Washington Post Article Declares “Things Seem Likely To Change”
September 7, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
The Washington Post article came out. I guess nobody here was willing to go on the record. Here’s the story:
Sovereign Grace Ministries, riven by conflict, seeks to change
When C.J. Mahaney took a leave of absence this summer from the helm of his 100-church denomination, saying he was guilty of “various expressions of pride,” conservative evangelicals nationwide took notice.
But inside his Gaithersburg-based Sovereign Grace Ministries movement, there was a growing sense that things had gone too far. Former church members said Mahaney had created something they thought was more like a cult.
His leave came days after a former top Sovereign Grace pastor distributed hundreds of pages of e-mails and internal church documents that portrayed Mahaney as fixated on the sins of everyone below him, particularly critics. The documents, which included discussions among the pastors, showed Mahaney and others threatening the movement’s co-founder, saying they would make private family details public if the man were too openly critical of Sovereign Grace as he left.
Mahaney, who grew up in Takoma Park, is attending the Capitol Hill church of another well-known neo-Calvinist, Mark Dever. He’s written a couple of blog posts thanking God for helping him “perceive a degree of my sin.” He declined to comment for this article.
“Although my experience of conviction has already started — and this is an evidence of God’s mercy — I’m sure there is more for me to perceive and acknowledge,” he wrote. “I am resolved to take responsibility for my sin and every way my leadership has been deficient, and this would include making any appropriate confessions, public or private. Most importantly I want to please God during this season of examination and evaluation.”
As the discussion about the direction of the ministry heated up, the daily clicks on two blogs on which former members vent shot into the tens of thousands. Usually anonymously, people told story after story of Sovereign Grace pastors being abusively controlling, shaming people who criticized clergy and dividing families when someone disagreed with a pastor. Some alleged that sexual abuse counseling had been poor, with victims being told to also scour themselves for sin.
“We as a family experienced a pattern of spiritual abuse, hypocrisy, harshness, deceit and some unfortunate threats that were not righteous for Christians and need to be repented,” said Larry Tomczak, who co-founded the ministry with Mahaney during the hippie-ish Jesus Movement of the 1970s and then bitterly split from him two decades later. “There has been something systematic in the handling of people that has deviated from biblical, pastoral norms and has had serious implications in many people’s lives. Lots of people have been waving flags. Hopefully, things are changing.”
A college dropout who was once a hard-core partier, Mahaney went on to become one of the most-recognized and popular faces of neo-Calvinism, which teaches that man is lowly, sinful and in desperate need of spiritual oversight. Mahaney, with his perma-grin, distinctively casual style (shaved head, no jackets), and successful books and conferences, put a happy, hip face on the idea of discipline.
Now facing what its interim leader, Dave Harvey, calls a “time of crisis,” Sovereign Grace has called in a Christian reconciliation firm to help decide Mahaney’s future and whether to create a new structure for dealing with conflicts.
Two other church leaders at Covenant Life, the flagship church in Gaithersburg, have stepped down. Mahaney’s protégé, Josh Harris, who is Covenant Life’s lead pastor, left the denomination’s board because of differing views on what God is trying to say through the shake-up. Although there is no evidence that the leadership upheaval has harmed attendance, pastors clearly know many congregants are asking questions. Covenant Life is holding unprecedented open-mike events. Some pastors have launched blogs.
Some conservative evangelicals worry that an inspiring movement might lose steam because of something akin to a management failure.
Experts have charted a rise of Christian energy in the past decade or so around the ideas of Calvin and Reformed Protestantism, which see a God that loathes prideful humans and predestines who will be Christian and who will be saved. Time magazine in 2009 called Calvinism one of the year’s most influential ideas, and researchers say more and more students at Christian schools seem intrigued by these theologies.
Dennis Horton, a Baylor University professor of religion who studies resurgent Calvinism, said the trend emphasizes the sovereignty of God — thus the name of Mahaney’s group — as opposed to free will and the idea that one can boost one’s chances of salvation through good deeds.
“Of all the groups, they are more susceptible to authority issues because they put so much emphasis on authority and hierarchy,” he said.
Thousands of pastors have come to Together for the Gospel leadership conferences centered on these ideas. They are run by co-founders Dever, Mahaney and Al Mohler, a Southern Baptist leader. Mohler called Sovereign Grace “one of the most vital evangelizing movements of this generation.”
What happens to Mahaney is important because American churches are increasingly unable to take firm stands on anything, he said.
“You have an America today where very strong churches will bring forth strong disagreement and strong kinds of ministry may bring on strong adverse reactions. The alternative is becoming a generic church with a generic message, and that’s not who C.J. is,” Mohler said.
Some close watchers of American evangelicalism say the Sovereign Grace controversy shows the challenge in balancing desire for strong pastoral discipline with a culture swimming in free, unaccountable chatter on social media.
The Web is playing a powerful role in Mahaney’s woes even as his movement owes much of its popularity to it. His wife and three daughters co-write a chatty, hipster-looking blog about “biblical womanhood,” and Harris is something of a rock star in conservative evangelical circles for his book about dating and the importance of traditional courtship.
What happens next is unclear. Sovereign Grace officials emphasize they are deep into a period of spiritual reflection and management nit-picking. They clarified that he remains on staff. He joined with some other Sovereign Grace pastors at a retreat this summer, and some experts say he is too popular a figure in a thriving movement to disappear over the controversy.
In an interview, leaders of Sovereign Grace acknowledged some mistakes but seemed to focus more on how the fire has been fanned by many anonymous online posters. In sermons and blog posts this summer, they have referred to biblical bans on gossip and slander. Debate broke out among members when Harris first suggested that people read the insurgent blogs and then said not to.
“Sometimes pastors in their zeal to help people, they have strongly suggested things they needed to leave it to people to figure out for themselves,” said John Loftness, a member of the church’s board.
But things seem likely to change.
“I think many people nationwide have been watching and waiting and hoping for this day to come,” Tomczak said. “We can’t cover it up. Bring it out, change where change is necessary. Confess where there have been wrongs, repent, go forward, be redemptive.”
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
I can’t help but wonder why Ms. Boorstein wrote the line, “Things seem likely to change,” especially in light of how she also describes how SGM leaders have focused their criticism on the free discussion of SGM’s problems.
“What happens to Mahaney is important because American churches are increasingly unable to take firm stands on anything, he said.(Mohler said)”
Firm stands on treating folks like weak spineless worms and fools who need to be told what to do, where to go and who to associate with? What to spend their money on and who to give their alligience to?
Being branded as rebellious, unfaithful or a heretic for not following their version or interpretation of the Scriptures?
If SGM has been one of the most evangelizing movements of this century then someone’s notion of evangelism sure differs from mine. Taking religious terms and redefining them(didn’t Bill Clinton do that?) to suit their purpose.
To continue my thought in #1, the deep-seated thinking behind the idea that only a certain category or class of people have the right to discuss SGM’s issues is a huge part of why SGM has problems in the first place.
Kris,
Did Ms. Boorstein describe how SGM is critical regarding how the blogs and Brent have slandered them and made the issues they are trying to deal with more complicated and difficult?
I, for one, think that SGM should be grateful for the help! The process can go so much faster if they would see the hard words against them as a gift from the Lord…mercy in disguise, if you will.
The statement, “Things seem likely to change,” seems ambiguous enough. It doesn’t give a sense of what kind of change or what direction this change may or may not take. I think it’s a fair enough statement to make. For one thing, SGM’s public perception of being a squeaky clean, well-run, doing everything right, etc. will change in light of all that has transpired.
It seems up to SGM what corse “change” takes. Will they be honest about past mistakes? So far it seems they will not be honest in any specific way. Will they try and “save face” further cementing the change in public perception? This seems more likely.
I don’t know, Kris. This seems like a fairly innocuous statement to make about change being likely.
I thought John Loftness’ carefully crafted and seemingly calculated quote was interesting:
“zeal to help” is what most would call attempt to control behaviour(s) and thought(s).
“strongly suggested things” is what most would call manipulation and arrogant assumption that “pastors” knew what was best for people.
They still cannot be as honest as Larry was in his quotes because they are still in the system and still trying to prop it up with the appearance of humility—vaguely acknowledging wrong doing, minimizing what was done, and giving lip service to “repentance.”
Overall, the article seemed very fair and didn’t smear anyone in particular. I was pleasantly surprised by this, considering the Washington Post is usually very liberal in its leanings.
I like the article, very fair and clear, except “things seem likely to change”. Not sure what that means, because the SGM leadership appeared to blame shift the crisis on the bloggers! Wow.
Neither Free speech and OPEN discussion nor “gossip and slander” are the cause of this current pervasive crisis in SGM.
Isn’t this exactly what SGM teaches NOT to do in a conflict? Blame shift?
“In an interview, leaders of Sovereign Grace acknowledged some mistakes but seemed to focus more on how the fire has been fanned by many anonymous online posters. In sermons and blog posts this summer, they have referred to biblical bans on gossip and slander. Debate broke out among members when Harris first suggested that people read the insurgent blogs and then said not to.”
When stuff like this is said or written, it makes me so cranky. This BS is a distractor. The blogs have changed communication forever, they may be a problem for some people, but they didn’t cause the mishandling of family crises that have been so destructive, and the numbers of which are staggering! Blogging is here to stay, and as a pastor you cannot police all of it. Deal with it. If God is sovereign, that says to me anyway, you can trust Him and not have to chase every little anomaly in peoples’ lives. This is precisely one of the things that has caused pastors to be totally sidetracked from what they should be doing, and probably leading to insanity in some! God is on it and guess what – you’re not God!! People are disturbed, as well they should be!! Child abuse, sexual abuse, extreme oppressive control is something to get REALLY upset about! That is NOT the abundant life Jesus promised His followers! Is that so hard to understand?? I haven’t read anywhere on any blog (it probably has been posted somewhere…) that people just want to run wild, or they now think all authority is bad, and lets just ignore any structure whatsoever. If we are saved, and the Holy Spirit is in us all, are we capable of choosing our own small group, and deciding how many meetings we need to attend in a week without having a meltdown from exhaustion? Dang. Micromanagement is so tiresome! The fact that so much child molestation has occurred in SG churches – does that need any more comment?! Just sayin’ – if charges had been pressed in the first child molestation cases, it might have caused people contemplating the same action to think…”Hmmm. This is so wrong. This is a bad idea and I could go to jail.” :bang It’s pretty frightening people get so mired in the minutia of running an organization that right and wrong is no longer visible. Take heart, SGM pastors! All that’s being exposed is a good thing, and long overdue. It just might be termed “mercy.”
Mohler doesn’t have a clue.
And yes, overall its fair for a liberal newspaper.
“current CLC member” –
Here is the portion of the article where SGM’s response to the blogs is mentioned:
I am NOT saying that I thought this article was “unfair,” or that I somehow had hoped the Post would “smear” anyone. Not at all.
And I suppose the line “things seem likely to change” is ambiguous enough.
And yet…
It just feels to me like that was an odd pronouncement to make, considering that “change” is the very thing that SGM is trying to convince people is happening…even as they’ve battened the hatches and attempted to regain control of the commentary by coercing Josh Harris to recant his statements about Brent’s documents and the blogs and instituting the “members only” website, directing people to discuss everything there.
How is that “change”? How is criticizing the critics “change”?
Moreover, how is it “change” when SGM is quick to assert that CJ “remains on staff”? I thought this was interesting:
I don’t know that anyone wants CJ to “disappear.” I think what’s frustrating is NOT that CJ isn’t “disappearing,” but that his organization seems so intent on minimizing the questions about CJ’s leadership. Dave Harvey already knows that CJ will be teaching Pastors College classes in the future. The SGM board has already declared CJ “fit for ongoing ministry.” Where’s the period of questioning, if the following statement is actually true?
Above article could have been much worse. They did a decent job as far as
reporting the events. The spin isn’t as bad as it could be. Be interesting
to see where it goes from here.
Interesting that John Loftness FINALLY responds at all, but only to the Washington Post..Seems he cant deal with issues head on..He can speak to the Post, but needs an spokesperson to speak to someone he victimized..Hmmm :scratch :worm
If sgm really wants to be clear of this, I think they need to speak up every single offense about them. They need to allow people to ask unscreen questions. However, I do not feel sgm will ever change. It will stay the same. The only way things will change and voices will be heard is if people walk away with their checking account. SGM is a coporation, not a church. All they care for is money.
Maybe I’m off-base here but I actually grinned when I read Boorstein’s “things seem likely to change” comment. It’s sandwiched between Loftness’ lame commentary on Harris’ flip-flopping and Tomczak’s clear statement of what needs to change. It seems to me that Boorstein saw right through SGM’s and Loftness’ crap. Why else would she end with a strong statement from the ousted and blackmailed former leader?
@Breezy, I loved your last post in the other thread..very inspiring! :clap
As far as the Post article, I actually agree with the writer-Things ARE likely to change! That does not say “how” they will change. While it is slightly unfortunate that no one from the blogs is ready to “speak on the record, with names”, I dont think that will NEVER happen. This was simply “an opportunity”, not the only opportunity. I am convinced that it is only a matter of time before things explode (figuratively speaking) in a much greater magnitude that they (SGM) will not be able to excuse away. It’s not over yet.
I personally find myself angered that John Loftness can use his authority to bully a child, and make a victim out of her, but he can not even acknowledge her accusations toward him, yet he can speak very generally to the Washington Post..real “man of God” appearance there, showing all kinds of “leadership capabilities”..he truly disgusts me now. :barf:
Covenant Life is holding unprecedented open-mike events.
Not anymore. Josh revoked open-mike at members meetings because he said some people didn’t like the questions and so were less inclined to come. Go figure.
I thought the article was fairly balanced. An intelligent person can see through the SGM stance written here and see the inconsistency at SGM.
I wonder if this is just a first article to determine reader interest. I mean if this sparks a large interest by Post readers, I’ll bet there will be follow-ups with more depth.
If there is no interest, this story will die right here.
Res,
I hope you’re right.
I guess I was looking at this article through the eyes of someone with just a general knowledge of SGM – from the perspective of, say, the average Evangelical whose church has been increasingly influenced by CJ Mahaney and who thus far has not understood anything about how SGM differs from “normal” Christianity.
Reading the article from that point of view, without being on hyper-alert for irony, it would certainly come across as though the Post had taken SGM’s assertions about itself and its efforts at “changing” at face value.
:scratch
Didn’t the Stepford Wives feel like that too?
Kris,
Do you have any evidence that Josh was coerced in some way?
Do you have a quote from someone ordering members to only discuss things on the members website? I haven’t heard that. Is there something wrong with a members website where church members can discuss issues?
Not a kool-aid drinker, just asking some questions to keep the conversation honest.
current CLC member, Wise comment about these words from the blogs being mercy in disguise if they would be heeded.
Clouds with a silver lining? blessing in disguise, faithful are the wounds of a friend, etc but the leaders have to look at it that way and they don’t perceive it from that point of view. You would think that since they wrote the book on humility things would be different.
I thought the Post article was well written and fair.
Kerrin,
So it’s impossible for someone to have a true eager desire to help without it being though control?
Possibly, or maybe it’s just what it sounds like.
[Some close watchers of American evangelicalism say the Sovereign Grace controversy shows the challenge in balancing desire for strong pastoral discipline with a culture swimming in free, unaccountable chatter on social media.]
I would like to know who exactly said that. What exactly does it mean? At first glance my brain heard It this way, “a desire of pastors to control Christians is a good desire. But how can they have a successful tyranny when they can’t control free speech.
This is one reason I appreciate this ‘forbidden’ blog. Too many evangelical blogs do not allow opposing views to be posted. That is one way they have tried to balance their desire with media control. SGM influence has balanced the control that they have already accomplished over some of their members by implying that reading or participating on this blog is sin, and if it is sin then there can be church discipline. Since non SGM friends and family members do not want their loved ones to feel pain through church discipline then the pastors attempt at media control is already somewhat successful. Most posts do not include real names in order to protect the innocent. Then the testimonies can easily be discounted by SGMers who are complaining that so much is anonymous.
I think SGM has actually done a pretty good job finding a balance between [pastoral discipline] and [unaccountable chatter].
Why do I feel an enabler right now? :scratch
I meant “why do I feel LIKE an enabler”…lol
Mohler is quoted in this article saying “…strong kinds of ministry may bring on strong adverse reactions. The alternative is becoming a generic church with a generic message…”
This is classic oversimplification and pigeonholing. Really? The ONLY alternative to a “strong” (insert: overbearing, domineering, harsh etc.) ministry is a generic church/message?
How about sincere, Holy Spirit-led Christians ENCOURAGED by their pastors on how to hear God FOR THEMSELVES through the word of God and prayer?
How about humble serving of one another (pastors and congregants alike!) graciously spilling over to all our non-Christian neighbors as well, while we all walk through the trials of life together; instead of focusing on control, demanding submission, rejecting criticism from the pions (excuse me, church members), seeking to invalidate victims and/or the “degifted”?
I am not :worm .
For ExClcer’sMom… Thanx. As you can tell it took some time to write and I hope it doesn’t get lost at the end of the previous thread.
As much as I love the normal posts your beloved daughter writes I didn’t want to let her’s go unchallenged. The issues of science as opposed to scripture drive me nuts because most people don’t truly know the history of science as uniquely Christian in origen. Historically there were numerous cultures that were civilized but never developed science. Our Christian culture did specifically because of the unique God we worship. Our unique God is personal and infinite. All others are either personal and finite (Greek and Roman gods and goddesses), impersonal and and infinite (Islam), or impersonal and finite (Hindu). Our unique personal and infinite God gives us a unique worldview. And that is not the same always as the “official” church. Historically in many cases the “church” opposed scientists. Gallileo is a prime example. Columbus was laughed at by the crowned heads of Europe for years before Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain financed his trip. Plus Columbus made some major mistakes such as inslaving the natives. I’m not denying any of the atrocities the “church adherents” have done over the centuries. The history of those atrocities are a stain upon the face of our Lord. But His love for us endures through those marks and His light has shown through to give life to all who look at what He taught and live it. There is truly no comparison.
Just look at the cultures that either have had or continue to have a predominant Christian worldview. Those are the most advanced cultures on the planet. The others are stagnant or backwards. Jesus and His followers bring light and life. Radical Islam attempts to yank its followers back to the 7th century. Just look at Hinduism and what it has done to India over the life of that culture. Confusianism has stagnated China with the rule of the Mandarans for 2000 years. Only Europe (which is now post Christian in its worldview) and here in the US (which is trying to go post Christian) have major advances happen societally as Jesus was lifted up. Science and scripture are not opposed to each other. They compliment each other as we try to find the divine order of His divine mind. :D
PonderingAtCLC,
I think the word “sometimes” indicates that the writers recognize that it is possible to have a sincere desire to help. Unfortunatly, some of us have experienced the other times where pastors have stepped out of bounds and lead as follows:
“And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.'” -Luke 22:25
One can lead with motiviation to benefit others, with a sincere desire to help, and still misuse their authority. Instead it should be as Luke says:
“But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. ” -Luke 22:26
PonderingatCLC asked,
Do you have any evidence that he was not heavily leaned upon to change his stance? Because, there are lots of stories floating around out there from people who have witnessed the discussions that would indicate that Josh’s initial frankness – particularly his line about how SGM is “getting spanked” – and his seeming endorsement of Brent’s documents and the blogs were hugely unpopular with a segment of CLC’s pastors and SGM board members. These men then went on to put pressure on Josh (I’d call it coercion, but that’s just me) to retract his statements. Did he do so unwillingly? Or did he genuinely change his mind? It’s hard to say. But if certain people had not brought some sort of pressure to bear upon him, I doubt he would have gotten up and so totally gone back on what he’d said initially.
I don’t know that the stories would qualify as “evidence” – certainly not evidence that would satisfy someone determined to “believe the best.” But it’s been my experience that if I hear a specific story in a specific way from several different sources, it’s likely pretty accurate. That’s why this thing about the pressure put upon Josh is believable to me. I have heard about it from several people who have thus far been reliable in everything else they’ve shared with me.
There was no “ordering” – it was just strongly suggested, at the members’ meeting that was held a couple of weeks ago. You’d have to locate a sound file to find the direct quote, as that piece did not make it into the transcription available on CLC’s website, but it was clearly conveyed to members that if they were serious about change and didn’t want to participate in “gossip” and “slander,” they would discuss their concerns on the CLC site…where of course there’s no real way for anyone to be anonymous, as you have to log in with your member info just to access the site.
There’s nothing “wrong” with a members-only site. I never said there was. But to me, it seemed like an obvious move to take control of the discussion – to be able to keep tabs on precisely who is daring to say what, and to imply that you’re guilty of gossip and slander if you share your thoughts elsewhere.
Pondering, I don’t get the impression you are trying to keep things honest at all. In fact, I find your questions to be quite disingenuous. Kerrin did not say or suggest no one could ever be eager to help without trying to control other people’s thoughts, nor did Kris come even close to suggesting that it’s not O.K. for members to discuss things on a “members only” site. You are tossing out red herrings. Am I feeding a troll?
The God of all truth has no problem with the open exchange of ideas and even invites people to “reason together” with Him. If you look at the passages that prohibit gossip you will see that what is forbidden is “whispering,” telling secrets, betraying confidences, backbiting. Gossip is linked to being untrue and destructive. Segments of the church that exercise authority outside of its proper bounds create a “don’t talk” rule that is quite contrary to the interests of truth by broadening the meaning of “gossip” and tying “authorization to discuss” to positions of power. In the end, they wind up doing a lot of whispering themselves.
Pondering at CLC,
“Sometimes pastors in their zeal to help people, they have strongly suggested things they needed to leave it to people to figure out for themselves,” said John Loftness, a member of the church’s board.
Herein lies part of SGM’s never-ending problem…statements like that are incredibly vague and he fails to mention what he is referring to. Clinging to that lame “we meant well, really, we did” excuse.
Is John Loftness referring to the years and years SGM pastors dished out erroneous counseling?
Is he referring to the appalling way they handled sex abuse against children?
Is he referring to the legalistic approach regarding anything from homeschooling, dating, where to live, what job to take?
It’s these vague statements that reflect a lack of serious ownership of the real issues and a lack of genuine sorrow over the harm they have done.
Don’t you think the charges against this ministry should warrant something a bit more concrete?
happymom,
I think John Loftness’s comment refers to the prior paragraph, particularly this sentence:
The irony is overwhelming.
PonderingAtCLC,
There is always that possibility for someone, however we are talking about “the pastors” and their actions are/were/have been manipulative or coercive.
Case in point, read the documents Brent released: there are countless emails where manipulation and coercion were used.
You seem to be avoiding the evidence and seeing it for what it is, but rather coming up with excuses. That is sign of cognitive dissonance—where someone wants to avoid the painful reality of what the evidence (in this case past behaviour) points to and “the pastors” current inability to acknowledge wrongdoing.
Isn’t it convenient for John that he gets to excuse “the pastors” past actions as “too zealous”? That sounds so good! I wish they let all their followers use this excuse of behaviour that was out of the norm. I was never told you can confess your missteps in terms of too much zeal for ______. There’s hardly anything wrong with being “too zealous”… that’s easy enough to excuse, right?
Okay, explain this to me: how do you “strongly suggest” something verses “weakly suggest” something? The use of influence techniques comes in to play here. What techniques were used to “strongly suggest” a particular behaviour?
Sam McGee,
Thanks, but I still find their statements vague and often misleading…except for this one where, of course, they blame the blogs.
“leaders of Sovereign Grace acknowledged some mistakes but seemed to focus more on how the fire has been fanned by many anonymous online posters.”
sgmnot- well said.
I find Mohler’s implication – assuming it is accurately quoted- that churches can either have heavy handed authoritarian leaders or else end up “generic” ( what the heck does that mean- lukewarm, or doctrinally watered down?) to be reprehensible.
There have been some posts here, or links to posts, about Mohler at his own church being a very controlling and harsh guy at least behind the scenes with staff. He is a brilliant man and engaging speaker, and very influential, so I have hesitated to believe anonymous criticisms. But at this point, between the blog post in defense of CJ immediately when the story broke, and this crude comment which is a slap at every single church with gentle and tender non authoritarian pastors, I have no interest in anything Mohler has to say, and I hope he sees the light eventually.
I realized I have now posted three times to this blog and have yet to introduce myself. My apologies.
I am a current CLC member. Why haven’t I left yet? Well, for one, I believe God has called me to stay for now. I also believe that I can have a bigger impact from the inside rather than the outside and I could not walk away in good conscience and let the status quo remain. Too much carnage that could be repeated on others.
I want you all to know that I am not alone in my efforts here. There are a bunch of us who totally get it and we are fighting for truth.
Why anonymous? Well, there are those at CLC who would use my posting her to try to marginalize me. That would reduce my effectiveness and I can’t allow that to happen.
Welcome, Sam McGee. That is a difficult place to be, hoping to foster change from within. I can understand how God could call people to bear through this for a season.
sgmnot wrote
sgmnote, thanks for the welcome. It is very hard. Some days are more difficult than others. I have taken steps to protect my family but some damage was already done and that makes it even harder.
Sam McGee: Can you clarify what you mean by “steps to protect my family” and what “damage was already done”? :scratch
sgmnot: I will try. There was a guy (don’t remember who) at one of the members’ meeting who said that he didn’t trust the pastors anymore and felt like he was standing between then and his family. That is where I am. So we have backed off in our participation in things. Basically, just the Sunday meeting and no one in my family there without me present. That is what I mean by taking steps to protect my family.
With regards to damage, no horrific stories like those on here about sexual abuse (thankfully). It is more the cultural stuff of shunning and ostracizing that has been very hurtful.
Pondering…
When was the last time you remember SGM or CLC leaving anything to the people to figure out for themselves?
Did it ever happen?
Sam,
I second what others have said. I respect your decision to stay and work for change from the inside.
Thanks, Kris, for you kind words.
Sorry – carrying over from the last thread:
@DB – Yes its totally worth mentioning the many notable scientists in islamic countries during what is sometimes referred to as the Islamic Golden Age. Among the achievements of scholars during this period were the development of spherical trigonometry into its modern form (greatly simplifying its practical application to calculate the phases of the moon), advances in optics, and advances in astronomy. Some of the scholars however were not considered true moslems, since they based a lot of their work on greek philosophy (especially on Aristotle)and study that had survived the arab invasion, and their view that reason was superior to revelation would have been considered heretical by moslem standards, and is not really attributed to the islamic religious system.
@Breezy – Science in ancient cultures long predates the bible, and comes about in many regions without the influence of christianity. The bible, is not nearly as old as human history. Assuming the books by Moses to be correct that the first parts were written during the time of the pharaohs, we know that there were scientific societies that predated his writings. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Sophocles, the Egyptians, native americans, aformentioned Muslims….I guess they had no scientific input? Hmph.I would say scienctific discovery progressed in spite of christianity, even having been stifled immensley during the dark ages by religious powers.
By scientific definition a circle is flat. A circle is not a sphere.
Isaiah also says (11:12), “he…shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” The four corners?? Do you take that to be scientifically literal as well? If one is to be interpreted literally why isn’t the other? Additionally, the actual hebrew translation of that verse you quote says “He sits enthroned above the vault of the earth…. He stretches out the heavens like a veil, spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Wow, the ancient Israelites actually figured out the great mystery that creatures could die if you bleed a lot! Other cultures must not have figured this out as well? Considering the number of wars and battles fought before and after the Torah was written, that observation is not even close to scientific foreknowledge. Either way, if the Bibles message was unambiguously “don’t bleed patients”, why did so many Christian physicians continue to use bleeding (and leeches) for hundreds of years after?
We could cross reference every verse with the actual original translation from the greek, syriac, aramaic and hebrew copies (which are still just copies not the originals), and back and forth over the literal or allegorical interpretations of every single passage, and then also discuss the evidence for the old testament being authored by a group of different individuals over several centuries, including the book of Isaiah, having multiple authors and an extensive editing process from the 5th century BC to the 8th century BC. with only the first 39 chapters written by Isaiah. But I suspect you would still be able to find a multitude of lines and passages to confirm what you already believe to be so, and I could find just as many to contradict it. The bible, like any ancient book can be re-interpereted to agree with history and science if you do so loosely and use passages as an ambiguous reference to what we now know.
Your correct that Augustine had an original aversion to persecution on non-christians, but with the intoxication of increased authority and power Augustine changed his view, and began to advocate fines, imprisonment, banishment and floggings as acceptable persecution for not being a christian. Sound familiar? The story of religion being married to power or authority, and then becoming destructive is an age old repeated cycle. Clearly combining christianity with power, politics, or authority has been to the detriment of human existence throughout history. Will we never learn?
Augustine said:
Augustine knew that Christianity was not compatible with science. For Christians, there was no need for new discoveries. According to him, everything that mankind would ever need to know about God, nature, or humanity was to be found in the Bible. The process of discovery that began in ancient Greece before Augustine had to come to an end with his declaration. Books were destroyed and knowledge was lost, marking the beginning of a dark age that would last for the next thousand years. Universities that taught science math and philosophy were abandoned after the fall of Rome and weren’t replaced until the reign of Charlemagne, where they were predominately established by the church to teach priests, but eventually expanded to teach law and medicine in addition to theology. But that doesn’t mean Christianity birthed university education or is responsible for the progress of science.
As for John Loftness’s quote in this article, he can take his “Zeal” and shove it up his A**. With zeal to help like his, who needs enemies?
Inthenickoftime, in response to your post #41
Pondering…
“Sometimes pastors in their zeal to help people, they have strongly suggested things they needed to leave it to people to figure out for themselves,” said John Loftness, a member of the church’s board.
When was the last time you remember SGM or CLC leaving anything to the people to figure out for themselves?
Did it ever happen?
Yeah, I suppose perhaps that is what John Loftness was thinking that made it appropriate to drop my 14 yr old daughter off at a county shelter, telling her someone would come back for her, while I was laying unconscious in the ICU At Montgomery General! I guess he figured he could “leave it for her to figure out”. Only, we will never know what he has to say about it, because he only wants to speak through a 3rd party,or have someone else speak for him and not openly to the “questioning public” away from “his boys” to protect him! And this is a man they want to lead a church? She has written him for 20 years, and he could not even give an appropriate response, but now he wants to be quoted in the Washington Post! There are words for people like him, btu I do believe they are against the terms of use, so I will refrain.
I thought the article was somewhat odd. Has anybody got any background info on Ms. Boorstein?
5 Years in PDI,
Mohler’s got his own “issues.” I predict it’s just a matter of time before the blogosphere exposes him. God’s doing some shakin’, that’s for sure. If I was one of the guys in the “neo-calvinism” movement I’d be making sure I kept my nose clean and my rear-end covered. (CJ and some of the others thought they had their rear ends covered pretty well.) It’s too late for some of them – too much evidence already floating around on the web. These guys sink themselves – they’re an arrogant bunch and can’t resist an audience.
Sam McGee,
I appreciate the care you expressed for your family and the desire to protect them. Not knowing the ages of your children, just a word of caution that even very young ones can pick up on shunning and ostracizing that can take years to unravel and heal from. My prayer for you is that you would continue to have wisdom and know when it is no longer worth it to put your family through that. Not an easy decision I’m sure. I am so sorry to hear your family has already been hurt by that.
5yearsib PDI, when you make a comment like “Mohler doesn’t have a clue”, you don’t effectively serve your cause. I too am disappointed by his defense of CJ, but he is still one of the brightest theologians in the country.
It is the broadstroke comments that cause readers to dismiss the blogs as foolish and miss other very provoking comments.
happymom wrote: even very young ones can pick up on shunning and ostracizing that can take years to unravel and heal from.
Hi, happymom. You are correct. Little kids pick up on this stuff. When all this broke a few months ago, we were talking about it in my family and my daughter related a story that happened some years ago and I thought was very telling.
She had come out of a music lesson and some kids who had grown up in the church were playing nearby under a tree. My daughter asked if she could play and they said, “No. It’s a club and you can’t be in it.” [hold on, it get’s better] My daughter stood there watching them play for a bit. One of the kids picked up a stick from the ground and held it in their outstretched hand. They called it the “golden stick” and said that if you broke it, you would be out of the club. The person with the stick would then go through a series of moves and try to not to break it.
So, two things. First, excluding my daughter. But, second, I could see how the “golden stick” might have been derived from these kids observing their parents walk through the unwritten rules of the church that when broken, result in shunning. Things like a wayward child, a troubled marriage or trying to participate with the in-crowd without prior approval. I was amazed (and a little creeped out) at how these little kids had translated and incorporated into their game what they had observed the grown-ups doing in the church. At least that was my interpretation. Maybe it was just a game…
Fortunately, my daughter was, like, whatever, and just moved on and played something else.
@ A Kindred Spirit
Information about Michelle Boorstein: http://www.getreligion.org/2011/04/5q-1-michelle-boorstein-at-her-post/