don’t know the effects on SG leadership but if SG doesn’t encourage folks to bring and study the bible for themselves at cell groups because they don’t have the capacity to interpret correctly I am guessing they will write off bloggers as well.
I think I had heard McCarther say something about people who are in house churches are people who are rebellious. ( or something to that effect ) I suppose by his definaition and standard they/we are.
There was an article on Christianity Today online that was titled ” Oh no,here comes the bloggers.” I don’t remember the exact context but I didn’t like it . It could be interpreted two ways either bloggers are rebellious,uneducated,undiscerning types that don’t fit into the staus quo or we are whistleblowers.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry on SGM, and I hope not everyone believes everything they read. It says Larry T. created TAG, whereas TAG began with an association with a local area church, and its first meetings were in a nice Little lady’s basement. It later relocated, as it grew, to meet at a small rec center. CJ became a Christian in 1972, and by 1974 was occasionally (and then did most of) did the speaking. Larry grew up in Ohio, and after finishing college located in DC because of a job. He became afiliated with TAG after CJ. He was very instrumental in its growth, but was not it’s founder or creator, as Wikipedia states.
When Larry T separated from SGM, the tensions and distance in relationships in Doris’s family were not SGM dictated, but were the result of hurtful things said during the “investigation” process that resulted in the church discipline. LT was approached regarding pride issues, which he evaluated, prayed about, and then agreed were present. He agreed to terms of an admittedly under-developed disciplinary procedure, which was to include stepping down from a leadership position for a specified number of months, during which time he would apply himself to prayer, study, and seeking to grow in the area of humility vs. pride. All of this was documented in a letter written BY Larry T and signed BY Larry T, which was distributed to any and all SGM members who desired a copy of the letter.
The difficulty occurred when, after a certain period of time Larry T decided he’d had enough, decided there was no longer a problem, did not wish to submit to the agreed-upon time of not being in a leadership position, and decided that he did not agree with SGM leadership. The leadership believed there were still issues, belived he should fulfill his commitment to stay out of leadership for the time being, and continue to work on issues of arrogance and pride. He disagreed. SGM felt they had no option but to sever the tie, because Larry T desired to lead, and SGM did not agree with having him lead one of his churches, since he refused to be submitted to their leadership.
Whether there were rights or wrongs on both sides is not the point I am trying to make. I am sure there were wrongs on both sides. I am certain there are mistakes made within SGM at times, by church leaders, and by SGM higher-ups at times. But this can be/is true in any large ministry. I am grieved and saddened by the pains and injuries that have been experienced by some individuals in their SGM experience. I still, though, firmly believe SGM is filled with godly individuals seeking to serve God, obey God, and help people. I have great respect for the SGM leaders, and believe that many individuals are misconstruing certain things that have happened within SGM to be indicative of an overall policy within SGM, which just isn’t the case. The SGM policy is to evaluate situations according to scripture and do their best to operate their churches as God wants them to. Unfortunately, people do make mistakes, and even when they are trying to do what they think God wants them to do, they are sometimes wrong. And sometimes they are mistaken, and sometimes they are confused.
My own experience within SGM has been that it is not perfect. My joining the church only contributed to its imperfection, since I myself am also not perfect. The leaders not only know that their churches are not perfect, but they also know that they themselves are not perfect. They seek to do the Lord’s will. This whole conversation about focusing on their own sin is not only totally scriptural, but is also being presented one-sidedly. The churches do not focus members only on their own sin and then stop there. They focus individuals on their own sin and their need for a savior, and then lead them to Christ and his forgiveness, and our need to stay close to Him and close to our awareness that we will never be perfect while we live on this earth. The awareness of our sinfulness is balanced against an awareness of God’s grace, and the fact that in our salvation, we receive something that we couldn’t earn. We are taught to treat others with grace, and not give them what we think they deserve (for their sins against us, i.e. wrath, justice), but to treat them as Christ treats us, by extending to them grace (letting them receive what, in their sinfulness, they do not receive — forgiveness, love, kindness, etc.).
Long winded. Sorry. Thanks for reading.
One Mom in SG
March 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Hi SGM Single,
back in the early 90s or so, I remember in parenting classes tattling was not encouraged and kids were encouraged to work things out. I wonder what changed?
March 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
btw: WELCOME, Voice!
March 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
LOL, Claireon!
March 4th, 2008 at 11:04 am
One Mom,
I like what you say. Can I ask a question? Can you tell us how long you have been a christian, who discipled you and your thoughts on apostolic gov’t.?
Lastly, if within a month you were to leave your church for a reason that leadership didn’t think was right what would happen? If you disagreed would you ‘submit’ and stay or would leadership ‘relent’ and let you go. Just curious.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Kris
Good points that you and Lynn made here.
One other thought I would have about people not leaving besides what was said is that many have a lot invested in the group that makes it harder for them to leave or “cut their losses” as I have heard some say. That is one factor an abused spouse has that makes it hard for her to leave.
Perhaps with all that is invested there is this hope that things will get better?
Just another thought.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
AVoice,
Hi, and welcome to the site.
I would agree with everyone else, that your observations are exactly right. Nobody plans on joining an abusive ministry. It happens subtly and gradually. Like you say, one day you wake up, and there you are.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hi One Mom,
Thanks for posting and sharing your thoughts. It sounds like you’ve been involved in SGM for a long time, either that or you are familiar with its’ history. And like you said, there were probably wrongs on both sides of the CJ/Larry split, but the fact does remain that Larry’s name was erased from SGM history, and he did play a larger role than what you seem to indicate, don’t you think?
I thought what you shared here was good:
Assuming you’ve read elsewhere on the blog, we have discussed that fact that SGM does, indeed, preach the cross and our need to stay close to the cross. What we have attempted to point out numerous times is that there is more to the gospel than this. Yes, we are to be dependent on the Lord and rely on His grace, but that grace goes beyond looking to the Lord for forgiveness for our sins and sinful inclinations. The entire teaching of the Kingdom of God and the work of the Holy Spirit is strangely absent from the whole equation.
I hope you’ll keep reading! I realize that while in SGM, you will filter everything through the distorted grid of their teachings, but I encourage you to step out and pray about what is being said here and not dismiss it as “not believing everything you read”. I would encourage you to not believe everything you hear in SGM.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Hi One Mom,
Thanks for the post. I was in SG while all of this took place, and your info is exactly as I remember it. Here is the problem I have. Larry was the top dog, and then we heard that he decided to give CJ that position, because he saw the Lord woking more in
C J’s life, or something to that effect. And a short time later he is being disciplined for pride??? I see much more pride in C J than I ever saw in Larry. Even
C J admits that he is not humble! So why isn’t he being disciplined like Larry was? Why hasn’t he been asked to step down from his leadership position? It all seems very hypocritical and judgemental.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Voice,
Welcome, and great points…I definitely agree with you that there is rampant nepotism in the pastoral elite. Pastor’s sons and son-in-laws are put on the PC fast track, with often devastating consequences…men who are very young and not ready to be pastors come back and have huge authority. I know of one such instance where a pastor’s son turned pastor is now “disqualified”, and his church is devastated. This guy went to the PC at 19 with little or no evaluation or qualifications, simply because of who his dad was, and now everyone knows just how little character he has.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Claireon, re 52,
Your comments made me think of the verse in Hebrews about “not laying again the foundation,” but in moving on to maturity.
I’ve always been intrigued by that verse, and it often comes to mind in these discussions of SG’s hyper-focus on the cross and our sin. Yes, we should understand that he died for our sin, but we are no longer those un-regenerate souls and there is a clear calling in this verse to move past these elementary teachings.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hi, One Mom, and welcome to the site.
Thanks for your comment.
I would agree with Claireon, that the point is not so much who was at fault in Larry Tomczak’s departure from SGM. Obviously, in every situation like that, there are always two sides, and we’ll never know for sure what transpired. Likewise the stories about Doris Tomczak’s strained relationships with some of her family members.
If some folks seem fixated on the Larry T thing, I believe it’s because he’s been conveniently expunged from SGM’s official history, and as I said before, it really doesn’t matter WHAT Larry T did or why he was removed from leadership. He could be in jail for murdering his granny, for all I care. What matters is that it is DECEPTIVE to remove all mention of him as one of SGM’s founders.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am
One Mom
First of all welcome to the blog.
My take on Larry Tomczak leaving is that it became a disagreement between Tomczak and Mahaney. People might say “the leadership” but it pretty obvious how dictatorial Mahaney is in the group. As I have said before, it was too bad that outside counsel wasn’t brought in. I have heard that one pastor involved with Tomczak’s discipline said that Tomczak had made the required progress but was quickly silenced by Mahaney. If that is what truly happened it is quite sad.
When one talks about “pride issues” Mahaney certainly has had his challenges with that over the years and it has never been suggested that Mahaney step down. That should make people wonder.
I just looked at the Wiki entry for CLC and found the following:
I don’t see the entry saying Tomczak founded TAG.
This is what the SG entry says:
Again what I read doesn’t seem to corroborate with what you recently posted including that Larry created TAG. It doesn’t give the details that you describe but it doesn’t appear to say something that is wrong.
If you feel the Wiki entry is wrong there is a discussion page for each Wiki entry where you can post your concerns.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Hi Lynn,
Again I agree. This is my whole beef about CJ laying claim to being an apostle and the job he claims to have, along with his “apostolic team” of laying the foundations in the churches they establish. The foundation HAS been laid, and like you quoted from Hebrews, no one needs to lay the foundation again. Doing so only works to hold people in a stage of immaturity, and the immature are easily fooled.
But thank God He has given to us the full gospel and the church’s foundations have been fully and effectively laid! What presumption those hold who assume they can improve upon the mighty work that has already been done. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. SGM leadership assumes authority with their “apostolic” leadership, when their authority over others in an “apostolic” sense is utterly false in my view. And if it is false, true Christians should NOT give their allegiance to it, rather they should revolt against it and expose it for what it is.
At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
March 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I wanted to add something to my post #58….
Now, I realize that if you are in the business of establishing churches, it is important that those churches be established upon good, sound doctrine and teaching. SGM would claim that this what they have done, and their leaders are the ones following the prescription laid down by CJ and others as to what that teaching should be and the order in which it should come. But this is where we see the real problem. While CJ may claim to be a “master builder” (which is what the Apostles were….chosen by God to masterfully lay the doctrinal foundations upon which the Church is built), and has worked to determine what the doctrines and practices of SGM are going to be, the omissions have definitely led many of us to conclude that the biblical “teachings” and the “doctrines” of SGM have been manipulated in such a way as to distort the gospel. They have distorted the gospel while claiming to be all about the gospel. They claim to be all about sound doctrine, when their doctrine isn’t sound. The claims have to match up with the reality, and in reality, they don’t…..so naturally it not only becomes seen as deception, it is deception.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi One Mom,
Thanks for your viewpoint on SGM and its issues. You are right that these things happen in every big organization. I personally can’t pass judgment on the CJ vs Larry issue because I wasn’t involved. Sometimes leaders do have pride and their removal out of leadership is necessary. I can’t personally comment on this situation because I don’t agree with the authority usurped from God at my local SGM.
Your viewpoint does remind me of when I worked at Wal-mart headquarters. In response to criticisms about injust or illegal incidents happening at certain stores and such, Wal-mart took the position that they are a large organization of over 1.4million employees, and they can’t possible control a few bad apples from doing certain things. When similar circumstances or incidents start occurring across the board, though, it adds more validation to allegations. So where there is smoke there is fire.
I’m just theorizing that the environment that led to our “isolated” but distributed incidents was sort of cultivated and allowed by the SGM mindset of leadership and indwelling sin.
Speaking to Voice from SGM Trash Heap, nepotism did seem rampant at my local SG church. Likewise, no one else in their right mind should try to marry an SGM pastor’s son or daughter except for an indoctrinated SGM member.
Scott
March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi One Mom.
You said:
I think it’s interesting that just about every single person from SGM has said this almost exact same thing word for word. It’s true, none of us are perfect… no pastor is perfect, and no church is perfect etc. But, that doesn’t mean that we should just sit back and let “imperfection” and false teachings run rampant within the churches we attend whether it’s in SGM or any other church.
I’m sure that you have read at least some of the stories on this blog and all the wrongs can’t be simply chalked up to imperfection and simply let go, ya know? I guess in a sense you have a point but in looking at the overall picture and seeing evidence of abuse, I’m not so sure it’s a good thing to blame it all on imperfection. I mean, Kris & Lynn brought up the example of an abused spouse in posts 35 & 36… we wouldn’t just simply tell the abused person that they are only giving one side of the story would we?
March 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
March 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hi Ellie,
Thanks for that excerpt! WOW!!! “Intimidation and behind the scenes politicking”!! WOW!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Claireon, re 59
“Now, I realize that if you are in the business of establishing churches, it is important that those churches be established upon good, sound doctrine and teaching.”
I understood that from your earlier comments, but I know there’s a need here to always make things *crystal* clear!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Hi Steve,
Excellent job on your post #57! Go Sherlock! ;)
March 4th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Welcome One Mom,
I agree with Nancy Drew: the crux of the complaints here isn’t based on the
“he said/he said” between Larry and CJ way back when. It’s based on the 22,397+ other offenses noted here that have been experienced recently, repeatedly, and personally.
Would be interested in your responses to questions in #49.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
One thing that changed in my perspective after leaving SG was the view that Christianity was a lot more egalitarian than what was presented from the SG pulpit. Another way to look at it is that God’s intended organizational structure is a lot flatter (fewer levels of management) than what CJ proposed. Consider the following:
Matthew 23:9-11
1 John 2:26-28
March 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Wow! I’m overwhelmed by the responses and don’t have time right now to answer each one!
Thank you for the welcome to the blog.
Yes, I go way back, not necessarily as an insider the entire time, but I began attending TAG when it met at the rec center.
I have been a Christian for many, many years. I got my root discipleship through a friend that lived near me who went to TAG. I was encouraged to, and seek to read my bible some every day. That, combined with teaching from TAG leadership to never accept anything I hear or read at face value (as being biblical), but to search the scriptures myself to see what God himself is saying on the issue, is how I got much of my Christian growth. My involvement in a SGM church has encouraged me, to the groaning point, to study theology and biblical principles on my own, to learn, to grow, etc. and not to just parrot back, “so and so says…” (like the commercial “E.F. Hutton says…” where everybody leans in to listen…). So, I have learned to know what I believe (beginning with the book by Paul Little, which I first read in 1974), to be prepared to articulate it, to seek to speak it humbly (knowing that I, myself, not only don’t know everything, but also can mis-speak, especially when I am hurrying), and participate in conversation in ways that can offer tidbits, but that also makes it clear that I understand that the other person also has experiences that I do not have.
Sorry, I am leaning toward run-on sentences…
I have read much, but not all, of the posts and comments on this blog. I didn’t mean to say, Kris, that you were not presenting that there are two sides… just that some entries seem to present that.
To Steve240, my search on Wikipedia was on Sovereign Grace Ministries, not on TAG.
To Kris, yes, it is odd that Larry T is not mentioned in church history on SGM webpages. I just took that as a way to avoid controversy, which is scriptural, not as a way to expunge all memory of him. Many people currently in SGM know little to nothing about him, and I base that not only on church growth, but also on the fact that even while he was in the ministry, most folks in the ministry were still “on the outside”. The dealings went on were done privately, as is/was appropriate. I, personally, don’t see it as expunging when nothing is mentioned about Chai Ahn, Margaret Tomczak, or anyone else from the past… Just that the past is the past.
I do not know what would happen if I decided to leave my SGM church for a reason that the leaders did not believe was legitimate. I suspect, if I handled it humbly, graciously, and tactfully, they would express their regret for my decision but would say I needed to do what I believed the Lord was leading me to do. But, like I said, I’m guessing. Obviously I couldn’t know unless I did it.
I have never felt SGM pressured me to sever family ties or friendship ties from non-SGM dealings. It is just that life is full, and the older I get the more difficult it is for me to just keep my own house clean, let alone keep in touch with someone I was friends with 30 years ago who moved… Life is busy, and just keeps getting busier, squeezing things out. I constantly have to evaluate my use of my time.
Speaking of… I need to go get some other things done. Will probably not post again til at least tomorrow. Thanks again for the nice welcome.
One Mom
March 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying Lynn. I figured you would get what I was saying in post #58, but I could just hear someone supportive of SGM and the “apostolic” from of authority think, “What’s the harm in having a body of men decide what the doctrines of the church should be? After all, other denominations have done and do that all the time? So, what’s the beef?” Because of that I wanted to point out that its not that there shouldn’t be people to decide on what should and should not be emphasized, but if you are claiming to offer sound doctrine, and you aren’t, then there’s a problem somewhere. Furthermore, the blueprint for sound doctrine in The Bible, not some guy who decides for others what the bible says and should be taught. The church was built by the Spirit and continues to be. Claiming to an “apostle” is like saying, “I am led by the Spirit in bringing to you the doctrine and the teaching you are hearing, therefore you should submit to MY authority, because MY authority comes straight from God.” And this is how SGM assumes their authority….by claiming to be apostles. Know what I mean?
March 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I know whatcha mean, C!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Hi Claireon,
Great post! Yes, it almost sounds like a Jim Jones or a David Koresh situation where these men hear directly from God, so if you disobey their orders, you are disobeying God Himself! The title of “Apostle” carries with it that type of unquestioning authority, and puts what they teach on equal status with the Bible itself! Just look at the abuses that come with unquestioned authority and status. 900 people committed suicide at the command of Jim Jones. I am not comparing C J to J J, but just showing the dangers of this type of allegiance and idol worship. Someone mentioned brainwashing earlier. This is one of the main characteristics of cults. You are not allowed to think for yourself, or really ask any questions. They call that being “unsubmissive”.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hi OneMom,
thanks for your detailed and thoughtful posts. I’m wondering where you get the idea from, though, that CJ had a significant role in TAG before Larry (post#45)?
Larry’s autobiography, written well before their split (and revised for a second edition), indicates the precise opposite.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
One Mom,
Making it sound like CJ Mahaney was the sole founder of SGM is NOT “avoiding controversy” in a good, Scriptural, God-honoring way. It’s avoiding controversy the way that an alcoholic’s wife does, by pretending certain things never happened. It’s deceptive, and to me it seems to be done strictly for appearances’ sake. I think it’s a symptom of the pride that lurks deep in the heart of SGM.
I mean, what would it hurt for them to include a simple line in their history that acknowledged Larry T’s contributions to the ministry’s early years? They don’t have to explain where he went. Most new people will just figure that he moved on, the way that leaders from NORMAL ministries move on when they sense the Lord leading them to do so.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
One Mom
You might want to take a look at my post again. I quoted both fromthe SGM page and the CLC page. Neither seem to corroborate what you said. I would also suggest taking a look at both pages on Wiki again.
I agree with what Kris said here.
A while ago I looked at the website for the SG church Che Ahn founded out in LA. At least in their history they talk about a group of people coming out to found it etc. They don’t name names but they aren’t deceptive either. The SG Philadelphia Church’s history on their site is similar to how the LA church is done.
When one deceives then I wonder what else are they not being truthful about.
One Mom
March 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
One Mom said:
I think this would be acceptable if Larry Tomczak was just a member of the congregation and not in leadership. Also, taking him out of the history has created probably more controversy than if SGM was just honest about it. We can see evidence of that just here on the blog. If they claim to be imperfect anyways and humble, being open about their imperfections shouldn’t be a problem should it? hmm
I don’t think that is biblical though. Pastors and leaders of a church are in fact held to a higher standard. (James 3:1) In most any other church if there is some kind of discipline with a pastor or leader, it’s not kept under lock and key. I mean why keep important going ons in the church secret? To me, it seems as if they don’t want their decisions to be held accountable by members of the congregation therefore putting themselves up on a pedestal. What bothers me the most is that it is defended as if the way they deal with these sorts of things is biblical when it is far from it.
Btw this whole “outsiders” and “insiders” thing is sorta creepy when talking about church. :-P
March 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hi Nancy,
You said: “Btw this whole “outsiders” and “insiders” thing is sorta creepy when talking about church.”
Boy is that true! Whatever happened to one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one body? When Paul asked, “Has Christ been divided?”, the answer today is – YES! He has been divided into 1000′s of denominations, with SGM being the best of course. :-)
March 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Hi Dennis,
I’m not necessarily talking about denominations. I was referring to the “insiders” and “outsiders” within one church. As for the whole denomination thing, that’s a whole other topic. :-) (which btw I don’t have anything against different denominations)
March 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
One thing that should be acknowledged is that, along with the name changes, the ministry of SGM hasn’t always been what it is like today. During the Jesus Movement, young people by the droves were coming to Christ and at the same time were looking for something new and different, a different way of expressing their faith than, say, their parents did. The GI generation, with their strong leadership, gave rise to the Silent Generation – who kept their faith to themselves and did very little in the way of impartation – whereas the Baby Boomers were all about expression, including that of the Good News. New groups like TAG sprung up all over the place, and as history marched on and the dust has had time to settle, we are now looking at the result of some of those initiatives and whether or not they are passing the test of authenticity. SGM, while attempting to preserve some of the original charisma that drew so many to them and provided hungry souls with some new bible knowledge, has turned to reinventing themselves and changing their name over time in order to stay to relevant. But what hasn’t changed is the authority structure (aside from CJ taking over) and their belief in being an authoritative/apostolic group of set-apart men with the mandate to plant churches. During the time TAG/GOB/People of Destiny/PDI was charismatic, people accepted their apostolic claims without realizing what they were doing, but now that the charismatic movement, with all its imbalances, has come and gone, SGM is trying to become Reformed. Another change of skin color for the same chamelion. They will never be Reformed with the kind of authority structure they have now, but they’ll keep on trying as long as that’s where the wind seems to be blowing.
I now realize that Christ gave the gift of the Apostles to build the church so “that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). God did not leave His church vulnerable to charlatans, but rather invested His authority in those men to lay the foundation of the Church, and her foundation is a Sure Foundation.
Maybe this is why so many compare SGM to Mormonism?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Dennis,
I think the difference between SGM and other denominations is – oh wait! first of all, I must say that SGM is not a denomination, it is a “family of churches” :-) – that other denominations do not exhibit nearly so much of an “us vs. them” mentality.
At the church we’ve been attending since leaving SGM, my husband and I often remark about how there’s no talk of outsiders and insiders. Granted, there are people who have been there longer than others, but I’ve been part of a women’s Bible study since the beginning of the year, and there’s no sense from these ladies whatsoever that those who attend other churches are somehow “missing out” on something superior.
Yet at our SGM church, I constantly heard people say things like, “SGM is the ONLY church for me,” or, “We’d never live ANYWHERE where there isn’t a Sovereign Grace church!”
It was almost like being a member of SGM was something like being Jewish…or getting a tattoo…
March 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Yeah, Kris, that’s exactly what I meant about the insider and outsider thing. Like you said, in other churches there are those who have been there a long time so they naturally know more about stuff, but there is not the insider and outsider mentality. I’ve never sensed that anyways.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Yeah, Kris, that’s exactly what I meant about the insider and outsider thing. Like you said, in other churches there are those who have been there a long time so they naturally know more about stuff, but there is not the insider and outsider mentality. I’ve never sensed that anyways.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The thing about church discipline is, as I read Matthew 18, the person being disciplined is to be taken before the church. The church is to know the whole story so that there can be agreement and consensus. I do not agree with One Mom when she said that keeping Larry Tomczak’s disciplinary action a private matter as appropriate. The church, from a biblical standpoint, should have been informed of it all.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I agree, Claireon!
March 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Hi Kris and Nancy,
We never were a part of the “in group” at our SG church. We always felt like outsiders, even after being there for 10 yrs. I was never a “yes man”, and that was a big part of our not being accepted into the inner circle. I had just come out of a very sectarian and cultish group, so my defenses were up ( and are still up!).
And Nancy, I am sorry that I misunderstood what you meant. So I guess there are “inside outsiders” and “outside outsiders” ! That’s a lot of outsiders! I guess that is what all of us are now! I think I will get a T shirt that says, “I am an outsider”. :-)
March 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Was this message board site ever posted here?? I just found this a few minutes ago.
You will not BELIEVE how alike the two “families of churches” sound!
http://gcmwarning.com:8080/phpbb/index.php
Apparently, some there also think SGM sounds like the churches they’ve left:
http://gcmwarning.com:8080/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=497&sid=df04dd2eee54061a3a084a8ed900ffa7
March 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Dennis,
No problem, I was a little vague on what I meant. I don’t know if you have been a part of another church, but this “insider” and “outsider” thing that keeps being referring to in regards to SGM is not the way it is in most churches. (nor should it be) I think it has a lot to do with the structure of the SGM church.
Being an outsider is not always such a bad thing. :-P
March 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hey Dennis,
I found you a T-shirt
hehe
Check it out: http://www.cafepress.com/buy/t-shirt+%22i+am+an+outsider%22/-/pd_57721794?CMP=KNC-F-ALL
March 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
lol Claireon… check out the quote the designer left on that site:
From the Designer
“I am an outsider. I don’t run in a pack. I think outside the box. I see things from a unique perspective.”
March 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Let’s all get one! Wait….if we all had one then…..nevermind
March 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi Nancy,
I have been in many churches, both before and after SG. But our SG church definitely seemed to be the most cliquish with having an “in crowd”. There was a certain group that were very close to leadership that all hung around together. We were never an accepted part of that group. A lot of them were related and had formed the original fellowship before becoming a part of SGM. They went back a long way together. We never really felt accepted or adopted into that “family”.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hi Claireon,
That is hysterical! Thanks for the link.
March 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thanks, everyone, for your very kind welcome!
Exintern… I *think* I know of whom you speak!!! ;-) Our stories in SGM probably have a lot in common and our paths possibly may have even crossed a time or two!
Interesting reading… Kris, I want to thank you publicly for this site and for the way you serve all of us here! I can understand why God would use you, with your knowledge of Him and obvious love for HIim, and your neutral position in regard to SGM. Just the kind of person He would choose to moderate these discussions fairly!
March 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Maybe we can all start our own church called the “Sovereign Grace Rejects”. Reminds me of that TV commercial where they say “REEEJECTED!”
March 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
actually-I think some of the leadership decisions remind me of “The Apprentice” where your pastor brings you into the inner sanctum, to discuss your shortcomings and then tell you you’re fired from the church.
Maybe “the Donald” would consider a special “church plant” edition with members from the pastor’s college?
March 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Claireon,
re 89: Funny!
March 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Ellie,
Re 85: I just read a portion of their “early error and weakness statement.” Wouldn’t it be nice if one day SGM issues a statement recognizing and humbly repenting of the “elitist” and “prideful” attitude that caused them to look down on other churches and para-church organizations, as well as for the rifts they’ve caused with former leaders and members?
We can pray believing!
March 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Wow, Lynn, I will have to go back and look, I only read a little bit when I had posted the link.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Musicman,
I am laughing at your idea for The Apprentice and perhaps a new denomination.
I think I have a perfect name for it! – Grace Trumps Community Church.
A Voice,
Thanks so much for your kind words. But you know, the site wouldn’t really be much of anything at all if it weren’t for the commenters. So here’s a big shout-out to my peeps! :-)
March 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Voice,
It wouldn’t surprise me if we’re thinking of the same person… the world is such a small place, isn’t it?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Greetings all -
It has been quite some time since I have posted, but I wanted to return with the following “observation” and question.
Observation -
There is CERTAINLY nepotism within Sovereign Grace. And believe me, I am not speaking from an “outsider looking in” perspective. I have been the RECIPIENT of this nepotism as I have grown close to some in leadership. Now, I think VERY HIGHLY of these people I have grown close to, but that does not diminish the fact that this tendency is there. It also does not make it right. There is definitely a “good ol’ boys,” or “really sweet girls” club that dominates the movement. It boils down to this question when accepting someone into the elite cliques:
“Is this person Sovereign Grace to the core?”
Unfortunately, this is a question that I have actually heard several times, and in light of this blog, it grieves me. Sadly but without any major effort on my part, I seem to fit the “Sovereign Grace to the core” mold. That will probably change soon, though, as I am about to make some decisions that I am sure will diminish the idealism with which people look at me.
I wonder how many others have been in my shoes? I.E – Those that “fit the mold,” with potential leadership identification, and then suddenly do something (not necessarily sinful) “outside the SG norm” that puts them on the outside. That hasn’t happened to me yet, but I feel it coming soon.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
(Removed by author’s request)
March 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Chelon,
“I wonder how many others have been in my shoes? I.E – Those that “fit the mold,”
with potential leadership identification, and then suddenly do something (not
necessarily sinful) “outside the SG norm” that puts them on the outside. That hasn’t
happened to me yet, but I feel it coming soon.”
Well, I’ve been there. I didn’t grow up in SG, or have a pastor for a dad, but I made it to the inside, and chose to be outside. Let me warn you frankly, they will lash out at you because you will be a major embarassment to them. Dissent within the ranks is not tolerated, because they are afraid of being viewed as weak or flawed (and of course, they are both). Read a few of my comments in earlier threads to get my story.
However, when you are free from their hold, it is so worth it. My marriage and my walk with the Lord are both so much stronger since I left SGM. Leaving was one of the best decisions I’ve made. The backstabbings were incredibly painful, but I would make the same decision again knowing what I know now.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Hi Claireon,
I don’t think we were in the same church. The church I attended was on the central east coast of Fla. The assoc Pastor was the Sr Pastors brother! Another leader was married to the Pastor’s sister. I was there from about 1985 – 1995. This assoc Pastor is now a Sr Pastor up near or in Canada somewhere.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
(Removed, because it related to other removed posts) (Hey! I’m moderating myself!
)
March 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
(Removed by author’s request)
March 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Hi Kris,
Sorry about that. That was too much information, and not necessary. I will try to use more wisdom in my communication next time.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Steve240,
Re, Post 57
When you’re right, you’re right. Reading too fast; replying too fast. I had searched Wikipedia on “Sovereign Grace Ministries” and misread what it said to be regarding the formation of TAG, when it was talking about the formation of the first SGM church. My apologies.
One Mom
March 4th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
General comments:
I don’t think Larry received church displine. Like many of us he tried to bow out with dignity when he realized the cards were stacked against him (after discoveries made during disciplining of pride). How do we as Christian warn others and not feel like we are causing descent according to the SG mindset? The first senior pastor at my church had to step down because of questions concerning his control of his kids. He decided to leave the church eventually (and quietly) when he realized that he didn’t think that it was right to forfeit all activities and giftings for the discipline.
Denominations are definitely not the enemy, but they are not the church either. We all know who are brothers and sisters are and who God determines to be a church in an area.
Does anyone know if this website has been blacklisted by SG leaders? I’ve sent three emails to friends and included this website link, and they haven’t even responded to me.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
One Mom,
First, welcome to the site. I do have a concern with this:
First, I have to say it’s getting annoying to hear SGMers come in here and make trite references to how “grieved” they are, when they immediately follow it w/ something dismissive. Could we just cut the crap b/c that’s not grief. I’m sorry. I know this sounds harsh. But I’ve just heard it so many times now. “I’m grieved for you. Really I am. BUT I just think …”
You’re obviously not “grieved” when you go on to say that people who have opened up their lives here and their stories are “misconstruing” them. If I talk about being treated harshly in a discipline process that went on ad nauseam and someone else comes along and says, “Hey, the same thing happened to me,” I’m not guilty of misconstruing anything. I’m stating facts, and others share similar experiences. It’s up to others to determine if these incidences are just highly coincidental isolated occurrences or if they indicate patterns that completely line up with their shepherding practices and morbid doctrines.
Claireon,
You wrote,
They couldn’t do this in Larry’s case b/c then people would have revolted, realizing how trumped up these charges were. Give me a big, freakin’ break. A leader goes through a situation with one of his kids and is disciplined for pride and arrogance. Who doesn’t have pride and arrogance??? To me, it seems like the height of pride and arrogance to set yourself up as the one who’s disciplining a leader for his pride and arrogance. I mean, who’s really qualified to say, “Yeah, I’m going to take the reigns of this discipline process and set out all of the disciplinary consequences for this person’s pride and arrogance.”
One Mom, with her little trip down memory lane over the information that was filtered down about Larry’s discipline process, has fueled my criticism that these discipline processes tend to be so nebulous and loosely defined. As I’ve mentioned numerous times, I was taken through one that lasted 5 years for a supposed eating issue (although I never once dropped below an acceptable weight the entire time), one time for joking too much in public settings and was, hence, restricted from joking AT ALL in public settings for months, and then was included in my husband’s discipline process after he confessed adultery (and, in the end, was told that I didn’t “embrace” “our” discipline process).
So if I remain skeptical of these “evidences” One Mom brings that Larry’s discipline process was legitimate, it’s because I saw discipline wielded for the most mundane infractions (and sometimes when there was no infraction at all, only the leadership’s interpretation of one). And leadership held all the reigns on how long these discipline processes were to last and what was to be required. Jesus simply said (in Matt 18) that if your brother listened to you, you won him over. Not so with SGM. You had to not only “listen” to leadership; you were bound to roll with all of their punches until they felt you were adequately humbled. And any questions or complaints about the length of their processes or lack of definition just won you extra time in the woodshed and rebuke for pride, arrogance, and lack of submission.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Chelon,
Welcome back!! We have missed you! Thanks for posting as an insider without shooting us all down, but being willing to admit that some things just aren’t right. With regards to what you said:
“I wonder how many others have been in my shoes? I.E – Those that “fit the mold,” with potential leadership identification, and then suddenly do something (not necessarily sinful) “outside the SG norm” that puts them on the outside. That hasn’t happened to me yet, but I feel it coming soon.”
This was our story, as my husband and I were caregroup leaders. We felt uneasy about many things, and finally started asking questions, especially with the way serious issues within our caregroup were being handled. Folks who seriously needed professional counseling for big gaping oozing wounds, were given a little SGM scriptural bandaid (usually out of context) and sent on their merry little way. For example how about telling a young pregnant girl who’s husband is addicted to some sexual sins, unemployed, and struggling with serious anger and treating his wife like
garbage, that if she just be like “Abigal”, she can win her husband back. And that if her husband needs her be physical, then she needs to available at all times, as that is her marital duty. That really does wonders for a young woman who’s husband would rather spend time treating himself on the computer. So, yeah, anyway…we started asking questions, and we got answers all the way out the door. So good luck with that! ;)
March 4th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
And I ditto what Exintern said:
“However, when you are free from their hold, it is so worth it. My marriage and my walk with the Lord are both so much stronger since I left SGM. Leaving was one of the best decisions I’ve made. The backstabbings were incredibly painful, but I would make the same decision again knowing what I know now.”
Imagine two funnels stuck together at the nose: Entering into one of the large sides of the first funnel, all around you see the big wide world of SGM and it looks so big and cozy. I mean you have never experienced anything like it, it’s the best place out there, and some were born in that funnel. And then suddenly you find yourself spinning around and around with questions, uneasy feelings, spirit checks, autoimmune diseases, broken relationships, and more. So you start to ask questions or seek, naively, answers to your state of confusion. And suddenly you are sliding down the funnel away from the big cozy space, and you are trapped in the two necks stuck together. At first you feel like you are trapped, and all you can do is look back at what you had: the community, the fellowship, “sound doctrine (or so you have been told), tearful prayer times over your latest needs, amazing Seedge clones all around you talking the talk. And you find yourself questioning yourself, your wicked sinful little heart, and you sorta want to go back, but you know you best not. Well, then finally as you sink a little deeper into the two necks of the funnels, you suddenly start to see a little light coming from the other end. You get enough courage, after being so inundated with fear, shame, and a controlled state of a man, that you decide to peek through. You see a whole new paradigm that only opens up and goes out toa large space called “freedom. ” You hesitate, you wait, and then finally you jump into that new funnel which is only leading to better things, because you are now free to move out, think for yourself, meet others who think for themselves, finally see that you are an adopted child of God who is dearly loved, and there is a world of opportunities to meet with God, and carry him to the world through all kinds of churches: house churches, denominational churches, emergent churches, organic churches, mission led churches, etc. etc. This new place is one of freedom, and truly trusting God’s voice, not that of man, and allowing God to take you to new levels in your marriage, your parenting, your friendships, your jobs, your outreach to the community around you, and so much more. Glorious freedom in Christ Jesus is well worth dropping through the darkened dampend SGM funnel to a new place of light, peace and adventure in Him. I am so glad that my family found the light. Makes me think of a D.C. Talk song….. ” I want to be in the light, as you are in the light. I want to shine like the stars in the Heavens. Oh, Lord, be my light, and be my salvation…all I want is to be in the light.”
March 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Claireon,
I love the t-shirt!! Oh my gosh, we have to all get them, and then when we are traveling on vacation this summer we will wear them. We may spot each other at the Grand Canyon, Disney World, Niagara Falls, or some place.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Newbie
I would disagree with your saying he didn’t receive church discipline. He certainly left when he saw how the cards were going against him but from hearing how some of his wife’s family reacted it doesn’t sound like an amicable separation.
If there were differences in philosophy and theology it is a shame that Mahaney had to push him out the way he appears to have done.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Great post Freeda.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Hey Freeda,
Thanks for making me smile :-) I needed that right then!
Hey SGM Cas,
It just seems that so many things are done behind closed doors in SGM. Decisions made are “private” (meaning: none of your beeswax), whether its a disciplinary procedure, a doctrinal shift, or a change in name. Being told about things after the fact isn’t the same as being part of the whole thing. But I guess when you’re “just a member” (as I was called once), and you’re told to “submit and obey”, what gives you the right to either ask questions or be included in the conversation?
Ummm, the Bible does!
Btw, SGM Cas…..hugs to you! Hope you’re doing well. We’re in this together ;)
March 4th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I think Larry was pretty much blindsided by what happened. I think the odds were stacked against him by those in charge of the whole “discipline” process. I don’t think he expected this out of his friend.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Claireon,
Thanks so much! That made me smile, which was a welcomed break b/c I’m really steamed by One Mom’s posts. I hope you’re still in this with me when I’m finished this post b/c I’m sure I’ll be walking around w/ a giant target on my head from all SGMers who visit.
About One Mom’s posts, I just can’t seem to handle them with the grace that I can most posts. She speaks as one who was obviously intimately involved in Larry and Doris’ discipline process, giving details that the general populous wouldn’t have access to but which I heard b/c of my proximity to an apostolic team member’s wife whose husband was a key player in the process. And she seasons her words with this graciousness, but her overall message is dripping with a patronizing arrogance.
Here are just a few choice quotes that have made me so angry:
Why the heck does a man who was well known to the rest of the apostolic team need to be the subject of an “investigation” process??? Does anyone see how WWII that is? If someone is so proud and arrogant that he needs to be removed from leadership and humiliated in front of an entire ministry, wouldn’t this raging arrogance be evident and not the result of an investigation??? And who is this person that she can say so definitively that Doris’ sisters shunned her b/c of hurtful things that Larry and Doris said during their investigation? If I had been in Larry and Doris’ shoes and the subject of an investigation into my pride/arrogance, I probably would have said some hurtful things too … like calling them white-washed tombs and a brood of vipers.
That sounds like humility to me! Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What was the guy to do? If someone comes to you and says, “I see pride and arrogance in your life” and you say, “Ya know, I prayed about it and just really don’t see those,” wouldn’t that be the height of pride and arrogance?
Oh, is that what we call these processes now? “Admittedly under-developed disciplinary procedures”? Gosh, that sounds so civil and scrubbed. If they devastate people in the process and divide families who should be worshiping the Lord together — yes, even if a member of the family has been identified by arrogant leadership (by CJ’s own admission) as prideful and arrogant — and enjoying sweet fellowship together. Is that how leadership assuages its conscience when it looks out over the casualties in Sovereign Grace’s wake? Do you just tell yourselves, “Oh, yeah … I guess our discipline processes might just be a tad bit ‘under-developed’”? Has anyone from leadership ever pursued Larry and Doris and asked their forgiveness for their “under-developed” discipline process? I’m serious. This is so Clintonian, it makes me sick.
And what other choice did Larry have??? I was told by one apostolic team member’s wife that it took him several drafts before he got it right. So tell me what choice he had but to comply with the demands leadership was placing on him. But b/c he wrote that letter that the rest of leadership had to agree to, he was then disingenuous to later say, “Whoah, guys … This is going a little far.” Is that what you’re implying? I know, having gone through several of these “under-developed” discipline processes, you’re never told in the beginning all of the requirements that will be expected of you and just how denigrating these processes will be.
So tell me: How does one “work on issues of arrogance and pride”??? For months on end no less??? This is the language of a cult. I have held out for months, not wanting to assign such a severe term to a ministry that appears to have sincere desires, in many ways, to serve God. But who gives men the God-like authority to judge a man’s heart and determine when he is humble enough to be a leader? And how is it that CJ Mahaney can make 5 references to his pride and arrogance in his blog, but that’s somehow celebrated as humility? But another leader is confronted with observations of pride and arrogance, prayerfully considers these observations, repents of his sin, writes a letter to this effect that is distributed to the entire ministry, steps down from leadership, and submits to months of disciplinary consequences … but b/c he doesn’t go the distance and jump through every hoop of fire other sinful, arrogant men have set up for him, he’s “disqualified” to lead a church???
I’m sorry. But this woman’s posts — more than any others (b/c she was obviously involved in this process) — has convinced me that Sovereign Grace is a cult. It’s a cult that preaches a highly distorted half gospel that conveniently enough (for leadership that is) leaves out all of the parts that would release people to follow hard after God in His resurrection power and freedom! And these practices demonstrate that man, not the Holy Spirit, is the driving force behind this ministry.
And I haven’t even gotten to the part of her post that made me the most angry. But in the interest of time, I’ll just jump to that, even though others have touched on it.
You wrote:
This was absolutely unbelievable. You just take rewriting history (which is dishonesty and wouldn’t be tolerated in any other context) as avoiding controversy and assign this practice “scriptural” significance??? Where the heck do you see history being rewritten for the sake of avoiding controversy??? If so, I would say Luke really misstepped including the story of Ananias and Sapphira in the Bible. That story sure is awfully controversial and could offend so many people’s sensibilities.
Oh, and b/c many people in Sovereign Grace know nothing about him, you just decided it would be better to just misrepresent the truth (or how did you say …. “misconstruing certain things that have happened within SGM”)? Make it look like CJ Mahaney started PDI? Give me a break.
I’ve said enough. I’m so disgusted. SGM’s a cult; that’s all there is to it.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
SGM Cas…
Amen to what you said. I, too, tire of the patronizing way we are thrown the “grievous” bone only to be told we are somehow manufacturing injury. And I’m also here to tell you that Jesus would not treat people like I was and we were treated in SGM. How much do people still in SGM turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to just so they can stay in their comfortable little zone. That’s the tragedy. Many of them watch people they professed to “love” go down in flames at the hands of their pastors and leaders. Larry Tomczak was a perfect example. I also believe he was blindsided by what transpired. But, let’s not forget that CJ was not the only one in on that tragic series of events. Brent Detwiler was right there, front and center. The two of them were the “dream team” (or maybe it is a nightmare) in pushing out their old friend. I was a part of Detwiler’s church when all this went down. We got a report from the pulpit on Larry’s “pride” issues and how horribly “grieved” the apostolic team was that things had to be this way. It made me sick.
Does everyone have sin issues? Of course. Is anyone perfect? Duh. But walking around saying that “we’re the worst sinner we know” doesn’t mean we really believe that. I agree with what was said above that if I truly believed that we are all dealing with pride, myself at the top of the list, I’d work alot harder and focus more on my own pride and focus much less on pointing out someone elses. How about “take the log out of your own eye before you look for the speck in another’s eye”.
Nepotism in SGM? Don’t get me started…
March 4th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I am with SGM Cas….One Mom, here’s some thoughts from another Mom….your post is arrogance through and through. And it is so canned, I’ve heard it all a million times…not a single new thought there! It’s not truth, it’s deception and you have bought into it big time. Bold face lies were told about my family FROM THE PULPIT….no chance of misconstruing something that doesn’t contain even one nugget of truth!! Focusing only on one’s sin and then leading them to Christ is not a given….not a single person was saved in our church in more than 6 years. Instead, person after person after person left because they were emotionally devestated and weary from being beaten down day after day…not just Sunday after Sunday, but day after day. Furthermore, you state that you are grieved and saddened by the pain some folks here have suffered….and then go on to say that things are being misconstrued. Gosh, you know, when I am grieved and saddened by a child who is being abused, it never occurs to me to ask if he is misconstruing things…”honey, don’t you think you might have misunderstood that beating?” or to blame him for being beaten “if you hadn’t provoked your dad w/your own sinful heart, he never would have burned you with those cigarettes”. And yeah, I have experienced 1st hand the pastors saying to children and adults who had been abused…”what part did your sin play in your abuse?” Three counselors…one being me….told these pastors they were off base, out of line, unqualified and that they needed to step out of the situations and allow professionals to handle the situations. Guess you all know what I was told?! Yep, to examine my own heart for anger and rebellion. My reply was that there is such a thing as righteous anger, and I absolutely was angry that they, as leadership, were enabling parents and others to further traumatize children who had been abused. And if helping these children and their families is rebellion, then I am guilty as charged. As I’ve said before, they did NOT pursue us when we left.
One Mom wrote:
“The SGM policy is to evaluate situations according to scripture and do their best to operate their churches as God wants them to.”
No, actually, their policy is to evaluate situations against their own distorted interpretation of Scripture and their own need for control. Their teaching on sin is not balanced with grace….or victory….or joy…..or anything remotely outside the picture of the unworthy worm who can never move beyond the cross….even to the Resurrection!!
One Mom also wrote:
“We are taught to treat others with grace, and not give them what we think they deserve (for their sins against us, i.e. wrath, justice), but to treat them as Christ treats us, by extending to them grace (letting them receive what, in their sinfulness, they do not receive — forgiveness, love, kindness, etc.).”
Then explain the ‘discipline’ meetings where lies are told, families are ripped apart, people are told to quit talking to anyone who leaves SGM. Explain the elitism that pits SGM as better than any other church. Explain the situations that are exposed through out this blog. No, One Mom, there is no grace, no kindness, no forgiveness or love extended to those who question, to those who do not hold the leadership as having the authority to speak for God, as infallible in teaching and practice, to the point where I kept expecting to hear, at the conclusion of every sermon, every disciplinary action, every meeTing “THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!!!”
SGMCas, I am very angry too, and yes, very sad , that One Mom is so deceived, that she has the arrogance to post such patronizing crap, and that by doing so, she is no doubt compounding the trauma experienced by so many of us. I agree…it is a cult, and I am so thankful that we are out.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Cas!
Yes!
I am so tired of this “the past is the past” nonsense. Larry was the first, then 100s followed back in the mid 90s when “leadership” decided to change everything, and now every day more and more bewildered and wounded Christians are being forced out of their churches, just like Larry and Doris and their family were. And those that are left are SO clueless, just like most of us were when Larry & family were cut off. The only difference is now that there are so many of us that are out… there are too many of us to shut us all up. Especially now that we have found each other.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:56 am
SGM Cas, re 109:
I’m very glad that you have the perspective to point out when we’re being snowed — an outsider like me has no way of knowing the “inside scoop.” Thanks.
You know, if SGM were some fringe group with about 100 followers and no clout, it would be easier to dismiss their influence, but we know that’s not the truth. I attend a wonderful church not far from an SGM church, and I worry about SGM’s influence, as I know that some of their youth have been to my church for various events. And a few weeks ago we sang a song where one lyric was, “I hear my voice among the mockers.”
I don’t know if this is an SGM-inspired song, but a few days later I read a posting by SGM Cas (I think it was you) who said that not everyone at the cross was mocking Jesus. What makes me mad is that I never even thought of that when I was singing the song!
My pastor is very grounded, but so much of SGM’s “stuff” sounds great on the surface. So that’s a bit troubling to me.
But as far as SGM being large — and largely respectable — group, I guess this is where faith comes in. Faith that God will continue to bring the truth to the light, as He has been doing here.
But there’s still an irresistible urge to send this blog link to my former friend who’s heavily entrenched at SGM and try to “save” people (the burning building analogy). But if I did, it would be interpreted as me being inciteful and mean spirited. And, calling on my experience in an abusive relationship, I had to be the one to say “enough is enough.” HOWEVER, when a family member of this man said to me, “I know how [abuser's name] can be,” it released a torrent of emotions inside me — suddenly I didn’t feel crazy, terrible, and isolated.
It’s a tough call, deciding whether one should take the initiative to speak the truth in love to someone in SGM, especially if you’re not a part of that person’s life anymore. I guess it’s best I just pray for her.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Hey guess, in the spirit of robust debate, I wanted to post some questions for you in regards to Larry T. Please know that I am not writing this with a grumpy voice.
1. How do you know that Larry T wants his name associated with SGM? It seems reasonable to me that he would not want to be forever associated with a reformed movement when he himself is not reformed and equally likely that he asked his name to be removed. Especially if SGM is less charismatic then he is. Consider that if he was the leader at the beginning his name would be on numerous legal documents and removing him would not just be a matter of him packing his bags and selling his house. Therefore, there might even be a legal requirement for them not to mention each other (just like he alluded to SGM but didn’t name them).
2. What does CJ gain from not having Larry T’s name associated with their beginning? Would any reformed charismatic really think less of SGM when it is even said that they were born out of the charismatic movement?
3. I looked at the SGM website and cannot find any mention of its history or founding. All I read was that CJ was pastor of it for 27 years and then handed it over. It’s about us is only a few paragraphs and to mention former leaders in that would seem a bit much – it doesn’t mention that it came from TAG or anything else. I also couldn’t find a church history on CLC. Perhaps I a missing it and someone could point it out to me.
4. If CJ pushed Larry T out because of power and their differing views why does he tolerate the views of Jeff Purswell who has a different view of Baptism of the Holy Spirit which can be as divisive as Calvanism? Exintern mentioned that there was debate and disagreements among the upper echelon. This doesn’t seem to mix with a dictator who can’t allow disagreement.
5. If CJ is in it for the power why become reformed when there is more money in it if you are prosperity charismatic? In fact, where is his Bentley? It seems that if he is a cult leader he would at least want the perks, right?
6. Some have mentioned that his teaching, not just his practice, is way off from mainstream reformed theology. If that is the case, and his messages are public, why haven’t any of the reformed leaders disavowed him? (I am talking here about theology. Obviously they may not know about the inner workings of the church).
Again, these are questions that I think relate to what you are saying, but I am not angry about it. So please don’t read that I am yelling or accusing – I’m just asking.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Tony,
I’m an outsider, so I can’t address your specific questions, but I can tackle No. 6:
A person can crave power for power’s sake and not so he/she can drive a Bentley. The power that this particular person might crave is in being recognized for starting a successful “family of churches,” having his name become synonymous with the word “humble,” having thousands of people adore you, etc.
The other day I was reading a pro-SGM blog (I think it was CJ’s) about the Q & A session that CJ was having with pastors (where he passes on his knowledge, etc), and a SG pastor said, “I would give my right arm” to be in one of those sessions or have that info (forget exact wording of the last part of that sentence; I’ll try to find it).
Point being, to hear someone say that they’d give their right arm to bask at your feet and learn your knowledge is a pretty powerful head trip, wouldn’t you agree? Some people would much rather be adored than drive a fancy car.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Tony (and all):
Jeff Purswell states that he talked to a pastor from an SG church who said he’s give his right arm to made the comment about giving his right arm to sit and listen to CJ.
That comment is at the bottom of this piece that I got from CJ’s blog:”
“The interviews feature a roundtable discussion among C.J. Mahaney (president of Sovereign Grace Ministries), Jeff Purswell (dean of our Pastors College), and Joshua Harris (senior pastor of Covenant Life Church). The three gather on a regular basis to discuss a wide array of theological and practical leadership issues.
In the introduction to the first podcast, Jeff Purswell explains the origin of the series.
Well, as we talk about this series around here it gets a lot of laughs because the genesis has been so long in coming. C.J. contributes to the Pastors College (Sovereign Grace’s school where we train pastors for Sovereign Grace churches). C.J. and his wife, Carolyn, will meet with the students and their wives once a month in the evening to share wisdom, answer questions, share from their wealth of experience and so forth. And I used to sit in those every week or twice a month with C.J., and so many times I would be sitting there as he answers questions. And I would be amazed at the wisdom coming forth, the grace that is on C.J., and the wealth of experience he has. And I remember thinking, “Oh, this would be so good for so many pastors.” Actually, I talked to a pastor from another Sovereign Grace church and told him about this context. I will never forget what he said. “I would give my right arm to sit in that basement and listen to C.J.”
March 5th, 2008 at 6:40 am
that should be “he’d give”
March 5th, 2008 at 6:41 am
oh dear — there’s tons of typos in that first sentence! I’m sorry!
March 5th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hey–the SMG wiki entry has been changed again. The “criticism/controversy” section that mentions this blog has been removed.
OK, now someone else needs to post so that I’m not the only one under “Recent Comments.”
March 5th, 2008 at 7:46 am
A couple of thoughts:
One Mom:
You sound like a sweet, devout Christian who is happy in SGM. That’s great. However, it is also clear from your posts that you have no clue as to how SGM runs vis-a-vis church government. Members ARE routinely “weeded out” for any one of the following:
1. Failure to agree with leadership decisions
2. Failure to tithe-in some cases, yes, this HAS happened
3. Minor doctrinal issues which have NOTHING to do with “orthodox’” Biblical truth which is “catholic,” meaning, held to everywhere by all churches at all times
Failure to agree with leadership is a really broad one, since leadership in SG churches is “apostolic.” Laity is NOT involved in such decisions. They are simply communicated to the laity.
I am solidly Reformed, probably more so than most SG folks. I love expressive worship. Yet, I was deemed unfit by leadership to remain a member of a SG church. Why? Because I questioned the direction leadership was headed, questioned a lack of missional impetus, questioned the cliques in adult and youth gatherings, questioned the stodgy, stuck-up relationships in our local SG church, and then I committed the ultimate mistake: I questioned whether or not they were in fact “apostles” or had the right to dictate to laity.
One Mom, get this straight: THERE ARE NO MORE APOSTLES. CJ is NOT one. Brent is NOT one. Jeff is NOT one. Josh is NOT one. The last apostle died c.a. AD 100. There have been no more, nor will there be. Attempts to recreate “apostles” result in nothing more than Protestant Popes, who thunder “ex cathedra” from Gaithersburg or elsewhere. I think SGM is in need of a modern day Luther to post 95 Theses to the church door in Gaithersburg. This dictatorial, top-down method of church government is a spiritual stench that reeks to the highest heaven. It has been transmitted, like some virulent disease, to the local level of many SG churches. Those that have not been infected yet will. Once contacted, this disease is always fatal, and it is a contagion of the highest possible transmission status.
Is that plain enough?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Tony,
Paleeeease … Okay, I’ll humor you and answer your questions from my perspective.
1. He helped found PDI. He poured all of his efforts and early energies into the ministry. To be deleted from its history altogether is unconscionable. And somehow I doubt he was asked what his personal preferences were in the matter.
And as far as the legal requirement not to mention each other … You’re kidding, right? You think that Sovereign Grace”s expunging of Larry from their history is the result of some kind of gag order? I highly doubt that. Larry might have signed a document that he wouldn’t publicly reveal the details of his discipline process, but it would be ridiculous to have Larry sign gag order saying that he can’t even mention that he was a co-founder of a ministry. And if Sovereign Grace DID make him sign such a legal document, it would be indicative of the very abusive methodologies we’ve been talking about that serve to protect them from scrutiny.
2. Fewer questions, less scrutiny. It’s the Sovereign Grace way and has been touted by One Mom as a scriptural avoidance of controversy.
3. I read the page at one point. Don’t have the time to try to find it. Who knows … Maybe they deleted the page in their “scriptural” efforts to avoid further controversy.
4. Jeff Purswell doesn’t co-lead the ministry with CJ; He’s under his authority. And since Seedge started steering the ministry away from anything charismatic long before Jeff came to prominence, I doubt that was an issue he has lost sleep over. But Seedge is still seated squarely at the pinnacle of their pyramid structure.
5. Not everyone gets intoxicated by power b/c of financial reward alone. And there’s plenty of money to be made churning out reformed material. Weak logic on that deflection attempt, dude. Basically, you’re implying that only name-it-claim-it, blab-it-grab-it charismaniacs are prone to corruption. Not so. People thirst for power for a plethora of reasons.
6. One, we don’t know that they haven’t. For all we know, there could be “investigations” underway even now about some of the allegations brought against Sovereign Grace Ministries. However, even if they don’t, it doesn’t invalidate the fact that its cultish practices are wreaking destruction in people’s lives. I don’t need a reformed leader to validate my persuasion.
Furthermore, if our allegations are legitimate, God Himself will continue to bring these issues into the light. I believe His desire is to bring Sovereign Grace’s leaders to their knees in repentance for these deplorable practices and their ridiculously flawed justifications. But, if One Mom’s posts are any indicator of the posture of the other leaders’ hearts (which I really hope they aren’t), it doesn’t look like there’s any sign of breaking in the immediate future.
However, that is of little consequence to me. It really doesn’t matter to me what the outcome of Sovereign Grace is. But I do hope — for their own sakes — that they remain sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s promptings. And I hope they start preaching the WHOLE gospel, which started with the Father’s love and culminated with the Savior’s resurrection. To leave out these critical elements is, I believe, indicative of a far more insidious pride and arrogance than the evidence they brought against Larry.
But if they don’t, God knows how to deal with genuinely proud and arrogant hearts who insist on leading His people astray. God have mercy.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Lynn,
My guess is Sovereign Grace sent out its legal team to expunge criticisms from the Wiki entry. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Someone would probably have to publish something in traditional media that claims Sovereign Grace Ministries employs shepherding practices. Just my hypothesis … from the free seats.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:11 am
SGM Cas,
“…from the free seats.” Nicely done, sister, nicely done.
I would say you’re right — I was under the impression that the average Joe (no pun intented, Wiki Editor Joe) couldn’t remove sections of an entry.
In case you’re reading Joe: what happened? Why are there criticisms in almost every other Wiki entry, but not this one?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
TK-
Amen, Amen, Amen. You are dead on with the modern day apostle stuff. It does reek…what does it reek of??? Absolute ARROGANCE! Who dares have the audacity to call THEMSELVES an APOSTLE?????? Hubris of the highest degree.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:37 am
High Church:
Thanks. As long as folks subscribe to this, CJs and Brents will continue to rear their heads.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am
TK, you wrote:
“Members ARE routinely “weeded out” for any one of the following:
1. Failure to agree with leadership decisions
2. Failure to tithe-in some cases, yes, this HAS happened
3. Minor doctrinal issues which have NOTHING to do with “orthodox’” Biblical truth which is “catholic,” meaning, held to everywhere by all churches at all times”
EXACTLY……..and rather the opposite of what One Mom claims they are taught (to treat others with grace….forgiveness, love, kindness), isn’t it??
March 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Hey guys, re: the Wikipedia entry, I went back to have a look after the earlier comments about it being re-designed to reflect something more of the objective truth of the history of SGM and must confess to being somewhat dumfounded.
If you click on “edit page” and “history” there are over 500 edits – most of which are removals of entries to the site which are obviously considered derogratory to SGM. It seems SGM is like Marmite – you love it or you hate it. I noted that “SGM Uncensored” has been removed again sadly and tried to put it back in but there’s obviously someone sitting with their finger on the “undo” button ready and waiting!
It is important to me because the obvious question is – if you are content, happy and settled in SGM as we are lead most of them are, then why would you be bothered about a website participated in by former members (and gaining a readership of 86, 000 and growing!!
– why would that bother you? If you really are secure that SGM is right for you, then who cares about other opinions? Let them have their say. And I mean; “Let us have our say”.
These frantic attempts to remove anything negative about SGM look … well somewhat insecure. And thats not good.
But I wish I could sit around re-editing the SGM page to make it look somewhat more objective and true to SGM’s history. Particularly the differering ecclesiologies of US-based and UK-based SGM churches as I think that is worthy of note. But I just don’t have time. ;)
Just my view …. from the executive box suite ;)
March 5th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I just looked at the Wikipedia page and I still see the criticism and the link to this site. Perhaps someone added, but it is still there. as of 9:04 am
March 5th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I went to bed last night somewhat troubled in my thoughts over the responses to One Mom. While One Mom could very well be someone rather high up in leadership – to where SGM Casualty is correct, and she was in a position to have insider knowledge of Larry T’s discipline process – there’s really no way we can know this for sure. As in the case of everyone who posts here, all we can really do is take One Mom’s words at face value.
So while I would agree that it gets old to have people come on the site and say how grieved they are in one breath, but in the next breath attempt to discount or brush off what folks have shared, One Mom might not have been aware of how often we’ve heard that very same thing. Maybe she doesn’t know how hackneyed and fake that sounds, after awhile.
Also, it seems to me that when we recognize robotic, stock responses (such as “SGM is not perfect, but neither am I, and no church is perfect”), our first reaction should be one of sadness on behalf of the person who has been sucked into mindless group think. Weren’t most of us there ourselves, at some point? Wouldn’t many of us have said the exact same things in SGM’s defense? I would ask us if our first response shouldn’t be one of pity, coming out of hearts full of thankfulness to God, who lifted the veil and caused our scales to drop off?
I’m not saying that it’s not OK to get annoyed or even angry when we feel patronized, or when someone comes in and uses bad logic and stock responses to dismiss the issues. But it’s fully possible that One Mom was misjudged and that she’s feeling like she was personally attacked. I don’t think that’s fair to her.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
SGM Casualty,
I am not joking about the legal matter. The church I grew up in (not sgm) went through a big legal battle (even the pastors ex-wife tried to take control). In the end, the court, not either side, issued a gag order on the details of the settlement with a hefty fine. It is not unreasonable to think it may have happened here too (it may not have as well) I was just throwing that out.
Also if theoden is against SGM does that make me Gollum? – I don’t know how i feel about that…:)
March 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Tony,
You’re right; the criticism section is back up. But it wasn’t there at 7 a.m.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:43 am
You can see who is doing the deleting and adding if you go to the “history” link at the top of the article. As I understand it, those deleting “SGM Uncensored” feel a blog isn’t “credible” for a discussion or something!??!
Re: the legal matter, that reminded me of something quite interesting. I did actually take legal advice over the threat made to me by the senior pastor that he would “write to any churches and tell them of my sin”. (I guess this is what has been seen above as ‘Lovingly pursuing’??). I was reliably informed that if they did this and the recipients of the letters were willing to show me copies, I could in fact sue for slander (REAL slander – defamation of my character) as I had never signed anything on joining the church to allow them to do this – and they had absolutely no evidence of any of the accusations.
Fortunately they didn’t get to this point – but it is something I have thought about quite seriously. I don’t know how common it is in the USA but I think if such pastoral heaviness continues, it won’t be long before appearing in the UK.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Wow Lynn, I just had to comment on your post #124. The quote by Jeff Purswell was taken from CJ’s blog??
That is some mighty highfalutin horn tootin’ if you ask me.
To be honest, that kind of stuff makes me feel ill.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Tony:
;-)
March 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am
It’s interesting to read the comments on the Wiki history page. The “s” was removed from “Criticisms” because:
“This is all comign [sic] from one website with a lot of bitterness — let’s not make this out to be a hundred websites criticising).”
Yes, and I guess when people who receive counseling for trauma associated rape, abuse, war, hurricanes, etc., are expression themselves, it’s all bitterness, too.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Good grief; I need to edit better!!!
I meant to say, “…trauma associated WITH rape….are expressING themselves…”
I guess that’s a just reward for my bitter response…hehe
March 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Kris,
I can appreciate your perspective, but the level of detail shared by One Mom was not made accessible to the masses. She did not share her own personal perspective on a personal issue, like most of us have here. She shared details of Larry’s discipline process with the additional weight of someone who was intimately involved in the process and could speak to how it was carried out. If she wasn’t involved, then she is a poser since the details of his process were kept under very tight wraps.
Either way, I think her posturing of how Larry and Doris were treated makes higher scrutiny of her claims well within the realm of “fair play” since she attempted to legitimize a highly controversial discipline process and rewriting of Sovereign Grace’s history as scripturally based. She even implied that the breakdown of Doris’ relationship with her sisters was the result of Larry and Doris’ sinful response, not their discipline process. Sound familiar? It’s not us (since they start from the assumption that all of their actions flow straight from the throne of God); ergo, the problem must be with you … or, in this case, Larry and Doris.
Although I hear you on the issue of not reacting in anger to those who make passing references to how “grieved” they are, not all SGMers have been quite as dismissive as One Mom was. What followed immediately on the heels of her “grief” was an allegation that those sharing her are “misconstruing” their stories and making conclusions about SGM because of their experiences that shouldn’t be made. That made me angry, and I’m still angry about it. Using the word “misconstrue” is just an attempt to graciously slam us for being deceptive. After all, it implies intent. YET she justifies SGM’s misconstruing its own history by deleting Larry right out of it as a “scriptural” commitment to avoid controversy.
I will sincerely pray and ask the Lord to show me how I’ve been uncharitable toward One Mom (I’m sure there was sinful anger and judgment), but I stand by my criticisms of her posts here.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Claireon re 141:
Yes, that quote was from JP, and I got it from CJ’s blog. Now JP did not say HE’D give his right arm but that a SP pastor he was talking to said that.
To say you’d give your right arm to sit at Jesus’ feet for a few hours and have a face-to-face conversation is understandable. But to say that in regard to a human — and supposedly a human who is the “worst sinner” eva’ ?? That’s idol worship.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Lynn,
Yes, a man who would give his right arm to CJ is definitely one who will hold him accountable.
I also agree with your analysis of their dismissive attitudes being the equivalent of dismissing legitimate abuse, like rape or child abuse. Oh wait … That’s right. They do that too.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Hi, yes, the Wikipedia article is being continually revised. I thought I should give you some insight on the whole thing:
The main bulk of the SGM article was compiled from recognised and unquestionable paper and electronic sources.
Wikipedia is supposed to be open to editing and alteration by anyone. But, the Key Thing, especially in the context of the SGM Wiki article, is that any statement made within the article must be verifiable. So… quotes and citations from Christianity Today, Charisma, Larry Tomczak, Lou Engle, Terry Virgo and the current SGM output – as are currently in the article – constitute solid evidence. They can’t really be questioned and anyone can look them up.
The battle is over the section on criticisms. This specifically relates to SGM Uncensored. What happened is that one Wikipedia contributor, who is a self-aknowledged member of an SGM church, kicked up a fuss over the citation of SGM Uncensored. He described it as “gossip” and slader, etc… Now, this argument is based on two things:
1) The comments on SGM Uncensored are anonymous and could, therefore, be construed as an unreliable source.
2) Blogs are an area of Wikipedia controversy. When can/can’t they be cited in support of a statement?
My counter-argument to this is that it is possible to cite SGM Uncensored without saying that SGM Uncensored is right. Mentioning criticism is not the same as supporting it. A clear example of this is the fact that John McCain’s entry featured reference to his alleged affair with a lobbyist. Just ‘cos Wikipedia recorded the allegation doesn’t mean Wikipedia is affirming the allegation.
There do seem to be one or two anonymous users who just go on and “undo” the removal of criticism. I don’t know if that is anyone from here, but DON’T DO THAT! Seriously… it’s very counterproductive. Thoughtful, engaged input is what is needed. Addressing the concerns expressed above (numbered 1+2) is what needs to be done. But just hitting “undo” makes it difficult for those more involved with the article to continue having a proper debate on things. If you have a Wikipedia account, join the discussion, but don’t pop in just to make your one little point!
What should come out of this process is an accurate and fair article on SGM and its history. Not a press release from SGM. But not a press release from SGm Uncensored either!
(ps. As regards the 500+ edits… that’s probably down to me, as I just get picky about my language and grammar and expression and have tweaked it loads. The vast majority of my edits are inconsequential changes of tense or grammar.)
March 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
SGM Cas,
It’s sad that your last comment is actually true.
Just to clarify: Jeff Purswell did not say HE’D give his right arm, he said he was talking to an SG pastor who said that. Regardless, it shows that the “leaders” are really followers.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:30 am
SGM Casualty -
I guess I just felt bad for One Mom on a personal level. I’m not even saying that I disagree with your assessment.
However, it’s funny, because I initially read her remarks about the falling-out between Doris T and her sisters in the opposite way that you did – that the falling-out occurred because of things that Larry and Doris had said, NOT because of things that the sisters had said. After all, why would the sisters have been interviewed in that process? I’m assuming that they weren’t “part of the problem” or “part of the solution.” I’m SURE that Sovereign Grace leadership would NEVER engage in such gossip, right? :-)
Of course, I do not know anything about the specifics of what might have been involved in that discipline process. Until this site, I had heard of Larry only in passing (from remarks left on that now-defunct blog page). I had no clue that anybody important to SGM’s history had ever left on less than peaceful terms.
I guess I was one of those SGM visitors who had been “Scripturally” protected from learning of anything “controversial” about the great and glorious Sovereign Grace Ministries. ;-) Because of this protection, I’d thought CJ Mahaney was the One and Only Founder of SGM.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Joe,
I noticed that most of the changes are grammar related. (And I don’t have a wiki account, so it’s not me changing things!
)
But I do agree: Many wiki entries have tidbits that are not proven — and they say as much. I think as long as the language is that these things are “alleged” etc., that it should be able to stand.
Just my thoughts.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Thanks Joe. Many of us here were just looking for some fair play while members of SGM, and it would be fair and balanced if the SGM wiki site were to offer some well-deserved, long awaited, reference to some some very real, substantial, valid, criticism.
Again, thanks. I know I appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Joe:
You rock, dude!
I agree. Both sides need a say at Wiki. It’s fair. I wouldn’t lower myself to SGM’s level and censor their stuff either.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Joe,
As this blog’s moderator, I want to go on the record as saying that I have never had anything to do with sguncensored’s citations on Wikipedia. In fact, I was amazed at the total change in perspective when the recent article (the one containing the “Criticisms” section) debuted.
The new article almost seemed tipped in the negative direction…in the interest of total fairness, I felt like there also needed to be another paragraph somewhere that talked about what makes (in some people’s opinions) SGM so special…perhaps a paragraph citing SG’s focus on getting people connected and fostering fellowship through small groups, or something.
Yet I would agree with everybody else, that SGM’s vigilance about criticisms against them serves only to validate people’s claims.
I always thought it was really odd that a nationwide organization – a “family of churhes” comprised of over 70 congregations – could skate to a measure of prominence and yet there was not one iota of “bad press” out there?
EVERY “normal” Christian organization has at least a few disgruntled folks who are vocal about their unhappiness. Even the stellar Christian giant Billy Graham is not without his critics. Google him sometime, and you will come up with plenty of negative stuff (about things like his ecumenism, for instance). Do Sovereign Grace people really think that they are more deserving of a free pass than Billy Graham? Would our ever-so-humble Seedge go on record as believing thus?
In my way of thinking, there are only two possibilities for the absence of at least some negative words about SGM: either SGM really IS the “perfect church,” or there is a concerted and deliberate campaign being waged to squelch all dissent. Given that SGM’s churches are filled with so many self-professed “sinful” folks, the first possibility is outside the realm of reality. So that leaves us with the second.
Obviously, we now know the truth.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
TK,
Long time no speak. How are you?
I just want to add a hardy amen to your comment on apostleship, and a thought: in all the defenses I’ve read about SGM apostleship, not one scripture is used to defend having modern day “apostles”. Not one. They are always pragmatic articles based on a perceived need for strong, clear leadership, as they would define it. So much for sola scriptura, eh?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
No… I wouldn’t censor either. It does sometimes seem like that is what is happening. On the other hand, doesn’t the Apostle Paul (remember him?!) say somethinga bout think the best of others’ motives… so I really don’t know what is behind teh changes…
But… to show you how the editing process works, I wrote, in the “leadership changes” section, that:
“Neither the official website of Sovereign Grace Ministries nor that of Covenant Life Church contain any reference to Tomczak’s role in their history.”
Somebody else, with a more protective stance towards SGM eliminated it.
I restored it, stating my case.
A third party has further revised it read:
“Neither the official website of Sovereign Grace Ministries nor that of Covenant Life Church contain any reference to Tomczak’s role in their history, but nor does it cite any other previous pastors or worker.”
Which I think takes into account the perspectives and arguments of all concerned.
I’m not an SGM person, btw… or the son of an SGM person. I have a few friends who go to an SGM church and they love it and are thoughtful, loving and culturally-engaged people I would entrust my life with! But… that doesn’t mean I can’t fight for a fair history of the group!
March 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Thanks Kris, I wasn’t meaning to acuse anyone. it could be anyone from anywhere, but this i did want to mention it here, just in case it was someone here!
March 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Joe,
Just for the record, the only thing I have ever done on the Wiki page was repost the link to this blog under External Links.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
One more thing about Wikipedia -
It seems to me like this blog site would be far more credible than another website that did NOT involve input from so many other people, anonymous or otherwise. Isn’t that the entire premise of Wikipedia? That the larger the number of “editors,” the more fair the end result is going to be?
I have never censored dissenting voices from this site. Their remarks stand exactly as they were written. (I have, on the other hand, censored some of SGM’s critics here, when I felt like their remarks were too specifically derrogatory against specific individuals, or when they disclosed too much unverifable detailed information about situations which probably shouldn’t be hashed over in a public venue.)
If this site were redone so that it is not a blog but instead some sort of “reference,” I think it would pack all the wallop of SGM’s own website in terms of how “fair and balanced” it is. But as it stands, this site is literally the product of the input of hundreds of individuals. To me, that only serves to enhance its credibility.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I agree Kris! My point exactly!
March 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am
kris said:
there is a concerted and deliberate campaign being waged to squelch all dissent.
And boy is there ever! Which I think leads into an answer to one of Tony’s questions…There are in fact many sharp disputes among SGM pastors about the Holy Spirit issue(s), but they will never publicly acknowledge this, for fear of not having a “unified front”. Purswell published a paper saying it was ok to be traditional charismatic or third wave in SGM, but he did not reveal the inner disputes about this matter. I found out about them “behind closed doors”, brought them up with friends as “something interesting I had found out” , and was brought in for a rebuke by the senior pastor within a week.
Why not talk about these things openly? Why not acknowledge disagreements in love and agree to disagree? The disinformation campaign sweeps these things under the rug, because no one wants to be seen as having disagreements with leadership, even if they actually have one. Public submission to “apostles” is way more important than following your biblical convictions, even if the issues are minor. I guess the thinking is if there is even a small chink in CJ’s armour, the whole suit is vulnerable…which, if I’m right, shows just how prideful leadership is, and how pathetic most attempts at modern-day apostleship are.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Exintern:
Great to Hear from You Again, Bro.
Not only do they not quote scripture to back their supposed case for modern apostolic leadership, but they totally ignore church history. If they did, would realise that the modern Pentecostal/Neo-Pentecostal/Charismatic can only be traced to the early 20th Century. That is where “apostolic” church government gains its impetus. Of course, others, such as the Irvingites, which were heterodox at best, also made vain attempts to implement the same.
BTW, I am not speaking of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox understanding of the same, which is different than the Charismatic understanding of church government. RC and Eastern Orthodox utilise “apostolic succession” to maintain what they consider to be an unbroken line to the original Apostles.
Yeah, so much for sola scriptura.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
You know, SGM may preach the Gospel and may be comprised of some wonderful, absolutely trustworthy people, but so much of what they do reminds me of a dysfunctional family.
It’s like one of those “ABC After-School Specials” (yes, I’m a child of the 70s! :-) ) where the mom is an alcoholic. The kids are all obsessed about hiding her secret. They are also perfectionists and absolutely driven to maintain the facade that nothing is wrong.
Their psychological need to be perfect and present the front of flawlessness numbs them and prevents them from feeling pain, from thinking objectively about what is really going on, and from being able to speak out and seek help.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Joe,
Thanks for all your input. I was wondering what your “take” on SGM was, whether you were an impartial third-party doing your job as Wiki editor (or whatever your formal job title is), but it does seem as if you have some interest in this discussion, correct?
March 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Kris said,
It’s like one of those “ABC After-School Specials” (yes, I’m a child of the 70s! ).
That makes two of us! I *just* was telling my son about the lost art form that is “after-school specials,” and he just gave me a blank stare…the same stare I got when I told him that I can remember life before answering machines, microwaves, cordless phones, TV remotes, Google…! (and now Wikipedia!!!)
March 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Kris,
You wrote,
That’s what I was trying to communicate as well: that One Mom was assigning the fault of the breakdown in Doris’ family to things Larry and Doris said/did, not those still in Sovereign Grace (to wit, Doris’ sisters). I would imagine Larry and Doris questioned the validity of their crusade, which is considered further evidence of pride and arrogance when you’re in the midst of one of SGM’s discipline processes. There is NO room for appeal or questioning how these grueling processes (though “admittedly under-developed”) are carried out, even though the Bible charts clearly that they should be carried out w/ a “spirit of gentleness” … lest they too be tempted.
But when a leader has been asked to step down for “pride and arrogance” —when One Mom herself detailed his response that indicated serious humility by scriptural standards — there’s some serious evidence of cult-like behavior. And what “evidence” of humility do we have from Seedge, who has been set up as the paragon of humble leadership? General, broad-brush references on his blog to how arrogant he is. Does he detail specifics of how this arrogance looks or has looked, although he has sinned just as publicly as those he criticizes? Nope. Just tags at the close of his criticisms of others that read more like, “Trust me … I’m an arrogant, proud man. Can’t put my thumb on anything in particular. Just admire me for how I conclude each criticism of others with a generalized acknowledgement of the fact that I’m the worst sinner I know.”
March 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am
TK,
There is definitely a difference between “succession” churches and charismatic churches in regards to the beliefs on how apostleship arises… but the results are pretty similar. Controlling/abusive leaders, poor doctrine based on one man’s opinion, etc. I say, if we’re going to have apostolic government, I’m going RC or Orthodox, because at least their leaders have cool robes and titles
I’m way more impressed with “patriarchs”, “metropolitans”, “vicars” and “cardinal archbishops” than I am with simple “leadership team members”. Come on, can’t SGM come up with some awesome titles for CJ, Brent, et al? 
March 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
As someone who “passed through” SGM for a brief while (less than a year), and as someone who grew up in fairly mainstream Evangelical/Reformed circles, I have to say that Sovereign Grace’s apparent obsession with humility was something that struck me as exceedingly odd.
We were always taught that humility was something sort of like personal hygiene – as followers of Christ, we are aware of our need to “consider others as more important than ourselves.” We know that we must “fear the Lord,” which of course involves keeping a constant perspective of just how big God is and how dependent upon Him and His mercy that we are. But in the same way that we don’t go around making our quest for personal hygiene a matter of public discussion, we certainly don’t spend a lot of time discussing our quest for humility. Also, we tend not to seek others’ help in matters of hygiene…and we certainly know that approaching others about their own hygiene habits must be done with utter sensitivity and utter privacy, and only as a last resort.
Of course, where my analogy falls apart is that hygiene is a relatively objective matter. It’s something we can, quite literally, smell. Humility, on the other hand, is utterly subjective, truly a matter that is between an individual and God Himself.
So it seems really weird to me that SGM leadership feels so free to critique others about their humility. In my understanding, the moment you start pointing out someone else’s lack of humility, you’ve just shown your own pride. How dare someone question something that is a “heart” matter, between the person and the Lord? Worse, how dare someone think that he can DISCIPLINE another, and in a very public fashion, for such a “heart” matter?
What SGM leadership really seems to mean by “humility” is the individual’s outward amount of submission to the leaders themselves.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi Kris,
My humility smells – in fact it stinks! :-)
March 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Exintern: :-)
Dude, I love the title, “Right Reverend.” But I always wondered: Could you be a “Left Reverend,” or a “Wrong Reverend?”
March 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Kris,
You said,
That’s precisely what I take issue with in One Mom’s explanation/justification for Larry’s discipline process. And yes, humility in Sovereign Grace Ministries in measured by one’s unquestioning submission to leadership. And disciplining someone for “pride and arrogance” not only puts that person in an impossible position (since how do you defend yourself from these allegations w/o adding more fuel to the flame?), it sets those who are carrying out this discipline as standard bearers of humility. It’s spiritual travesty at its finest.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Here is a statement released by the OPC-Orthodox Presbyterian Church on “apostles.” It is really well written.
1. Anyone working with the New Testament is bound to recognize the temporary character of the apostolate. It is a fair generalization to say that in the New Testament the term has one of two basic references: (a) It can refer to the representative of a particular church temporarily delegated for a specific task (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25; perhaps Acts 14:14). (b) The more important and dominant reference, as in 1 Corinthians 12:28, 29 and Ephesians 4:11, is to the apostles of Christ. In this latter sense the apostles are limited in number (just how many can remain undiscussed here) and confined to the first generation of the church’s history. This temporary character of the apostolate is seen among other ways: (1) in the requirement that the apostle be an eye and ear witness of the resurrected Christ (e.g., Acts 1:8, 22; 4:33; 10:41; John 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:1); (2) in the indication Paul gives that he is the last of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:8, 9 cf. 4:9); (3) in the fact that Paul does not designate as an apostle Timothy, who more than anyone else can be viewed as his personal successor. According to the New Testament “apostolic succession” in a personal sense is a contradiction in terms. This brings with it the recognition, then, particularly in view of the situation contemplated in the Pastoral epistles, that the distinction apostolic-postapostolic is not one imposed on the New Testament but is a distinction given by the New Testament itself. This, in turn, carries a further responsibility, especially in view of the obvious and central importance of the apostolate. It is a responsibility to determine what elements of the church life described in the New Testament are so integrally associated with the ministry of the apostles that they disappear with the passing away of the apostolate and what elements continue on into the post-apostolic period of the church.
2. The single most important activity of the apostles is surely that of bearing witness (e.g. Jn. 14:26; 15:26, 27; Acts 1:8). The passage in the New Testament that perhaps provides the most comprehensive perspective on this task is Ephesians 2:19 ff. In this passage Paul is viewing the New Testament church as the result of the great house-building activity of God in the period between the resurrection and return of Christ (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8). Paul calls the apostles, along with Christ as cornerstone, the foundation of the church (verse 20). This is not said in order to obscure the finality of the person and work of Christ as the only foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), but to include the activity of the apostles in a specific respect. The apostles supplement the work of Christ, not by additional redemptive labors of their own, but by bearing witness to that work. To the once-for-all, foundational work of Christ, which has reached its climax in his death and resurrection, is joined the once-for-all, foundational witness of the apostles to that work (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10 ff.). The period beyond this foundational period is not a matter of perpetually relaying the foundation but is the superstructure built upon that foundation. In terms of this foundational witness we can appreciate the emphasis on the apostolic tradition to be held fast, found already in 2 Thessalonians (2:15; 3:6), and on the “deposit” to be kept, in the Pastorals (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14, Jude 3, 20). This emphasis establishes lines that prepare for and point the way to the eventual emergence of the New Testament canon (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16).
March 5th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
TK,
I hope someday to achieve the title of “Left Reverend”…perhaps that will be my title after I plant “Last Baptist Church”
March 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Ex,
I will hand you a Bishop’s mitre, we will tonsure you, vest you with the proper robes. I will not kiss your ring, however. I draw the line there. It’s unsanitary. ;-)
March 5th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
TK,
If you’re appointing me to my bishopric, are we Anglican, since you are the King? I dunno man, I lean more RC, I think I should be crowning you, not the other way around. If you want, you can be “Holy Rohan Emperor”
March 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
i am one of those who is under “loving pursuits”. i hate it. i left for numerous reasons, many of which i had validated by my close ‘friends’ in good ol CLC. i grew up in the church, my parents are one of the cornerstone members of CLC. Cj Mahaney knows me by name through my dad. i even helped Josh and Shannon Harris meet.
alot of those who are younger at CLC, dont know how to pursue me, and end up pushing me further and further from them.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hey for what it’s worth-the Pope is elected by secret ballot from the college of bishops. In other words, the overseers from churches all over the world actually have a say in the apostolic succession.
I’m not saying I agree with all things Roman Catholic, but it would be a step forward if SG churches actually held a vote on who got to lead them apostolically. No more of this self appointed business.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
i should probably also add that i signed that paper stating i would allow them to ‘pursue’ me. how i regret it.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I must be crowned on Christmas Day in imitation of Charlemagne.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Hi Musicman,
Excellent point! In fact if C J really believed in the “obeying your leaders” message he teaches, he would still be in the Catholic church under their leadership! Those Priests were not in agreement with him leaving Catholicism! He is in rebellion to their authority. :-)
March 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Welcome waywardhippie,
how are they “lovingly pursuing you?
Maybe you could send them a certified letter revoking your permission and for them to stop?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hi wayward,
What is this paper you signed, and what does it say. I left in 95, and we never had to sign any agreements at that time, nor were we asked to. I have heard about these agreements, but never knew what they actually said. Can you please give some more details? Thanks.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Dennis and Musicman,
Ha! Your point is one of the exact same ones I tried to make when (what seems like) a long time ago, I wrote, “What CJ Mahaney Teaches About Obedience and Submission Within the Church.”
But right when I thought I’d somehow made a remarkable observation about CJ’s “rebellion” and lack of submission to the Catholic church, it occurred to me that Seedge’s “out” – his answer to us – would be that we must obey and submit only AS LONG AS OUR AUTHORITIES ARE BIBLICAL.
And since SGM and CJ are purveyors of such obvious Biblical and “doctrinally correct” authority, any Sovereign Grace member simply must submit.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Hi Kris,
So I guess that makes C J the one true head of the church, the Protestant Pope. I have heard that title used before of others, but I guess it really belongs to C J.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
#181 Ellie
i am still attempting friendship with some of those at CLC. every conversation is pointed to the church, or some new meeting they’ve devised to get more members. each time i have to kindly state i will not be attending. the last time i attended a singles meeting, i stayed for 15 minnutes, right before it began. i was swarmed by those who had a ‘passion’ to see me back in SGM’s good graces. most of those who i was close to while attending CLC stayed far from me and would not look me in the eye. i watched most take sideways glances at me, and when i walked toward one, he turned and quickly walked the other way.
whenever i run into any of the pastors, Josh was the last*shudder*, i get this intense look of pity, and a little bit of confusion. they always take my hand, and say its good to see me and that they are praying for me, or something along those lines.
oh and thanks for welcoming me!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
#182 Dennis,
i was born into the church, i knew of no other way than CLC. i was homeschooled and i was completely surrounded by the church. when i turned 18, the good daughter that i was, i went to membership classes. when i had to sign the paper, i remember putting full trust in the pastors, and believing every word they said. i dont even think i read it, i just signed my life away. the pastor said something along the lines of, “if you leave the church for reasons we deem not in line with the bible, you give us permission to “reach out to you” and love you back into the church. but dont worry, im sure we wont need this paper.” he was so sure of my devotion to the church.
i hope that helps.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
well a question I’ve wondered about is SG’s recruitment of young believers as leaders. Isn’t this unbiblical? Isn’t this what Paul warned about?
I’ve often wondered how such young believers can be “elders” in the church. Doesn’t the word elder denote the meaning of someone who is older (and presumably more mature) than younger believers?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hi Hippie,
Welcome to the blog! I’m sorry you find yourself being “pursued” by Sovereign Grace members/leadership in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable. Just remember: Even though you signed a paper that allows this (which is very baffling to me … signing a document that says it’s okay for them to “pursue” you???), you can still draw boundaries and restrict the level of their intrusiveness. Even with family. You will have to be firm but friendly, but they’ll eventually get the message. There are always so many crises in the church; something else will eventually catch their collective attention, and they’ll leave you alone to pick up the pieces of your life and start the rebuilding process.
Of course, SGMers could read this interaction and cry foul, arguing that we complain if they shun us and complain if they pursue us. However, this pursuit is usually marked by an intensified effort to show you how wrong you are and to dismiss your every issue with the ministry. Or, like I said before, they “pursue” you to silence you in any criticisms you dare to share with anyone else. I think what they would call pursuit, I would probably classify as haranguing at best and harassment at worst.
Hang in there, friend. There IS life after Sovereign Grace!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hi Musicman,
That is another very interesting point. How many of the SGM pastors are in their 60′s or 70′s? It is a very small minority if there are any at all.
How many members are in their 60′s or 70′s? Why is it mostly baby boomers and young people? Maybe the seasoned veterans know better that to attend a SGM church!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
While I agree with Kris on not wanting to haphazardly tromp all over someone’s opinions…then we become just like SGM…I too think that One Mom’s comments were very predictable coming from a SGM advocate. Spoon fed, almost. And condescendingly “kind” if there is such a thing. Let me relate a story…one Sunday, Brent read exerpts (is that how you spell that?) from an article that also contained an interview with one of the pastoral staff from the local paper’s religious section spotlighting the SGM church in that city (the one Brent was serving at). The parts he read aloud said that it was a “community” based church, essentially Reformed but with a Charismatic dynamic, strong in developing close family relationships, etc. etc. blah, blah. Supposedly, the article ended with the author stating that (according to Brent) “all churches should be like ________”. I thought I would be sick. Brent went on to comment on what a great witness SGM was to the churches of our city/county and what a wonderful thing it was to get the accolades that were so richly deserved.
It was unbelievable. Now, where is the “humility” in that.
Of course, someone else told me later (I did not see the article myself) that there were also things in there about women being in total submission to their husbands and that their lives revolved around the desires of their husbands since their jobs were to “fulfill” their men. How many people do you think that turned off.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
#187 Musicman
i remember being told when i was in highschool how i needed to be a good example of what a christian who knew gods word, and had been taught by such ‘godly’ examples in the church. i was told that i had been so blessed to be in a church where i learned so much at a young age, and that i was someone newer members and christians could look to.
and i did. i had it down pat. i knew what to say, and what not to say. i would regularly ask if a friend wanted my answer, or the covenant life answer.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
TK,
Christmas Day?! I’ll be so tired after midnight mass, we’ll see.
I think a papal name is in order for CJ. Since the recently late pope was John Paul, how about Mahaney becomes Pope George Ringo?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Touche, Hippie!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Hippie,
I have spent years in CLC, too.
Never give the CLC answer unless you believe it yourself. That is like lying. I tell people that often. It sounds like you really don’t give the CLC answer much yourself anyway, LOL.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
#194 sgm single.
i have a few questions that may be better asked off the blog, may i email you?
the whole clc answer was a catch phrase with my friends. we all knew what to say, but by saying it was the covenant life answer, it was admitting we didnt believe it, so i dont feel i was lying. all who knew me knew if they wanted my opinion, they could get it. i just didnt like getting in trouble for it
March 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
IGO,
your story in 190 reminds of an experience I had. The last celebration I went to, it was announced that a church was being adopted into SGM. It was unbelievable what a big deal was made of their new allegiance. Flashing lights, loud music, the screen flashing “CONGRATULATIONS!”. The pastor’s wife was given a dozen roses, and testimonials were offered about how great church life had been since they had come into contact with SGM. “Prophetic words” were given saying how God was going to use this church so mightily now that they were in SGM. The whole thing was pretty disgusting, since it was made pretty clear that now this body had “arrived” as a “real church” now that they were SGM. I think a simple welcome would have sufficed.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Hippie,
Oh, I understand. Yeah, that is not lying, it is making the truth clear in a different way. I just know too many who gave the CLC answer to keep parents, etc. off their back.
I would be glad to email off the blog, but I’d rather not post my email address here.
Kris, could you email Hippie with my address?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I’m all for Pope George Ringo! LOL
Wayward-I’m sorry to hear that you were boxed in by this sort of “canned responses” that were expected of you. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, God is big enough to handle our honest opinions, questions, and doubts. I’m pretty sure he hates us putting on of false outward appearances.
Dennis- I agree, there were few leaders who were part of older generations. At least in the 3 SG churches I attended. This question really struck me when I read that CJ had bequeathed CLC to Josh Harris. I thought this was odd ,considering how young he (Josh) was and still is and the fact that so many others on staff were probably just as qualified, if not more so, than a relative newcomer. And a very young one at that. I kept saying to myself, why Josh?
March 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
SGM Casualty:
post 109
I think you misunderstood my sentence. I did not say the people were misconstruing their experiences. I was saying that I believed inappropriate extropolation (sp?) was being made to say that mistakes made by people within SGM leadership were therefore SGM “Leadership” policy, big “L” meaning the big guys at the SGM top. In other words, a pastor trained at pastor’s college, or a CGLeader, or even the wife of a SG “Apostle”, does something at some time that seriously impacts, emotionally injures, relationally damages individual(s) within one of the churches. The injured party, definitely having a legitimate grievance, nevertheless should not say that Sovereign Grace has a policy that… whatever it was.
I am also not saying that every individual is doing this. I was just saying that it appeared that it is happening.
I am sorry that you have heard “I am grieved” from too many people who didn’t mean it, but I, personally, truly AM grieved. At this point, I ask you to please consider Matthew 7:2. Or maybe you are willing to adjust your judgment if you understand that I never said people were misconstruing the truth. I said they were misconstruing that things that happened therefore constituted SGM policy. I am not a person who believes ALL these experiences didn’t happen, while I reserve the right to believe that SOME of the stories happened slightly differently than they have been told. Our histories that we tell reflect our perspective, and, say, a parent, or sibling, or friend, might tell the same history with a different perspective. KWIM?
You wrote:
“One Mom, with her little trip down memory lane over the information that was filtered down about Larry’s discipline process, has fueled my criticism that these discipline processes tend to be so nebulous and loosely defined.”
I will be the first to proclaim that I was not a part of the situation, not a part of the church, not a part of the family, not a part of the process, not a part of any of it that I would have ANY information (I don’t think) that was not public record at the time. Please pardon me if I sounded like I was trying to profess to have “insider” knowledge. I think some others here have read stuff put out by Larry T that I have not read, and therefore would have perspective from his side of the family that I do not have. I have spoken to Doris since then, like sometime in the last two years I think it was, but I would certainly never have spoken with her with the intention of bringing old laundry out to discuss. I just have history with her, saw her at an event, and went up to her to say, “Hi! It’s so good to see you!”
You wrote:
“So if I remain skeptical of these “evidences” One Mom brings that Larry’s discipline process was legitimate,”
I’m confused. I really didn’t think I was presenting any “evidence”. I would be saying I do not have ANY evidence, only certain after-the-fact reports of what happened…
You wrote:
“About One Mom’s posts, I just can’t seem to handle them with the grace that I can most posts. She speaks as one who was obviously intimately involved in Larry and Doris’ discipline process, giving details that the general populous wouldn’t have access to but which I heard b/c of my proximity to an apostolic team member’s wife whose husband was a key player in the process. And she seasons her words with this graciousness, but her overall message is dripping with a patronizing arrogance.”
Okay, you think I was “obviously intimately involved”. This is untrue. I have just known the Grefenstettes for almost 35 years, know many of the children, don’t keep in touch at this point, but we talk when we see each other. So, I’ve talked to Gref/Tomczak family members before and after the split. But, NO, I definitely am not one who was intimately involved. I am sorry if you thought my words to be dripping with patronizing arrogance. I will consider this charge of yours against me, but right now I just do not see it to be the case.
You wrote:
“Why the heck does a man who was well known to the rest of the apostolic team need to be the subject of an “investigation” process???”
So, are you now angry with me just because I used the terminology that SGM uses? I AM inside SGM. I WILL have a tendency to slip into “SGM-speak” sometimes.
You wrote:
“And who is this person that she can say so definitively that Doris’ sisters shunned her b/c of hurtful things that Larry and Doris said during their investigation?”
I am, historically, but not intimately, a friend of the family.
You wrote:
“Oh, is that what we call these processes now? “Admittedly under-developed disciplinary procedures”? Gosh, that sounds so civil and scrubbed.”
I am saying that **I** admit that the disciplinary procedure of so many years ago was under-developed. And thank you. I am glad I sound civil. Your next section of your note, “If they devastate people in the process and divide families”, I begin to wonder whether you are still talking about the Tomczaks/Grefenstettes, or if you are talking about your own situation. I would/do understand your anger, if you are talking about your own situation, but I think your personal experience needs to be discussed separately from the Larry T situation. In my opinion, your experience should never have happened, and occurred because individuals were wrong. I still think that the wrongs these individuals within SGM did to you are not definite indication that SGM Leadership would have dictated or condoned. Unfortunately, as many on this blog realize, SGM Leadership might, likely, “support” what these leaders did publicly, even if they might “speak” to them privately about “mistakes” they made and how to do things differently in the future.
You wrote:
“Do you just tell yourselves, “Oh, yeah … I guess our discipline processes might just be a tad bit ‘under-developed’”?”
I was saying that ten-some-odd years ago when this happened, the practice of church discipline had not been used much? at all? withing SGM, and they were learning as they went. By saying the practice WAS under-developed, I am inferring that it would be MORE developed now — that is to say, they have cemented in their minds (SGM Leaders) what there procedure is to be and how to walk through the process. That is not to say, however, that further down the “food-chain”, so to speak they are adequately trained to walk through church discipline. I would think some would (and have or are) handle (ing) it very poorly, your own experience being a case-in-point.
You wrote:
“Has anyone from leadership ever pursued Larry and Doris and asked their forgiveness for their “under-developed” discipline process? I’m serious. This is so Clintonian, it makes me sick.”
I myself am not in leadership. I did not say that leadership themselves ever said (or admitted) that their discipline process was “under-developed”. And, who would I be to pursue Larry and Doris and ask their forgiveness for leadership’s “under-developed” discipline process. That would be like me apologizing to my grandmother that her father used to be mean to her. So, it again seems you are being angry at me for your anger at SGM Leadership.
You wrote:
“So tell me what choice he had but to comply with the demands leadership was placing on him.”
Definitely a point I continue to ponder.
You wrote:
“So tell me: How does one “work on issues of arrogance and pride”??? For months on end no less???”
Did you mean “how LONG does one work? The way I understood it, he had agreed to stay out of leadership for six months or a certain number of months, but partway into the time he decided he was not going to do it after all.
You wrote:
“And how is it that CJ Mahaney can make 5 references to his pride and arrogance in his blog, but that’s somehow celebrated as humility? But another leader is confronted with observations of pride and arrogance, … … but b/c he doesn’t go the distance and jump through every hoop of fire other sinful, arrogant men have set up for him, he’s “disqualified” to lead a church???”
I will remind you that I am not, was not intimately involved in the situation, and neither were you. It is easy to defend Larry, because he is talking about what happened (from his perspective, I might add), and it is easy for us to talk on both sides of the issue, but please consider Proverbs 18:17, and the fact that we will never, the two of us, have access to all the insider information. My understanding is that CJ does not talk about the situation with Larry T’s break with SGM because of Proverbs 17:9, as one supporting verse. And regarding this whole issue, as far as I, personally, am concerned, please consider Proverbs 17:27. At this point, I do not intend to continue any discussion on this issue. I should have considered this in the first place, I think, and never spoken. (Proverbs 17:14.)
You wrote:
“I’m sorry. But this woman’s posts — more than any others (b/c she was obviously involved in this process) — has convinced me that Sovereign Grace is a cult.”
I am amazed! I never dreamed that the misconstruing of my use of the word misconstruing could have such power! You wrote: “It’s a cult that preaches a highly distorted half gospel that conveniently enough (for leadership that is) leaves out all of the parts that would release people to follow hard after God in His resurrection power and freedom!” You got all that from me? I’m really at a loss as to how. By misunderstanding me, maybe? Because I get my gospel from the same bible you get yours from; I don’t get it from the SGM leadership. I DO follow hard after God in his resurrection power and freedom, and am amazed that you think you can make a determination about my salvation or my walk with God just because of some words I wrote about my recollection of something that occurred in SGM history.
I wasn’t going to continue, but then I found there was more that made you even more angry, so I guess I need to answer to that as well. You wrote:
“This was absolutely unbelievable. You just take rewriting history (which is dishonesty and wouldn’t be tolerated in any other context) as avoiding controversy and assign this practice “scriptural” significance??? Where the heck do you see history being rewritten for the sake of avoiding controversy???”
First, let me explain to you that you have the advantage on me. I have not studied, read, or any any other way familiarized myself with what is currently on display on the SGM website to tell church history. So I am not arguing that it is okay to rewrite church history. I was and am not aware of the church history being rewritten (–I am not saying it has not been rewritten. I am saying I am not informed about it.). I read on THIS blog that Larry is not mentioned, and that is what I was referring to as regarding letting the past be in the past.
Second, what do you know about Phoenician history? Or the history of the Kings of England, and how the King of Normandy killed King Harold of England and took over? What? Is this stuff you don’t know? Why not? What? It’s not stuff that people spend time studying when they are in school? It’s not even stuff that’s mentioned in the public school textbooks? Martin Luther isn’t either? Does *not mentioning* true stuff that happened in history constitute *rewriting* history just because it’s left out? Sometimes, but not always.
You wrote:
“Oh, and b/c many people in Sovereign Grace know nothing about him, you just decided it would be better to just misrepresent the truth”
Again, you seem to be angry at me, and conferring on ME PERSONALLY power over the SGM website. Again, as in previous paragraph, I reiterate that I was responding to comments in the current blog, not defending the Sovereign Grace website, which I have not read.
“I’ve said enough. I’m so disgusted. SGM’s a cult; that’s all there is to it.”
Amazing. I have such power!? ::sigh::
March 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Yes why Josh? His name might as well be Timothy, even though the real Timothy was probably nothing like the Tiny Tim in Christmas Carol. Appointing a young man is just indicator of the lack of wisdom of leaders, not to knock young people but c’mon! I think I have some biblical basis for it also. However, my doubts will always be, well what if the young man is mature and tested and qualified. The mafia sort of works that way though in the movies though.
The protestant Pope! That is brilliant…sounds true from what I’ve read here.
I’m sort of surprised by the response to “One Mom”. She seemed sort of naively respectful in her post. The responses while possibly justified were not too peaceable and respectful. However I can understand there must have been huge triggers for the frustration. It just seems like something I haven’t really seen before in other threads by the same people.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
sgm single
ok if you take the last part of my login name, and add shae to it, im at lycos.com
anyone else who wishes to email me may, but if you are looking for a fight, i may just block you
March 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Newbie
Timothy may be the exception-Paul indicates that Timothy was a believer as a child (at a time in history when being a believer was putting you at physical risk).
He also speaks of the training he received from his mother (if I remember correctly). It seems that in this context, Paul is saying to Timothy not to worry about his youth.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hi One Mom,
That was an excellent post and very well explained. I am so glad that you chose to remain here with us after being blasted! Thank you for your patience and forgiveness to the harsh responses. Please continue to post here and share your thoughts. Your imput is very valueable.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
exinternsmom said, “Bold face lies were told about my family FROM THE PULPIT…”
My point would be, do you therefore convict the person who did it? Or do you convict the SGM Leadership, whom you have not tried for the offense.
You wrote:
“Furthermore, you state that you are grieved and saddened by the pain some folks here have suffered….and then go on to say that things are being misconstrued.”
Again, I clarify that I said the SGM Leadership at Large was being held accountable for offenses that occurred lower down the totem pole. I was trying to point out that it appears that people see something happen in Phoenix, or Virginia, or Denver, and blame Maryland. The offending individual is the one who is doing the wrong, and it cannot be assume or “MISCONSTRUED” that SGM Leadership condones what happened.
I had written: “The SGM policy is to evaluate situations according to scripture and do their best to operate their churches as God wants them to.”
I wish I had inserted “Leadership” after the SGM. Again, charges against individual pastors or care group leaders (and I AM saying the charges are LEGITIMATE) do not indicate that “SGM LEADERSHIP” would agree with how the pastor (small “p”) is handling the situation.
You wrote:
“Their teaching on sin is not balanced with grace….or victory….or joy…..or anything remotely outside the picture…”
The SGM church where I am DOES balance sin teaching against grace, etc. in a very biblical way, that helps us 1) not to despair in condemnation, but 2) not to rest on our laurels because we’re “good enough”. There is blalance.
You wrote:
“Then explain the ‘discipline’ meetings where lies are told, families are ripped apart, people are told to quit talking to anyone who leaves SGM.”
I don’t know what “discipline” meetings you are talking about, but where lies are being told, the lier is wrong. I have never been told to quit talking to anyone who leaves SGM. I have been told to keep the relationships, as best I am able (meaning only that I am busy, and am sometimes not able to keep up relationships with people I do not see in the normal course of my life), and to continue to love the individuals.
You wrote:
“Explain the elitism that pits SGM as better than any other church.”
I do not see that where I am. SGM is just one of the church choices. People need to attend a church they are comfortable with. If they are not comfortable with SGM’s position on baptism, they should attend a church that lines up with what they believe about baptism, etc. If individuals within SGM develop clique-ishness, that cannot be construed as a policy held by SGM Leadership. Even the leadership is comfortable with being involved with non-SGM churches, hence the affiliations with Mark Dever’s church, John Piper’s church, Jerry Bridges’ church, etc.
You wrote:
“Explain the situations that are exposed through out this blog. ”
Explain what? If SGM Leadership in Gaithersburg were approached directly, they could address the wrongs. I am not them. I am no one. I, again, reiterate that I have no difficulty acknowledging that wrongs have occurred, and that there are / have been people in positions of leadership in the SGM heirarchy who have wronged people, and this should not have been. My point, again, is that the individual is the guilty party, but I cannot see a direct connection to say that CJ should be held accountable for something Pastor “so-and-so” or care group leader “so-and-so” did, or that CJ (or SGM’s larger ministry) condoned serious child abuse being dismissed without being redirected to proper professionals. I don’t see it appropriate to try to make that “connection”.
You wrote:
“No, One Mom, there is no grace, no kindness, no forgiveness or love extended to those who question, to those who do not hold the leadership as having the authority to speak for God, as infallible in teaching and practice”
I say again, in yet another way, I never said leadership should be held as speaking infallibly for God, etc. I believe all leadership should be evaluated and held to the standard of God’s word.
You wrote:
“I am very angry too, and yes, very sad , that One Mom is so deceived, that she has the arrogance to post such patronizing crap, and that by doing so, she is no doubt compounding the trauma experienced by so many of us. I agree…it is a cult, and I am so thankful that we are out.”
I still do not think I am deceived, and I think I was being misunderstood. I do not think I am be arrogant, or extending empty patronization. I was sincere.
::sigh::
When did this blog turn into an “Attack One Mom” blog?
March 5th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
First time post…
In response to One Mom’s post, she mentions Proverbs 17:9 as a verse C.J. applies to the situation. How do SGM’s actions in making sure other churches know about your offense if you’re taken off the roll at one church lead to your offense being concealed in love? The offense isn’t concealed…it’s made public! Isn’t that more of a gossip track that the second half of that verse tends toward?
March 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thanks musicman, I stand corrected. I shouldn’t be contributing to hearsay.
Thanks One Mom, for you respectful post. I appreciated your self-control. I was sort of surprised by SGM Cas’s intense response. I have not known her to be like this.
Steve, way back I think you corrected me about the church discipline stuff. I probably didn’t know what I was talking about.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
And to add one thing, I do think One Mom was being sincere in her first and subsequent posts.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
From my perspective…some of what One Mom says hits a very tender nerve. Maybe exposing that we who have been hit there repeatedly before and are bruised deeply are still a bit tender there. It’s hard to hear, from anyone really, that it isn’t that big a deal. We’re still battling through for healing and when we get poked on the nerve…a reflex defensive reaction occurs. I don’t know One Mom’s heart…no one does…not even One Mom, according to Scripture. I honestly thought I was more “healed” than I am because I had a similar reaction to the comments as SGM Cas. (Not to speak for you, my friend…)
One Mom-
You need to try to understand that this is a forum for those of us who would not be heard while at SGM get to be heard. Notice I said would not be heard instead of could not be heard. We were, most of us, committed to SGM churches just as you are. We gave and gave and gave. And we were hurt…badly. It’s a bit insensitive to say, in response to the pain being displayed here,
“Amazing…I have such power”.
Apparently, somewhere deep inside some of us…or maybe just me, I still want to be heard and not blown off or contradicted on EVERYTHING that happened. I’d like to think that, at some point, the typical SGM responses to such things would bother me. Obviously, I’m not there yet. But, thankfully, my Father loves me no matter what and isn’t done with me yet. I can admit that I need for Him to finish the work He’s begun in me…I can admit it and really mean it. I didn’t see alot of that in SGM leadership.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Newbie-
hearsay? Not sure what you mean-can you explain?
March 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hi One Mom,
Just to let you know, I wrote to members of the apostolic team, while in SGM and after I left. I never got any response whatsoever from any of them. They are not accessible to me, nor to most others. The letter I wrote while in SGM was recommended by someone in leadership at my local SG church, and he sent it for me. It was about a marrige situation that we were intimately involved in, that was being handled unbiblically. I never got an answer and the marriage ended in divorce, with the Pastor testifying for the husband and against the wife for custody of the children!!!! This was no small matter. I did not ever get the slightest response except that someone relayed back that he (the apostolic team member) did not agree with my letter. He did not even write back or call me himself!
March 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Kris,
Just got to your comment (#137). Thanks.
So people know, I’ve been a part of lots of churches. I’ve always, ALWAYS, had the knowledge that the church I was in was not perfect (meaning that Bible Church, and that PCA church, and that CMA church, and etc., etc., etc.). I’ve always known that it was ludicrous to switch churches because the one I was in was not perfect.
Why, when I say it as a part of an SGM church, am I seen as blind?
March 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
When you say what as a part of an SGM church? That you know churches aren’t perfect?
March 5th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I think we all know that no church is perfect. No place is perfect on this earth. There’s a vast difference between recognizing that people and so churches are imperfect and what many of us experienced at SGM churches. I, too, have been a part of Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God, CMA, and independent non-denominational churches throughout my childhood and adulthood. I have never been through anything at any of these that compares to what I experienced at SGM.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
One Mom-
You’re not blind. But many of us (myself included) have experienced great pain at the hands of our pastors and church families when we were involved with SGM.
As for SGMcausulty’s response which was harsh IMO-I still think she had some valid points. I just think the topic (Larry and CJ) is something she feels passionate about because of her experiences with overly harsh church discipline. I can’t claim to speak for her, but that’s my guess. As I watched you’re exchanges over the last day, it reminds me of children arguing over divorced parents.
For many of us, it’s as if CJ and Larry got a divorce, but many of the details for us kids have been left in the dark. This has led to speculation, especially since one parent (CJ) has all but refused to even acknowledge his relationship to Larry. For those of us who were there (I related to both men right before the split) it was confusing and the official explanation was very..well…not very specific. Later, when I found myself close to people who were being treated unfairly and harsh by our church, I often wondered if that was why Larry left in the middle of his “disciplinary process”. Anyway, it reminds me of some of the fallout from divorces when the parents are not honest or forthright about what caused the split.
Not sure if that’s helpful-but that’s my take on why this particular topic is very charged.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
For those who are concerned about the intensity of my response to One Mom, yes it did hurt a nerve. A very deep nerve. I guess you would have had to be the recipient of not one but multiple SGM under-developed discipline processes to understand the depth of frustration you face in the midst of one. There is no room for appeal, no room for retreat, and very little grace.
In my case, as I’ve said before, one lasted for years with no sign whatsoever that this leader’s allegations were legit. Yet – just as One Mom stated in her defense of Larry and Doris’ discipline process – you face an impossible situation: If you try to defend yourself in ANY way, you are labeled “proud, arrogant, and unteachable.” And they hold out the thread to “widen the circle.” And if you agree with their evaluations that you are proud or stubborn (as I did … and as One Mom points out Larry did), then you sign away any right to later question the fairness/reasonableness of ANY of their rigid requirements.
I was able to get help and move on from it. My husband was not. His nine-month discipline process for a sin he confessed to leadership was so devoid of grace and filled with so many trap doors, he never recovered. And he was compared to Larry again and again and again. (Perhaps that’s part of the reason reading about Larry’s trumped up discipline process is especially unnerving.) It was uncanny how many similarities he had to him, as far as his personality and evangelistic gifting went. He used to be in the ministry and was inflamed with a heart for the lost and could barely contain his compulsion to share the gospel with as many people as he could. But he’s now an empty shell of the man he once was.
People who haven’t been through one (like One Mom) can hypothesize all they want about how reasonable it is for leadership to deem one of their own as worthy of an extensive discipline process for pride and arrogance. But these under-developed discipline processes have the potential to completely devastate people. And I guess I hit my proverbial breaking point in hearing dismissive justifications for everything leadership does in the area of discipline.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
First sentence should read “hit a nerve,” not “hurt a nerve.”
March 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Hi all,
There is a possibility that I may be speaking by phone directly to Larry Tomczak. Are there any pertinent questions that anyone wants me to ask him? I will be asking for his permission to post his responses here on this site.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
What does he wish he had done differently while he was leading PDI?
Does he regret leaving PDI?
In hind site, how would he have handled (differently)
the whole discipline process initiated by the apostolic team?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
musicman, I don’t like it when I throw out unsupported statements I guess, not that anyone knew what I was talking about. I was trying to keep my post short. However, the idea behind my post was wrong to imply that “ordaining” young people shows a lack of wisdom. However, if I could remember the scriptural support that got me to think that I would post it.
In the charged discussion, I think one thing we’re sort of brushing over is distaste over denominational zeal. It has reared its head in laity and clergy alike within SGM.
One Mom, I would agree that separate isolated incidents are not necessarily indicative of the whole organization. If you read on here more of people’s stories and experiences in SGM you might get a different perspective of SGM as a whole (this goes back to my Wal-mart analogy like 200 posts ago). There are also people with extensive insight into the inner workings of SGM.
The worst thing is we’ve come out of these situations with feelings of extreme hurt, no closure or consensus, lack of peace, and isolated. This is not how we are supposed to feel with the purported body of Christ when we have done nothing mentioned in the Bible that has been worthy for us to be cut off. In many of the cases they seem similar and have the stamp of approval of multiple pastors with absolutely no question about it on their part.
I agree that some stories on here have led to more general conclusions about SGM which are not logical. However, our collective group mindset can suffer from some zeal also.
WaywardHippie: it’s nice to have people of your background on here to share their story. It’s validating to have people with such depth of experience from different perspectives. I hope you are doing ok.
Scott
March 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Yep…
Please ask him if he, in a position of leadership as I’m sure he is, would lead a man in his care the way he was led by those “caring” for him in SGM. If not, what would he do differently.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Dennis-
One more question-
What is his favorite memory of CJ?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I think his favorite memory would be leaving C J behind! :-)
March 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Dennis (#203)
Thanks. I’ll continue to read; not sure how often I’ll post. I seem to stir up hornets, and then spend hours trying to calm them…
March 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I Got Out (#207)
My comment “Amazing…I have such power”
was referring specifically to SGM Cas’s apparent decision, based on my entry, that SGM is a cult. I was meaning it is amazing that my comment could be the impetus that sealed her decision, especially when she seemed to be not understanding my initial comment.
SGM Cas (#166)
I am sure things were said by each side that hurt the other.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Newbie, (#s 205, 206)
Thank you for accepting me at face value. I am what I show myself to be; I am not false.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hi One Mom,
The hornets will calm down eventually. Please continue to be patient with those who are sending their stinging replies. The wounds here sometimes run very deep. That is not an excuse, just an observation.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
IGO (#207)
I never said that what people went through was no big deal. I said it was wrong to say the way it was handled was a “SGM Leadership” practice.
I understand this is a place for people to have their stories heard. But I don’t agree with blaming President Bush when my local sheriff treats me badly on a traffic violation. As I said before, “Amazing, I have such power?!” was it response to SGM Cas’s saying my post pushed her to state that SGM is a cult.
You wrote:
“I still want to be heard and not blown off or contradicted on EVERYTHING that happened.”
I am hearing. I am not blowing off or contradicting your experiences. (No one here’s.) I do know, though, that if my story were told, it would sound different from my husband’s story, which would sound different from the story of my child(ren)… And my husband’s story would be what he truly believed, even if I knew that I remembered it differently… KWIM?
Not sure which “typical” SGM response(s) you are referring to. Think I was misunderstood.
Dennis (#209)
You wrote:
“Just to let you know, I wrote to members of the apostolic team, while in SGM and after I left. I never got any response whatsoever from any of them. They are not accessible to me, nor to most others.”
I’m glad you did that. That is the correct approach.
You wrote:
“The letter I wrote while in SGM was recommended by someone in leadership at my local SG church, and he sent it for me. It was about a marrige situation that we were intimately involved in, that was being handled unbiblically.”
I’d have been making phone calls if I didn’t hear a response to the letter. Course, then I’d just have been someone else’s hornets that they were trying to calm. I know not everyone can just cal SGM and reach one of the “big leaders”.
You wrote:
“I never got an answer and the marriage ended in divorce, with the Pastor testifying for the husband and against the wife for custody of the children!!!! This was no small matter. I did not ever get the slightest response except that someone relayed back that he (the apostolic team member) did not agree with my letter. He did not even write back or call me himself!”
Hmmmm. No, that’s not right. That stinks. Divorce, custody… it always hurts.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
IGO (#211)
The point was, why, when as a part of an SGM church I say “No church is perfect, and if I left this church to join some other church it would no longer be perfect, because I am not perfect,” why am I seen as “blind” when I say that. I’ve been saying that for 35 years, and have not been part of SGM for half that time.
IGO had written:
When you say what as a part of an SGM church? That you know churches aren’t perfect?
March 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
So, SGM Cas, can I still play quietly in the sandbox?
March 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
You can share my bucket…
March 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
No problem, One Mom, your tone has come across to me as very pleasant.
Everyone, one thing I observe about us through this situation is that we (SGM critics) seek to understand and not dismiss someone’s thoughts due to any sin. This is one element of compassion and pastoral wisdom that was really missing from the leaders of my SGM church.
SGM Cas, every time I hear more of your story I am surely saddened for you. However I’m sure you’ve recovered a lot sense then, but you’ll always have my support.
Dennis, wow! You’re going to talk to LT? At first thought I”m like wow we are going to have the inside story. On the second thought, I’m having a fear that this might just be another guy who has canned responses and shares similar authoritative mistakes that SG has. So I guess in a way that is what I want to know from LT.
All of this talk about SGM and their wrongdoing towards us sort of reminds me of the Psalms when it talks about wicked people prospering. I had a hard time thinking of wicked people prospering that I knew of. However, it now seems more ironically clear, that the wicked people prospering a lot are those who claim to have God’s blessing when they do not (like when David was fleeing from people who were claiming divine right to Israel’s throne).
March 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
One Mom,
I’m very sorry. Really. I’m so sorry that I reacted so strongly to your posts. It was sinful anger. And I really do plan to take this all before the Lord and ask Him to reveal the areas of my heart that I honestly didn’t realize were still so vulnerable.
I didn’t read your post yet in response to my post (I’m at work and had to quell a tsunami of very unexpected emotion in the ladies’ room.) The reality is everything about your posts have reminded me of the woman who initiated my discipline process for my supposed anorexia (detailed in the Your Questions and Concerns thread – I think post 159). I will read your post(s) though and respond to you when I can do it w/o the strong reactions.
You are more than welcome to be here, and I’m so sorry that I made you feel otherwise.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Thanks, friend.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
One Mom:
I’m glad you are back.
A couple of thoughts:
1. I don’t perceive this to be an “attack One Mom” session, at least not on a personal level. I don’t know you, and neither does anyone else. Like I said, you seem like a kind, devout person.
2. When you post on a blog, especially one like this, you can expect scrutiny, even passionate disagreement. And when you come into a blog where folks have been deeply hurt and post in a way that seems to minimise those hurts, you can expect reaction.
3. I have stated in a prior post: You have no clue about leadership” in SGM. I stand by that. You made this comment:
“My point would be, do you therefore convict the person who did it? Or do you convict the SGM Leadership, whom you have not tried for the offense.”
Sorry, One, but leadership in SG circles follows the head. As the head goes, so goes the body. I hold the local pastors at my SG church responsible for their cruel, dictatorial methods of “discipling.” I also hold the higher-ups, the so-called “apostles” equally as guilty. They trained the men at the local churches. In one sense, they are MORE guilty than the local yokels. They claim “apostolic” status. Their decisions cannot be challenged.
You stated, “Explain what? If SGM Leadership in Gaithersburg were approached directly, they could address the wrongs. ” Baloney. Buffalo chips. They would not. Sorry, One. They would not. They commit the same wrongs themselves. Others have, BTW, attempted to graciously contact them. The silence has been deafening.
You stated, “If individuals within SGM develop clique-ishness, that cannot be construed as a policy held by SGM Leadership.” The pastor at my local SG church, when challenged about this issue stated, “It’s OK for folks to be exclusive. It’s their choice.” This comment has been echoed by others on this site. So, even if it ain’t taught, it’s caught. It’s being practiced, whether YOU realise it or not. Look. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and poops like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s happening. And it’s being blown off by leadership or, as was the case when I raised the issue, justified. And it’s happening in MORE than one SG church.
You stated, “I say again, in yet another way, I never said leadership should be held as speaking infallibly for God, etc. I believe all leadership should be evaluated and held to the standard of God’s word.” I am glad to hear that. But what exactly do you mean by “God’s Word?” That is a vague concept. God’s Word as interpreted by CJ? Or by John Wesley? Or by Larry T? One Mom, it’s why responsible, accountable believers who are in leadership are not afraid of congregational accountability. It’s why decisions are made by the entire body, not by a few men who meet behind closed doors in church office. I don;t know how much you know about church history, but it’s my forte. In the 16th Century, their emerged a movement so radical that even other Protestant Reformers considered it anathema: the Anabaptists. They practiced adult baptism, refrained from swearing oaths, advanced the radical idea that church and state were given differing roles and should be separate. They also refused to join the military, taking Jesus’ words in Matt. 5 literally. But one of their dearly held beliefs was the idea that the church, consisting of visible, local bodies of believers, was to be governed by the “Rat der Gemeinde.” The literal translation of that is, “the voice of the body.” Everyone, regardless of whether they were “lay” or ordained, had an equal voice and vote. IF SGM were to see the light and realise that “apostolic” leadership is NOT biblical, and open the church to input from the body, imagine what a change there would be! Until then, the “apostles” are accountable only to themselves, and local leaders follow their lead.
You stated, ” I still do not think I am deceived, and I think I was being misunderstood. I do not think I am be arrogant, or extending empty patronization. I was sincere.”
I believe you were sincere. I also think you are sincerely wrong. I do not detect arrogance in your posts. I do not think you are being arrogant. I do believe you are ignorant. Not in a bad sense, just that you clearly don’t truly know what is going on. I believe, as I stated before, you are a caring, devout person. But you gotta wake up and taste the Jolt Cola, cause you are deceived about SGM’s patterns/philosophy of leadership.
I want you to dialog here, One Mom. I also want you to realise people have been seriously hurt by an organisation, which, while not a cult, exhibits certain unhealthy “shepherding” characteristics that are sometimes “cult-like.”
Finally, you need to realise that CJ, Brent, or Josh are NOT apostles. They are not mini-Protestant popes. See my earlier posts.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
BTW, thanks, SGM Casualty, for being vulnerable enough to graciously apologise in a public forum. I think we all want One Mom to continue dialoguing.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Perhaps one thing to keep in mind, One Mom, when saying SGM leadership is not necessarily synonymous with local church leadership is this…in the church I was treated horribly by leadership, Brent was the senior pastor. So, maybe, just maybe, in some churches it is synonymous.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Point taken.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
IGO, you said, “Perhaps one thing to keep in mind, One Mom, when saying SGM leadership is not necessarily synonymous with local church leadership is this…in the church I was treated horribly by leadership, Brent was the senior pastor. So, maybe, just maybe, in some churches it is synonymous.”
Not only synonymous, but also part of a pattern.
I feel great sympathy for you! I listened to that man deliver a series of talks at a youth conference on the topic of “Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.” It was horrible. He stated that men should plan on getting high paying jobs so that they can live prosperously. Now, you must understand that I teach at a Christian school and also work a second job at a RTF for juvenile offenders. I do the best I can for my family, but I also am called to serve. Brent’s comments were ill-conceived at best. BTW, our local pastor echoed the same comments a few moths later with a statement that any young man who wanted to court one of his daughters better be making good money! Brent also stated that to be real man, you had to enjoy hunting. He delivered a long discourse on the glories of sitting in a blind in freezing weather.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Hi SGM Cas,
WOW! I was too quick to judge your posts without knowing what was going on behind the scenes. I thank God that He is a righteous judge, and not like me. Your confession and repentance rebuked me in a very real positve way. Only God truly knows our hearts. I am too quick to judge and speak, and too slow to listen. May we all learn to be patient and kind and tender hearted toward one another, especially in the face of ridicule and criticism.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Hi, all…
I’ve been out for much of today, so I’m just now catching up on everything. A new person’s comment sat in moderation all afternoon. Please note comment #205 – and join me in welcoming “Never Going Back.” :-)
Also, I am greatly encouraged by the dialogue between One Mom and SGM Casualty. One Mom, thanks for your reasonable tone. SGMC, thanks for your – dare I utter it? – humility. :-)
I do agree with what someone said (Newbie? Musicman? Dennis? I’m too lazy to scroll back up and find it) about the fact that many people here have certain tender spots that will cause them to have sometimes emotional reactions that at first appear to be all out of proportion to the provocation. I think that was a little of what happened in response to One Mom’s initial post. One Mom, I’m glad you came back and clarified your remarks. I hope you continue to share your thoughts with us.
I haven’t had time to go back and fully digest everything that everyone has written, but one comment that did catch my eye was the idea that we cannot hold the SGM leaders at the very top responsible for “isolated” incidents that have happened in various local congregations.
I think, given the very nature of SGM’s leadership structure, and the way that pastors are selected and vetted for training and then placed into their positions, that the people at the top are very definitely responsible for what goes on at the local level. One extremely pervasive trait among SGM churches IS their extreme reverence for and submission to the authorities at “headquarters.” How many times was CJ quoted in our Sunday morning sermons? I would guess that Seedge got cited more often than the Apostle Paul or even Jesus Himself! To me, this extreme veneration for the “Apostolic Team” leads me to believe that all it would take is one well-timed and stern directive from the Seedgester himself, and all pastors would fall in line.
In other words, if Seedge doesn’t want his underlings – the pastors at your local SGM congregations – to be overly involved in their people’s lives, or to be advising against professional psychological intervention, or to be disciplining their people for “infractions” like a perceived lack of humility, all Seedge would have to do is SAY SO. If Seedge said “Jump,” I have no doubt that there’d be a chorus of manly voices crying out, “How high?”
The fact that CJ has never publicly said boo about the shepherding or the discipline speaks quite plainly to the fact that he must like it the way that it is. The fact that he continues to go around promulgating his beliefs about submission to authority (in sermons like his “The Happiest Place On Earth”) – rather than teaching Sovereign Grace pastors to exhibit more grace – tells me that the current SGM practices are A-OK with him. Consequently, I think it’s only logical to say that he and the other “authorities” bear a great deal of responsibility for what occurs at your SGM church down the street.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Thanks, Kris. I’ve been reading posts and comments with keen interest the last few days and finally read something that spurred a thought.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I just had to say that I couldn’t help but laugh at exintern’s post #196. Apparently the show was missing the dog and pony! lolol
Omgosh, this totally cracked me up when you said,
I’m literally laughing here lol. I can just picture the big flashing sign and the roses and the whole ridiculous show! You ex-SGM’ers know what I’m talking about!!!
hahahahahhahahahahhahahah
Thanks for the laughs, exintern! I’m still laughing here….
March 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I agree with your insight and comments as well, Kris. The pastors of SGM churches are chosen, trained and, when set in churches, are hooked up with an “apostle” to bounce everything off of for SGM approval. Who are these apostles…CJ, Brent, etc. So what would make us think they actually handle things much differently than these men would. If they did, I doubt they would stay in their positions for very long.
Just my opinion.
On a side note, I have daughters and I couldn’t bear for them to grow up buying in to the “me big man, you little woman” mentality that Brent has. And if you could hear his children talk about their grandmother, you would be sick. There’s little regard for extended family. Maybe that’s where the Greffenstette family sought their example with the Larry Tomczak situation. Of all the things I’ve read on this site, the comments about Brent have given me the most cause to chuckle and to be honest, I needed that. Listening to his man week in and week out does something to you. He’s so self assured and confident in everything he says. You do question yourself on pretty much everything. Many men in SGM seem to love him. Hmmm…I wonder why.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Oh. dear. Week in and week out? You have my utmost sympathy. Really.
Claireon said:
And the clapping. Don’t forget the neverending I-can-clap-just-as-long-as-every-one-else…oh-we-have-to-stand-up?…start-the-whistling
-and-really-LOUD-clapping-now-….is-it-almost-done?….nope–a-little-louder-…..and so on and so on, until it finally, mercifully dies down and we all can sit down.
Whew!
March 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I guess I just want to ask One Mom, why are you here? What is your motivation? You defniitely hit a tender note w/me as well….and while I stand by my comments, I do apologize for the tone. Email has very defnite constraints….and not being able to hear the tone is one of them.
Truly, though, I would like to know why you are here in this forum? I wouldn’t join a blog for those happy with SGM and then proceed to defend my stance to those who remain in SGM, for example.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
One Mom,
Okay, I’ve had a chance to get away from it all, clear my head, and read through your posts. There is one thing I would like to clarify. Your post did not hold so much sway over me that it alone convinced me that Sovereign Grace is a cult. Although I have (as others here can attest to) gone to great lengths to defend Sovereign Grace against allegations that it was a cult, it just happened to be this discussion that acted as the last straw, which pushed me over into that “camp,” so to speak.
At one point a list of characteristics of a cult was published here. And even though I identified all but two of the characteristics, I could not say SGM was a cult. I was too afraid of grieving God by judging the ministry too harshly. That’s why I was so hesitant to ever drop the c bomb and defended SGM from allegations of being led by false teachers.
But now I really do believe it is a cult for many reasons — the greatest of which is the highly distorted version of the gospel they preach. It enslaves members to live their lives by the edicts of leadership under the guise of providing “apostolic direction and care.” And it leaves out the bookends: God sent His Son b/c of His love for us and the story of the cross culminates with the resurrection of the risen Lord (followed quickly thereafter by the sending of His Spirit).
I believe your tendency to come across dismissively was unintentional, and it was really unfair of me to unleash on you all of the angst I’ve felt over SGMers who come traipsing in here starting their posts with red-hot words like “misconstrue” — or as another SGMer told me once, that I was “misrepresenting the truth.” Those are inflammatory words on a blog like this, and I do feel like they set me on edge as soon as I read your intro. Terms like these carry the implication that there is willful deceit at play … especially b/c no one has said that all of the abuses that happened to him/her were the result of “policies” that came from on high, nor did anyone say that b/c one person was disciplined for 5 years for a struggle with anorexia that all women who wore a size 6 were required to eventually become a size 10 … to the glory of God, of course.
What we’ve done here is respectfully heard out each other’s stories, and people have made their own conclusions. I haven’t experienced the same thing others have, so I will grieve for what they went through, but I don’t extrapolate conclusions about leadership b/c of individual incidences. In fact, in the past few months most of the disagreement here has happened among regular posters. We don’t always agree, and sometimes things get heated, and we even yell at each other with all caps and exclamation marks. But then we go back to loving each other and talking about the next topic. The good thing is there’s such diversity here, there’s freedom to lovingly but passionately disagree.
So no one is hearing a single story and then saying that this is SGM policy. They put their story out and others jump in if they have experienced something similar. If there seems to be a causal link between this situation and a policy that SGM has, those will be looked at and evaluated.
You asked me to parse out my experience from that of the Tomczaks, which I’ll try to do here. I guess I feel compassion for the Tomczaks b/c I know how cruel these discipline processes can be. You are totally at their mercy, and you are completely isolated. You are told who you can talk to about the process, and everyone else is off limits. If you violate that rule, you are out of compliance with the process. So even if people reach out to you in your devastation, you’re utterly alone b/c you can’t confide in anyone.
At one point in my husband’s discipline process (after my pastor and his wife who had met with us regularly for years stopped all meetings with us — and, in fact, never met with us again as couples until days before we moved away), I told my pastor’s wife that I felt like as long as you’re fighting the good fight of faith alongside leadership, you’re in their good graces. But if you get wounded in battle, you’re essentially on your own. And that’s how we felt — like we were bleeding out on the sidelines and no one cared. Of course, she rebuked me for self-pity.
Case in point. Shortly after finding out about my husband’s infidelity, losing our care group, etc., etc., I was driving on a highway and a semi started to pull into my lane. I was in such a state of devastation, I literally did nothing. I whispered quietly, “Go ahead, hit me. I don’t care.” When the semi was just inches from my door, the driver must have seen me and jerked back into his lane. (I did see if I could pull into the lane to the right of me, but there was a car there, as well as in front of me and behind me. So I was locked in position, but I didn’t even hit the horn.)
I was so numb and out of it, the reality of what happened didn’t hit me until that night. That’s when I realized, “Oh my gosh. I really want to die.” My husband was the one who kept talking about how he wished he could just die through his unbelievably harsh discipline process. But here I was in just as bad a state of ruins. And it really scared me that the incident didn’t even make it onto my radar until later that evening. B/c my pastor had been a counselor and I was afraid that I could really be a threat to myself (I was actually disappointed afterwards that I was still alive), I called him and told him what happened.
He said that I’d be fine … that God was just bringing things to the surface and dealing with my own heart. He was actually quite compassionate, but he never asked me if I was a threat to myself. And he really didn’t think I was suicidal, just overwhelmed. But then his wife — who I was very, very close to — later told me that he had told her what I did. She had one thing to say about the whole incident: “[My name], I think suicide is the most selfish thing a person could do.” And after a brief explanation of how and why she thought that, the issue was closed. Never once did they ever ask me afterwards how I was doing, if I had struggled with any of those thoughts, nothing.
Since that time I thought about how I would have treated a friend who went from being a high-spirited, life-of-the-party, friend to everyone to being so overwhelmed, she welcomed a semi into her lane with no effort to dissuade him. I would have been drawing her out; I would have been comforting her with God’s Word; I would have been asking her if she was currently struggling with any suicidal thoughts/ideations. And if she answered yes to that last question, I would have found out the best place to take her so she could rest and get the help she needed. I also would have followed up with her to see how she was doing in the morning and at other key junctures. But I didn’t get any of that., which sent the message that they thought I was just feigning the whole thing (even though my history with them never showed that tendency) or that it just didn’t matter b/c God was in control.
So here you have a couple who is beyond the breaking point. My husband talked openly about how our family would be better off if he was gone and how he couldn’t handle hearing any more about his sin, how displeased God was with him, and how he had disappointed his family, etc. You get the picture. And I’m trying to hold on for dear life and encourage him to hold on to God and press in to Him, while struggling with my own growing death wish. And what did leadership have to offer us? A continual exhortation to look at our sin, deal with our wicked hearts, and humble ourselves under God’s mighty hand.
This is why I say that unless you’ve been through one of these processes, I think it would be impossible to grasp the sense of despair and utter abandonment. And these are people who have immediately responded when first confronted. It’s not like these discipline processes are indicative of trying to get the person to see his/her sin. But the discipline process crosses over into cult-like behavior when men are assigned to continue to dole out specific consequences to humble the person and teach him/her abject obedience to authority. You’re given assignments by men, and obedience to these assignments are supposed to be what ushers in God’s grace that will help you mortify this area of sin. Hence, to resist one of these “means of grace” is to resist God Himself.
And, like I said before, if you dare to question how reasonable/fair any aspect of this process is, you’re again redirected to deal with your pride and arrogance. The last time I asked how long it would be before I was released of my eating disciplinary process (it had already been just under 5 years), I was told that I was no longer allowed to ask that question. They would tell me when they felt like I was free from this sin. AND if I asked again that my minimum weight requirement would go up from 120 to 125 … with the threat that it could go up even higher. Just like that. I never actually was released from this process; I just moved to another state.
Now I can’t even imagine what it would be like to allow a church to have such a choke hold on my heart that I would ever allow anything like that dark time of my life to ever happen again. I couldn’t imagine wanting to die now b/c I went and got help and worked through the issues that were raging in my heart in SGM’s wake. My heart is free (or at least I thought it was before today!), and I love my life. Being a working single mother with four kids and no family isn’t exactly what I dreamed of when I thought of my life after foster care. But, overall, I’m very, very happy and content with my life now.
And, One Mom, you’re right. I can’t say that Larry and Doris went through all of the same things we did. But I do understand the despair he alludes to in his writing as he was being told to just look at his sin, evaluate his sin, read about his sin, write about his sin, receive discipline for his sin, etc.
I don’t see these processes ordained in Scripture. Jesus could have had the opportunity to add a lot more to Matt 18, but He didn’t. He says that if your brother listens to you, great, you’ve won over your brother. I haven’t heard in one of these discipline processes where the person being disciplined just said, “Heck no, I’m not guilty of that.” These have all been people who wanted to walk with God in a way that was pleasing to Him. Why add this cruel process in as an addendum to the gospel that just crushes people? The result is not humility; it’s a broken spirit.
So I offer this explanation by way of helping you to understand why I guess your analysis of the Tomczak discipline process sort of set off a number of geysers in my heart. I’m not justifying my sin. I should have recognized that I was getting angry and should have take a step back from the computer. And I didn’t. And I’m very sorry for how that must have hurt you and made you feel attacked. But I hope you can understand a little better where I’m coming from.
Of course, even as I write this, CJ’s blog on how repentance of sin should be carried out. According to the Pope, it should be brief and specific. If there are too many words, he says, he gets suspicious. But I gave you that apology. With this post, my earnest attempt was to try to explain why I guess discipline processes are sorta my Ground Zero.
As much as I disagreed with you on so many points, I do admire you for how you were able to keep your head about you in the heat of battle. You maintained a level of graciousness and demonstrated a sincere attempt to try to understand where we are all coming from. That’s no easy task when you’ve had a largely positive, long-standing history with Sovereign Grace Ministries. But I’m grateful you didn’t just write me off as a bitter infidel; I think you’re the first one here who really would have had the right to do that. But calling me friend; that was over the top … even if it did make me feel even WORSE for how I had treated you. heh
March 6th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Welcome, NeverGoingBack,
Thanks for joining us! Sure hope the blog has been as helpful to you as it has been for me, in making our family decision of never going back. I hope you will share your experiences with us at some point, as each person sharing their heart on this blog brings better clarification and understanding to the process of either leaving or staying at SGM. For me, this blog has been somewhat of a healing process as I look back on our time there with such sadness. I look forward to hearing more from you. Once again, welcome!
March 6th, 2008 at 1:09 am
SGM Cas,
Thanks. I never meant to cause you pain, and of course didn’t mean to make it worse by calling you friend.
So many things experienced by others have been so different from my own personal experiences. I have not had exact similar situations, but one somewhat parallel, that were treated so differently from those of folks here. That’s why I’ve attempted to separate individual experiences from larger SGM policy… Obviously that doesn’t hold water in light of the experiences that have been since brought up to help me get clarity.
Lots of things I cannot answer or address, quite honestly, if I am to maintain my annonimity. Wish I could, but that answer will have to do in response to some of the additional questions that have been asked of me.
SMG Cas, I’ll be contacting you off-blog to discuss some stuff privately, okay?
And I meant it when I called you friend.
–One Mom
March 6th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Kris, you said, “I haven’t had time to go back and fully digest everything that everyone has written, but one comment that did catch my eye was the idea that we cannot hold the SGM leaders at the very top responsible for “isolated” incidents that have happened in various local congregations.” And then, you said, “I think, given the very nature of SGM’s leadership structure, and the way that pastors are selected and vetted for training and then placed into their positions, that the people at the top are very definitely responsible for what goes on at the local level. One extremely pervasive trait among SGM churches IS their extreme reverence for and submission to the authorities at “headquarters.” How many times was CJ quoted in our Sunday morning sermons? I would guess that Seedge got cited more often than the Apostle Paul or even Jesus Himself! To me, this extreme veneration for the “Apostolic Team” leads me to believe that all it would take is one well-timed and stern directive from the Seedgester himself, and all pastors would fall in line.”
Can I give you an amen?!?
Again, can I say what I have been saying ALL along in this blog? The issue is authority and its abuse/misuses. As long as we believe that these men are or could be apostles, then we have opened the door to this kind of “shepherding.”
March 6th, 2008 at 7:11 am
One Mom:
Thanks for touching base with SGM Casualty. Your forgiveness, graciously extended, is Christ-like and gentle.
You said, “That’s why I’ve attempted to separate individual experiences from larger SGM policy… Obviously that doesn’t hold water in light of the experiences that have been since brought up to help me get clarity.”
Fair enough. I hope that you are truly getting a clearer picture. To be balanced, there are many things I still appreciate about SGM: its doctrinal integrity, its clear stands on certain issues, and its passionate but controlled worship experiences.
Despite this, however, the fundamental core of the SGM apple is rotten, and that core is its understanding of leadership and how it should be exercised.
Thanks for dialoguing…
TK
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.
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