|
|
By Kris, on April 3rd, 2013
It’s a funny thing – I don’t consider myself a “discernment blogger” or this site a discernment site.
I did, however, originally come to read Tim Challies back when he was writing pieces on Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven materials…which always made me think of him as a “discernment blogger.” (Mr. Challies has written many articles about Rick Warren. Here is a more recent one.)
Indeed, Tim Challies’ first book was entitled The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.
But today we learn that Tim Challies no longer “has room” for discernment bloggers. Why? Well, because some weeks back, the Wartburg Watch ladies did a piece on Mr. Challies’ joint publishing venture with someone who was a longtime employee and member of Sovereign Grace Ministries…and made the (to me, logical) connection between that business relationship and Mr. Challies’ pretty obvious desire to give C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries every benefit of the doubt.
Reading Mr. Challies’ post today was a sort of surreal experience. He throws a lot of words out there, many of which seem to accuse the people who discussed his business venture with the SGM guy of misrepresenting him. He says,
Then they wrote about me. They wrote about my financial situation. They wrote “shocking” exposes and went rummaging through the digital trash to dig up the smoking guns. They did not just report (supposed) facts but also interpreted them. And then other blogs picked up the stories and carried them as well. And this clarified the situation for me. I wish my teacher here had been something nobler than personal attack, but sadly, and perhaps ironically, it was when I was in their crosshairs that they themselves came into sharper focus.
Because here’s the reality: So much of what they wrote about me had so little basis in reality. These bloggers misinterpreted even what is obvious, stretched what is true, assumed what is dubious, and fabricated the rest. They shared all of this with their readers as if it was based on verifiable facts, as if they were privy to details, as if it was anything more than conjecture.
But what’s interesting to me is that nowhere does Tim Challies actually explain what was inaccurate about what was written about him and his business venture. I know he complains that people didn’t just report facts but also interpreted them…but since when are bloggers solely reporters? Since when is it not OK to state an opinion, or make an inference based on facts and point out what seems obvious?
Unless Tim Challies specifies and explains otherwise, it is still no less certain that he was caught shading the truth. The disclaimer with which he prefaced the article he wrote telling his audience how to “think biblically” about SGM – the disclaimer in which he asserted his total lack of relationship with C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries - conveniently neglected to mention that while he may not be bosom buddies with C.J., he actually does co-own a publishing house (Cruciform Press) with Kevin Meath. Kevin Meath’s biography, as listed on the Cruciform Press site and quoted at Wartburg, clearly shows connections with SGM, SGM leaders, and other ministries closely associated with SGM:
Kevin has more than 25 years professional experience as an editor, including eleven years as chief editor for Sovereign Grace Ministries. He has worked on more than 40 book projects for the Christian market, and has edited for C.J. Mahaney, Paul Tripp, John Piper, Jerry Bridges, Joel Beeke, Richard D. Phillips, Scotty Smith, Dave Harvey, and many others. He has worked with Multnomah, Crossway, Reformation Trust, Shepherd Press, New Growth Press, Founders Press, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Revive Our Hearts, Focus on the Family, Desiring God, and others.
Instead of railing against “discernment bloggers,” it would have been much more effective for Mr. Challies to explain how it is that having a business partner with longstanding relationships with SGM would NOT have affected his own impartiality when it comes to what he tells people to think about SGM. How, precisely, did the scorned “watchbloggers” misrepresent the facts?
I’d really like to know. Mr. Challies, if you’d care to respond, I’d love to post your explanation. Were the Wartburg ladies wrong in saying that you co-own Cruciform Press with Kevin Meath? Is Mr. Meath’s biographical information on the Cruciform Press website inaccurate?
And can you truly not see how it looks to those of us outside the cozy world of conservative Christian publishing? Can you truly not understand why it would make total sense for someone to connect the dots and say that if you’re trying to make it as a publisher of Christian books, you’re probably going to try much harder not to offend the guys who author many of those books?
Or were you just trying, again, to cloud matters for your readers?
If what the Wartburg people posted is not true, how was it inaccurate?
By Kris, on March 30th, 2013
This past week, there was another filing in the lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries. You can access the ”Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion Alleging Pleading Failure” in its entirety by clicking here.
From my layperson’s understanding, this latest document is a response to the motion filed by SGM’s attorneys that sought dismissal of the lawsuit. The “Plaintiffs’ Opposition” asserts, by citing previous court rulings, that the original filing and the First Amended Complaint are indeed in line with established precedents and therefore ought not to be dismissed.
Here are what struck me as some interesting highlights from the “Plaintiffs’ Opposition”:
Defendants seek to evade accountability and hide the truth about their egregious wrongdoing. Defendants seek dismissal, arguing that the 31-page FAC [First Amended Complaint] is vague and that they dispute the facts.
*************
Although Defendants cannot credibly claim the FAC failed to put them on notice of the claims, Plaintiffs stand ready to add furth details if ordered to do so by the Court. The FAC, however, indisputably states tort claims cognizable under Maryland law, and cannot be dismissed at this early procedural stage.
*************
Plaintiffs have a right to bring an action for negligence. The test is straightforward: did Plaintiffs’ FAC allege (1) the existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) that damages resulted from that breach? If the FAC did so, the Court should permit the lawsuit to go forward without deciding whether or not Defendants may be able to defend themselves at trial by establishing they are entitled to various fact-based defenses.
Here, the FAC clearly meets that test.
*************
Defendants quibble that the FAC does not identify the precise amount of damages sought, but Plaintiffs’ Hearing Statement made quite clear that expert witnesses are quantifying the compensatory damages. The Statement also made clear that the punitive damages attributable to the class are approximately $50 million.
*************
Defendants cannot credibly argue that the FAC failed to plead a requisite element of negligence claims. Instead, Defendants try to persuade this Court to dismiss the FAC by arguing that they are entitled to a clergy privilege as a matter of law . . . First, the privilege protects only individuals; so that argument fails on its face as to the institutional Defendants. But second and more importantly, it is premature for the Court to make the findings of fact that would be required before any ruling on whether the individual Defendants are entitled to the limited shield from liability established for clergy.
*************
At this juncture, the Court is required to accept as true the facts alleged by Plaintiffs in the FAC . . . The FAC alleges Defendants conspired together to engage in a lengthy course of conspiratorial misconduct that was intended to, and did, harm children in their care. The FAC alleges that Defendant Tomczak, one of the founders of the Church and leading pastors, personally engaged in extensive physical abuse known to all the other Defendants.
*************
The “Opposition” document then goes on to assert that the Plaintiffs did indeed properly plead intentional infliction of emotional distress. In that portion of the document, we see the following:
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants caused their continued sexual and physical abuse during their childhood, and conspired to prevent the detection and cessation of such abuse. It is hard to imagine anyone suggesting that the Plaintiffs who were subjected to such egregious misconduct suffered only “minor” rather than “severe” distress . . .
Yet that is exactly what these Defendants have the temerity to argue. Indeed, one Defendant equates sadomasochistic and ritualized sexual and physical abuse of children to “spanking.”
The next section asserts that the Plaintiffs properly pled conspiracy. After a few paragraphs, we find this:
Defendants can argue to the jury that beating and sexually abusing children, lying to law enforcement, and giving known sexual predators unfettered access to children in multiple settings, and other misconduct alleged in the FAC did not cause damage and need not be punished . . . But the FAC properly alleges tortious activity, and thus the conspiracy to commit such tortious activity is itself a separate tort under Maryland law.
Other highlights:
Defendants claim that the cause of action must be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to allege an employment relationship. This is false. The FAC alleges repeatedly that the individual defendants were all employees of one or more of the corporate entities . . . The FAC alleges Plaintiff Poe was sexually and physically abused by a Church employee.
*************
What all of the Defendaants fail to address, however, is that the FAC alleges ongoing conspiratorial misconduct by all the Defendants, and alleges such misconduct is harming Plaintiffs. To date, Defendants have not ended their conspiracy. Defendants continue to conspire to prevent secular authorities from detecting and incarcerating predators . . . [Exhibit B] describes Defendants (specifically Defendant Layman) conspiring with the predator to avoid detection.
Finally, perhaps the most striking element of the ”Opposition” document is the footnote that appears on Page 5:
Plaintiffs are going to be amending the FAC to add more parties, one of whom alleges Defendant John Loftness physically and sexually abused her as a child.
*************
By Kris, on March 25th, 2013
It was announced at a members’ meeting yesterday that Dave Harvey, longtime pastor and Sovereign Grace Ministries leader, resigned effective March 15. Reasons cited for the departure included family issues and allusions to other problems.
Members were asked not to talk about the situation.
|
|
Recent Comments