I initially wrote part of this as a comment in the previous article, but I’ve expanded it and now throw it out there to our broader audience. What do YOU think?
————————————–
The people who get so mad at me for my “slander” and “gossip” here and who write comments full of passion in defense of their pastors…they’ve expressed anger over the way that any of their defenses get written off as just the rantings of “Kool-Aid drinkers.”
What they don’t understand is, while there are NO DOUBT wonderful things about their pastors, and while there are NO DOUBT two sides to every story, it is simply NOT NORMAL to so passionately feel the need to point these facts out as one’s FIRST response to reading a story like Noel’s.
That whole “believe the best” thing, when an SGM outsider sees it in operation, looks a lot more like a first grader sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, “La la la la la” so he doesn’t have to hear what someone is trying to tell him, than it does the response of someone who is still in possession of all his thinking faculties.
The NORMAL, RATIONAL response, especially to a story like Noel’s – and don’t get me wrong, many SGM defenders HAVE responded in this way – is to be genuinely concerned that it could be true…and to immediately begin to search out the truth.
(And, by the way? An HONEST “search for the truth” involves a whole lot MORE than merely going to one’s SGM pastors and asking them about it. Truly, this makes no sense! First of all, if your leaders have been trained in the ”believe the best” teaching – which they HAVE – then what sort of response do you think you’re going to get from them? If they’re leaders within SGM, they will have already proven themselves thoroughly loyal and thoroughly supportive of the “party line,” anyway. They have a VESTED INTEREST in “believing the best” now. What do you THINK they’re going to tell you?
Moreover, it’s downright ludicrous to me that anyone would assume that someone purported to have behaved badly years ago and then successfully swept this situation under the rug for a decade would suddenly be willing to be completely open and honest about it with some random questioner ten years later.
Think about that. How stupid is it to believe that you can just walk up to one of Noel’s former pastors and go, “Hey, did you sympathize with the abuser more than the abused?” and believe that they’re going to respond with, “Why yes, as a matter of fact, we did, and we are so sorry”?
What in the world is logical about assuming that you’re going to get a straight answer out of someone about a situation where he purportedly was NOT straight to begin with?
All those emails I’ve been getting from people who went to their SGM pastors and are now reporting so confidently back to me with those pastors’ responses? I don’t know how to break this to you gently, so I’ll just spit it out: what those pastors tell you is NO MORE CREDIBLE than what Noel herself has shared. In fact, what Noel shared is a lot more verifiable than what any pastor will tell you. After all, she’s got lots of outside people, people with no vested interest in the situation, people like her family doctor and police investigators, who know very well when they were informed and who informed them.)
So, all of this is to say, when SGM defenders’ first response is to defend their pastors and cast doubt on the stories told here on this site, I can understand it, because that appears to be how they’ve been trained to respond, through all the teachings on the importance of always ”believing the best” of their leaders.
But nonetheless, it REALLY DOES make these folks look like the proverbial “Kool-Aid drinker.”
Here’s a little something for the SGM defenders to ask themselves, which will point out something interesting about the teaching of “believe the best” as it supposedly operates within SGM:
Do your leaders extend this grace to YOU?
If you are called in and questioned about something – if one of your leaders deems it necessary to “bring you an observation” – and you offer up an answer in your own defense, do they take you at your word and “believe the best” about YOU?
I’m willing to bet not!
Now, hang with me here and open your minds just a tiny little crack.
Ask yourselves, WHY does this “believe the best” thing only flow one way? Why is it that when a member is spoken of negatively, the pastor’s first reaction is typically to believe the negative thing about the member and assume that the member will have exhibited the most sinful behavior possible in the situation?
Yet…if a PASTOR is spoken of negatively, the member is supposed to automatically “believe the best”?
Where’s the logic in any of this? How can this be supported from Scripture?
Would anyone care to weigh in here?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I just tried to post this and something happened. Here goes again:
SGM’s own words really come back to haunt them. When I was there, I believe the instructions were to believe the best until you had reason to believe otherwise. In general, it’s a good idea to believe the best of people and not the worst. BUT when you are exposed to information that leads you to conclude otherwise, it’s logical, reasonable, responsible, practical, important, intelligent, dare I say ‘biblical’ to no longer blindly ‘believe the best’. I think the pastors would agree with that. But when it is directed towards the pastor’s own actions, it is trumped by their overlying view on pastoral authority/responsibility to oversee and shepherd. That’s why it’s ‘thrown back’ at the person bringing the observation/question to them.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Kris, Thanks for the welcome. =)
Scotch, you’re right. Been there, done that, was threatened they’d come after us “vehemently” if we dared to speak to anyone about what went on at our church with regard to the elders. We were told three times to keep silent. After all they wanted a front of unity (they’re trying to raise money for a new building), when there was none in reality.
We didn’t go quiety. ;)
What’s sad is that we have the smoking gun, if you will (besides first hand accounts, we also have witnesses and documents), and no one wanted to see our documentation, including all but one or two elders (out of 10). As to the lay people we told, no one cared save one single gal.
When you go up against not just two elders but elders that are seminary professors, you are touching the anointed. There is no possibility they can be wrong.
With all our meetings, face to face discussions, email discussions, and paper trail, we were still the ones with a “tone” and “judgmental” even though we weren’t bringing heresy into the church—they were.
There is no satisifying people in error no matter how calmly you try to deal with them, simply because they are defensive in justifying their sin—and they’ve been caught red-handed. But blaming the messenger because they don’t want to hear the message isn’t biblical, nor is it reasonable. And in some of these cases, its downright cultic in tactic.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Kris,
Its true that fear is a big factor for silence. Its also a way to manipulate the layperson. Those that think they don’t fear their elders…..let’s see if they’d be willing to be the only person to vote no in the next church budget meeting….or stand before all the elders and tell them they are wrong on an issue…or even dare question one of them and not be easily satisifed with a typical answer, but be willing to not let the issue go until its truly resolved.
THEN they can truly say they have no fear of their pastor/elder.
Its when confrontation comes then true comfort is proven or disproven.
Until their own heads are on the chopping block for Truth, they can’t say they don’t fear their elders.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I’ve been reading and digesting all this information. I’m overwhelmed. I’m so sorry that you all have been through such torture in the name of religion. Just awful. I’ve endured my own set of hardship and spiritual abuse, but that’s another story.
I found you all in researching for a project that identifies aberrant Keswick theology as alive and well in SG churches/literature and in conservative Evangelicalism at large. I could talk about this at length, but I won’t bore you all too much. I discovered it when we were reading Mahaney’s Feminine Appeal last Fall which I found to be simply an appalling book.
Suffice to say here that Keswick theology is historically exactly as I hear you all describing SG here — it’s the result of cafeteria theology, picking and choosing which parts Holiness and which parts Reformed you want. And they usually pick the stuff that most suits their ideological hangups.
I’m amazed at the similarities between my previous life and the culture you all describe here in SGC.
Keep up the good work, you all. I know it’s hard. I know the shunning first hand. But God can use all this. . . .