How SGM Leaders Actually Handle Criticism…
March 28, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
I think it’s interesting how freely and easily the leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries speak of their sin in the abstract, but when it comes to owning up to specific things they might have done wrong, it rarely goes much deeper than something like, “Well, I’ve been guilty of ‘pride’ and ‘fear of man.’”
Or, if a pastor/leader does attempt to address the issues – as Josh Harris has been commissioned to do at Covenant Life Church – it will always be spoken of in terms of private situations involving specific individuals. Like I understand that recently, Josh has portrayed CLC’s problems as “all taken care of” by C.J. Mahaney behind the scenes.
But how is that possible? If an organization has all these beliefs and policies in place that lead pastors to have an overblown sense of their own authority, how can that glaring design flaw be dealt with behind the scenes by C.J.?
I’ve never seen a situation so bizarre, in terms of how leaders will on the one hand be so eager to claim their own sinfulness in the abstract while on the other hand seem so determined to keep the specifics of their (supposed) sins away from public knowledge.
Or – worse – the way that leaders seem so determined to keep from acknowledging organization-wide patterns and trends in the bad things they’ve done, the mistakes they’ve made.
It seems so silly to me that Josh Harris would trot out a sermon series on Nehemiah to rally the troops and silence the concerned…while at the same time attempt to assure people that C.J. has dealt with all the problems “behind the scenes.” What could possibly have been accomplished by C.J. in private (“behind the scenes”) when so many of SGM’s issues can be traced directly to the leaders’ secrecy and lack of openness with their people? Sure, maybe some hurt feelings were smoothed over by a jovial phone call from the Big Guy (seasoned, of course, with a few of his well-placed tears). But what have those “behind the scenes” efforts – or any generic admission of culpability – done to fix the system that CAUSED these things to happen in the first place?
SGM’s approach to talking about the organization’s (and the organization’s leaders’) “imperfections” is pretty much completely meaningless. If sin is acknowledged, it will always be in the abstract…unless it’s for a specific situation, and then it’s taken behind the scenes.
In the middle is this gigantic blind spot, where leaders continue to refuse to acknowledge how all those specific situations follow a clear common pattern.
So, in my thinking, here’s SGM’s formula for handling leaders’ own sins and missteps and mistakes and “imperfections”:
- Direct a lot of effort at disarming people by making them think you’re hyper-aware of your own shortcomings. Talk a lot, in the abstract, about how you’re the “worst sinner you know.”
But then…
- Teach the people to “believe the best” of you and your cohorts. Emphasize to your congregation how it is their duty as Christians to give their pastors the benefit of the doubt, no matter what.
That should take care of most issues.
- However, when specific situations arise that become impossible to hide, do whatever it takes to privatize them. Bring those situations behind closed doors. Bring in the likes of Peacemaker Ministries, with their confidentiality agreements. Make these situations ALWAYS about “reconciliation” – turn the focus personal, so that if you do have to acknowledge wrongdoing, it’s always about how you hurt a specific individual’s feelings. And never about how your organization’s structure is faulty and flawed for giving you the power and authority to engage in the hurtful behaviors in the first place.
- Finally, when enough of these behind-closed-doors situations arise (as they inevitably will when an organization is structurally flawed from the get-go), blindly press on in your efforts to privatize these situations. Also, refer to Step #1 – talk about your sinfulness in the abstract some more to make you sound like you think you could make mistakes. Reinforce the idea in your people that disagreeing with you or noticing your mistakes is tantamount to being a “critic” (a Sanballat).
And then, distract, distract, distract. Start talking a lot about revival. Anything to change the subject.
But ultimately…
- Never EVER get to the place where you openly and honestly connect the dots in front of your people, even if you hold meetings at your house where people tearfully connect the dots for you.
That’s how to press on in the face of criticism. If you’re an SGM leader.
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
renee,
Thank you for that!
This blogging thing has always involved an odd balance. It’s funny when I get messages from people who want to know my “purpose” or “vision” for the site. I always write them back and tell them the same thing – SGM Survivors was basically a complete fluke, an accident. Some comments disappeared off another blog – comments that alluded to SGM’s “dark side” back when there was quite literally nothing negative to be found about SGM on the entire internet – and as I was telling Guy how bizarre I thought that was, and musing about how SGM seems to do an amazing job of censoring what is said about the organization, he suggested that I put up my own site.
I’d coincidentally happened to have saved copies of the comments from the other blog, something that I’d never done before. In less than an hour, Guy had created a site and we’d put up those old comments in a couple of posts. I didn’t think anything more of it until a day or two later, when I checked back and discovered that people had already discovered the site. Some had even commented.
And then everything just sort of happened from there. The site took on a life of its own. As someone who personally had never had a bad SGM experience, at the beginning I truly didn’t really have strong opinions one way or the other about the organization. But I did find myself quickly forming opinions, especially as I dialogued with SGM defenders, some of whom displayed appalling levels of insensitivity and even rudeness as they’d rant incoherently and illogically about how the site was nothing but “slander.” The defenders’ behavior – along with being deluged with stories of abuse – moved me away from anything resembling neutrality.
So yes, I do have a point of view, especially now. There is utterly no way in the world that anyone could ever convince me that SGM’s system does not foster authoritarian spiritual abuse, or that SGM (whether always knowingly or not) does not engage in elements of thought reform. I also have some pretty strong opinions about the disparities I see between what SGM claims to be and what SGM actually is.
But…having said all that…
The site is what it is because of the commenters.
Consequently, I tend to take a fairly hands-off approach about where the conversation in the comments goes. If someone raises a topic that I personally find interesting or intriguing, I’m happy to run with it, even if it is completely unrelated to the original post.
At the same time, though, I’ve come to feel a level of responsibility and ownership for what is presented here. I’m unapologetically close-minded about certain doctrinal beliefs. In the words of the Apostle Paul, “I know Whom I have believed…” I also have some never-gonna-change views about the Bible and its inerrancy and sufficiency, especially after our personal dangerous sojourn through a hyper-Charismatic church where the written Word was actually NOT sufficient and where craziness took over too often.
Consequently, I have – on RARE occasions – indeed deleted comments. Of the 28,927 comments currently on the site, I’ve probably gotten rid of 50. The comments that didn’t get published would fall into one of these categories: 1) they were heretical as I define heresy (those of you who have been here since the site’s early days might remember a particular commenter who had a driving need to bring every conversation back to his favorite hobby horse of universalism); 2) they were tiresomely argumentative and/or rude during times when I either did not have the time or desire to respond adequately; or 3) they contained recommendations for books that I’d personally read and had found offensive because of their disregard for the sufficiency of Scripture. (And yes, I know, this last one will probably anger some people and bring out cries of “Hypocrite!” and “SGM-style censorship!” but I really don’t care. Deal with it.)
So, anyway – this is a bit of a meandering summary of my philosophy of site ownership. This place is what it is almost solely because of the contributions from the audience. Consequently, I don’t interfere a lot with what is said. But on the other hand, I’m a person just like anyone else, and I have my own personal biases and views. And I sometimes feel strongly called to act on those views.
That would make a nice “About Us” page, Kris.
Kris,
Thank you for this blog. If it wasn’t for this blog, I would still think I was the only one who felt the way I did about sgm. I’m sure there are others too who feel the same way. I mean I wish this blog didn’t have to exist meaning I wish sgm didn’t have the flaws it does, but sadly it does.
C.J. just posted another blog about crticism. I just skimmed over it. Just read the last paragraph under observations. :)
AKS 192…that was so beautiful.
But again, I’ve been in a couple churches before PDI and after, and all of them were complementarian. And in all of them I felt like what Paul commanded Timothy was happening, specifically, to treat women as sisters or mothers, as family.
SGM is an abberation, they do not represent complementarianism. They are not alone, there are other churches like them, but women should be a beloved part of the family and scripture is clear about that, and many traditional churches are fine.
I see hyper patriarchy as being like Islam. Women are a lower sort of humanity and to be viewed as potential vessels of Satan existing to tempt and seduce men. In America you don’t have a burka, but other sorts of rigid “burkas” exist in how to relate. I had brothers, and plenty of guy friends in college, and I know what being a sister is like. Hyper patriarchs don’t. And their God can come off more like Allah than the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Please pray for the Gospel Coalition next week in Chicago, with national leaders and people from all over the country inc. SGM. Please pray God will convict and open eyes and speak truth to people.
Yes, CJ has another post on “How to Criticize Your Pastor”. Recommendation for Survivor stalwarts – read it on an empty stomach or with a barf bag at hand.
With lots of time on my hands now that I’ve escaped the orbit of all things CJ, I hacked in to secret SGM computers and uncovered the REAL post that CJ wrote. As an exclusive to SGM Survivors (and because the National Enquirer wouldn’t pay for it), here is the REAL unposted post:
“How to Criticize Your Pastor
April 8, 2011, by CJ Mahaney
Don’t.
“.
Yeah, I know April 1 was a week ago,
Former SG Pastor
Yeah, nice post.
So unless you bring an “observation” perfectly and in the way required, don’t expect them to receive it. And even if you do bring it perfectly, don’t expect them to respond.
Where’s the part about kissing the signet ring first? How arrogant.
I don’t think my local SGM senior pastor has ever responded to any of my emails over the past 4 or so years. I guess I should have expected this. I didn’t do it in person, so he could have the chance to put me in my place. Personally and privately.
Kris —
And I agree with your blogging philosophy. People on my blog are free to say what they will, for the most part, unless they suddenly become a cray-cray rageaholic or seem like a stalker or something. (Those things have happened.) Still, it’s *rare* that I ever delete something that someone has said and I don’t think I’ve ever told people that they need to change the subject, although as the hostess, I think that would be within my rights. (I pay the bills on the site, after all. ;-))
You seem to follow a similar policy. I guess I’d just encourage commenters to extend the same freedoms to you and others that you extend to them. You don’t censor; you shouldn’t be censored. Freedom like that is wonderful, but sometimes it IS messy and people will be offended. But, again, if a topic or tangent is personally distasteful to someone, there’s always the mouse for clickin’ away. ;-)
Again, just my two — now possibly three — cents.
he should do a blog post when the criticism is accurate.
Kris — oops — just to be clear, I never intended my comment to be critical of you — I have much admiration for the way you write and run this blog.
The difficulty with perceptions about mannerisms is that we don’t all have the same impression/definition, etc on those things. European guys who are seen as mega-macho in their own culture are often thought of as effeminate in ours — all these things are difficult to define — but some of the comments seemed to equate mannerisms with character flaws. I’m not sure that’s really fair, and I do not think that you personally have done that. I deeply appreciate the freedom of speech you allow your guests — and didn’t mean to come across as trying to make rules when it isn’t my place as your guest. Just stating my opinion that conjecture —
(” 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability”-dictionary.com) is distasteful to me — even if I agree with the observation. (Ouch, sorry to use that word!) So much like the ol “you’re guilty of pride and fear of man” accusations that were the result of pure conjecture. I think of the woman who was accused of being anorexic because the pastor’s wife thought she looked too thin.
And yes — the disconnect between the jock bravado and actual athletic prowess / common in SGM is a headscratcher. In trying to establish a connection with Joe Blow in the pew, they create a conundrum instead. Kind of like me parading mounds of cellulite around while talking about becoming Miss America. The pastor of my former SGM church did not look the least bit athletic, and it’s sad that he felt obligated to cultivate an interest.
Did anyone see that wonderful movie, “Shall We Dance”? Stanley Tucci’s character was a “closet” ballroom dancer — and he made himself watch football games and memorize statistics though he hated it — just to fit in. Makes you think. People will go to great lengths to make sure others think they’re intelligent, witty, talented and normal in all the right ways. Nobody wants to come across as an ivory tower theology nerd — we want to be athletic theology nerds. Ever heard an SGM pastor talk about the fabulous symphony he heard the other night? Not many evidences of a good, thorough liberal arts education from the SGM pulpit. But you gotta hand it to ’em — they can talk sports.
Why do we need to “fit in” on any other basis than Jesus blood and righteousness?
When we first went to our PDI church in the early 90’s, there were alot of “inside joke” comments about who was and wasn’t a “girly man”. I never knew the origin, but assumed it came from some sermon or teaching given at Celebration, etc. Does anybody know where that came from and why it was such a big deal?
You know, the main person I’ve heard use the phrase “girly men” was the Governator, Arnold Schwartzenegger, when he was having difficulties with the legislature.
But I’m not sure PDI got it from him. The early 90’s seems before his time in office…
I would like to add, that the focus on some topics does seem to me to diminish the more significant concerns. And I think that saying so in a gracious way is reasonable.
I care less about CJ’s mannerisms per se than I do about the fact that he exudes a smarminess that my teen daughter picked up on from his videos. I care about how he has countenanced cruelty and abuse under his watch. I care about how he has smilingly allowed hero-worship of himself and his family to warp so many people and their concept of a Christian life. I care about how he has poo-poohed psychotherapy, putting people at the mercy of ham-handed doofuses who think they know how to counsel.
Hmm. I think I’ll stop now. :mic
What Nickname and Luna Moth said!
I’m pretty sure “girly men” comes from Saturday Night Live in which Hanz and Franz used Arnold Schwartznegger-ish voices and the other catch phrase of “pump you up”.
Speaking of blogs….I was watching an episode of “Sister Wives” last night. I won’t comment about what I think of the abomination of marriage that is displayed there. BUT…here’s my point…
Fundamentalist Mormon Poligamist Cody Brown was admonishing his children against reading blogs. They’re dangerous! They are based on opinion and should be avoided at all costs!
The older teenage children had read blogs and they were guilty…saying that they quickly stopped!
Funny and kinda ironic that SGM teaches the same dangers of blogs as Fundamentalist Mormon Poligamists….
It just struck me as funny….
Sid
@ Pia (re: 186)– Thank you for that summary of TAG/GOB/PDI/SGM history! I find it very helpful.
Bravo, Luna Moth:
“I care about how he has countenanced cruelty and abuse under his watch. I care about how he has smilingly allowed hero-worship of himself and his family to warp so many people and their concept of a Christian life. I care about how he has poo-poohed psychotherapy, putting people at the mercy of ham-handed doofuses who think they know how to counsel.”
This is exactly why he should receive no deference or extra-miles until he breaks down, asks forgiveness for specific offenses, fires wrongdoers (including himself?) and proves he’s changed the system itself.
@Acme–or anyone who knows–was “girlie men” a catchphrase of Schwartzenegger’s before he became governor of California? (If so, I guess he was making a joke at himself when he scolded the legislature!)
@Pia–Yes, thank you for the summary, told by one who saw it all!
You are welcome, Fashionably Late and Luna Moth! I just finished a long conversation with someone who saw way, way more than I ever did–someone very, very closely connected to someone way, way on top of the PDI ladder and got to see things “behind closed doors” none of us will ever got to see or know…if you know what I mean. That he/she struggles with sooo many things still, carries so much pain deep inside, and is so hindered from seeing God for the good, gracious, merciful, awesome, wonderful God He really is and still has the horrid PDI version so firmly implanted in his/her brain (talk about “elements of thought reform”…this individual was so thoroughly brain-washed into thinking he/she was sooo bad just because he/she couldn’t conform)…well it’s just so… so :bang Grrr!!! Makes me just want to keep :mic and give voice to this person’s pain till someone over there actually pays attention and finally listens!!! But something tells me it would just be an exercise in futility. Sigh.