What’s Up With The Reformed Big Dogs?
September 18, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
Over the past few years, a frequent refrain I’ve heard is, “Sovereign Grace Ministries just can’t have the problems that you people are discussing here, or else guys like Mark Dever and Al Mohler would not continue to support C.J. Mahaney.” I originally wrote the following as a comment on the previous post, but it got to be so lengthy and involved that I decided to make it its own post. Here is my attempt at answering the question of, “What’s up with the Reformed Big Dogs? Why would they continue to exhibit such solidarity with C.J. Mahaney, even with all the voices crying out that Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. have a lot of serious issues?
————————–
I have put a LOT of thought into why the Reformed Big Dogs have so persistently promoted CJ and SGM. I mean, it’s nothing short of bizarre that these guys have seemed so blindly determined to keep supporting CJ, even as anyone who reads Brent Detwiler’s documents can quickly get a sense that CJ did NOT have anyone holding him accountable…which would mean that he could not actually be humble…which would then call into question everything else about CJ’s ministry persona.
It just doesn’t make sense that these men would risk their own credibility by jumping in – as Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, and Kevin DeYoung did – to assure the world that we don’t need to worry our pretty little heads about CJ. Why would they do that? I’ve thought a lot about this, and here are some possible explanations:
1. These RBDs have not really read Brent’s documents. Despite Al Mohler’s assertion that he had read the documents, I have a difficult time believing that even the most genius speed reader (as Mohler purports to be) would have been able to go through all 700-odd pages in the time that it took (less than a day or two?) for Mohler to make his first statement, when he said he’d read everything and basically pooh-poohed Brent’s charges as the ramblings of a disgruntled employee who didn’t like strong leadership. I know people reacted with shock and horror when I first suggested that maybe Mohler wasn’t being totally truthful about having slogged through all of Brent’s documentation like he claimed. I know a lot of people believe that Mohler is so above the rest of us that he would NEVER exaggerate or make a less-than-accurate statement.
But think about it realistically for a moment. No matter how smart he is and no matter what sort of speed reader, Mr. Mohler is undoubtedly a busy guy, as in CEO busy. Stuff gets put on a CEO’s schedule way in advance. The documents were released without much advance notice. While I’m not exactly a speed reader, I am VERY fast, and it took me probably two 8-hour days to read through everything. Let’s give Mohler superhuman reading ability and say that he would be able to make it through 700+ rather wordy pages in half the time that I did. Just how likely is it that this celebrity preacher/seminary president/author would have had a whole day cleared on his calendar when these documents made their surprise appearance?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. I think Mr. Mohler probably manages his time like any other celebrity CEO – with lots of help from assistants and interns. My guess is that some lackeys at Mohler’s office were probably assigned the task of going through the documents and preparing a bullet-point summary for their boss.
So maybe in all of this, the possibility does exist that none of the RBDs actually took the time to thoroughly read and digest everything that Brent compiled. After all, the many nuances of CJ’s tyrannical, entitled leadership, along with the worst of the accusations (blackmailing/coercing Larry T) were not all laid out in one easy-to-find place. Rather, they were tucked here and there, woven throughout hundreds of pages. Maybe the RBDs glanced at the documents, got the quick impression that Brent was a small-minded disgruntled employee, and decided to support their fellow T4G speaker.
It’s possible.
2. The RBDs have indeed read the documents but don’t see anything wrong with CJ’s behavior because they themselves operate in a similar fashion. Here’s another possibility…one that would mean that the RBDs are each at least somewhat corrupt in his own way. I don’t like this possibility, but when you think about the ego that would have to be involved to gain the level of celebrity these guys have attained in certain circles, I think we’re probably kidding ourselves when we assume that a great preacher or great author always translates into a man of exceptional godliness.
Actually, I think it’s interesting to ask ourselves why we’d even make such an assumption? Why would we think that anyone who is OK with all the self-promotion necessary to attain the book deals and speaking gigs would at the same time be the epitome of honorable, humble, and gentle?
Anyone who has ever tried it knows that writing books is hard work. For almost all authors, getting published requires a level of ambition and dogged persistence that frequently goes hand-in-hand with an equal level of self-importance. Likewise a powerful leadership position. A guy like Al Mohler didn’t become the dominant voice in an organization like the Southern Baptist Convention without a good deal of politicking and machinations. These men’s notoriety didn’t happen by accident! It happened because they sought it out…or at the very least, did nothing to stop their promoters or quit doing the things necessary to retain their celebrity, as per their promoters’ instructions.
I think it’s interesting that we expect so much out of Christian celebrities – that we assume so much about them. Why can’t we just be grateful that they wrote books or gave talks that blessed us, without ascribing to them some sort of superior spirituality, some degree of being closer to God and more filled with the Spirit than we are?
Why do we have such an impossible time making the logical connection between a pastor/author’s fame and power and the very real possibility that he might be a driven and self-important person behind the scenes who sees nothing amiss with the idea that a guy like CJ could behave like a bully who was accountable to no one?
3. The RBDs read the documents but because of a complete lack of knowledge of SGM’s foibles, they immediately conclude that Brent is just graceless and crazy. This is another very real possibility. If you don’t understand the basic assumptions about the Christian life that CJ established for his denomination family of churches, you won’t understand why Brent was so totally consumed with correcting CJ’s behavior. We’ve talked about this before, but the Cliff’s Notes version of SGM’s approach to our walk with God is that you’re saved because of what “the Savior” did for you on the cross, but apprehending that salvation requires a lifetime of thinking about sin and hunting down sin, both in your own heart and in the hearts of all those in your circle of accountability. The most important mark of a true Christian, in the SGM way of thinking (which CJ initiated and promoted), is a willingness to be “humbly” confronted by others about your own sins.
So in Brent’s way of thinking, CJ’s “unentreatability” – CJ’s lack of willingness to be confronted about his sin and to agree with others’ assessments of his sin – was basically a sign that CJ was not right with God. SGM’s unique approach to the “local” church, with its emphases on small-group accountability, openness, and confession of sins, was NOT embraced by its founder! That simply could not be right…and was a sign that the founder needed help.
That was the mindset that consumed Brent as he devoted something like a year of his time to proving his case about CJ’s “unentreatability.” If the RBDs don’t understand the SGM mindset about sin and confession, they won’t understand what fueled Brent’s efforts. Brent’s efforts instead will look like the obsession of a Pharisee intent on nitpicking his superior.
4. The RBDs do believe that CJ is guilty of some stuff, but they are confident (as CJ himself seems to be) that there is no actual “smoking gun,” and that CJ will ultimately prevail…and they (the RBDs) have too much to lose in terms of their own influence and celebrity and book sales in order to rock the boat. Again, this is NOT a happy or popular idea, but it fits what we know about how other political and business relationships work. We somehow think that business and politics don’t ever enter in to Christian endeavors…but we are naive.
And I am NOT saying that these guys are necessarily motivated by money in the crass way that initially comes to mind – the Jim and Tammy Faye, I-gotta-drive-me-a-Mercedes-Benz kind of way. I don’t think these guys necessarily have to exhibit a love of fancy cars, Rolexes, and custom-made Italian suits in order to be concerned about their bottom line. I think many of them have viewed their celebrity and influence as tools that God uses to promote the gospel…and it’s also possible that many of them have blurred the lines between the gospel of Jesus and their own ministry organizations, to where the dismaying thought of losing some of their ministry organizations’ influence feels to them like discrediting the gospel.
These are some possibilities for why the Reformed Big Dogs appear to place such a high priority on preserving their professional association with CJ Mahaney (rather than helping their ministry buddy confront his issues and make the necessary corrections), even in light of the very clear and obvious problems that exist in the organization CJ has created.
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
Those are some interesting theories… I’ll have to chew on it a little..
Just as a sidenote I could fairly easily have read the docs in the time Mohler said he did, I mean I pretty much read the first installment in about 45 minutes and that was not straight reading. :) AND I would assume he had them a LOT earlier than the rest of us. I may be wrong, but I CJ had been getting at least the first installment or two over a matter of months, so CJ may have been sharing this stuff with his close friends and getting their input. Just a thought I had.
I vote #2 based on my experiance with SGMers and their general attitude of “I am right and your evil for even thinking something bad of me”
Most people only know these big dogs through sermons online, writings, conferences, books, etc. They may have met them briefly at some event. So, they only know their “game face”. Their stage persona. Their “on” demeanor.
And yet, they will defend them to the death because they “think” they know them through these venues. They will tell you what great men of God they are.
It is the great delusion of celebrity Christendom. It is not unlike the delusion some have for movie stars.
Of course they supported CJ. They most likely chided him for not having more control over the situation.
Mohler knew about the emails from Brent to CJ long before they came out. The contents were no surprise to him or Dever.
It’s a combination of the four but primarily the fourth. Large Christian institutions are rife with politics and unhealthy personalities. There is no desire to risk the institution over something that is commom behavior at that level.
Speed reading 700 pages in a day is not unheard of at SBTS. Many of the students read 300-400 pages a night in the MDiv program. Mohler was a legend for sleeping very little and spending most of the night reading. He has probably slowed down some for health reasons. He is capable of reading the entire document cache that quickly.
The team of three forming the preliminary panel did read the docs, but concluded that CJ was OK:
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Findings-from-our-preliminary-panel.aspx
The seem to not know that CJ consulted a lawyer who told him/them not go through with blackmailing Larry. He wanted to act on it. Only legal warning stopped him.
I think they see the blogs as merely bitter, wounded people, and would not even be willing to read the sex abuse scandals.
If you didn’t live through it yourself, or know people who did, or have you eyes opened somehow by God Himself, then I guess you really do believe that “nor does he confess anything that is not the everyday experience of a Christian in a fallen world”. You think CJ is a typical fallen pastor with sin and weakness, just like everybody else. You just don’t grasp how much abnormal and non typical evil and abuse can happen at the hands of SGM leaders. You just don’t understand the two personalities and the charm of sociopaths. You don’t know about the control and the legalism and the harshness, all you know is that they spout a handful of correct doctrinal points.
It isn’t just SGM…what Driscoll is getting away with has been astonishing, with few big dogs besides MacArthur willing to give a (true apostolic!) rebuke.
I think that this is that happened. CJ knew that these documents would be released. So he went to the big dogs and made his case. He may have said not in so many words he would stop donating, if they did not back him. I’m sorry, I know Im jumping to conclusions,
but it would not surprise me if that is how it all went down.
OR
They just consider him a friend and just support him. I, however cannot. I can not support someone who has done wrong. I don’t care how good of a friend I have in someone. I cannot just let them slide. A true friend would rebuke you and tell you that you’re wrong.
Also, i would really love to know what someone else said on the last blog post. How would one not be a sgm church anymore? Would that be easy to get out of?
5years, the preliminary panel made their judgement based on CJ’s personal confessions, not on the documents themselves. The passage you quote says exactly that. They weren’t asked to make a judgement on the documents.
Joe, this line quoting the report “The most serious charge in the documents is that…..” would imply they did read them. But I don’t really know for sure what or how much they read.
Oh yeah, I missed that – I focused on the first bit.
I vote for #2.
When sales, attendance, sound bites, constant repackaging for relevance, spin, and other assorted nonsense become your day to day ministry existence, you have already missed the mark. The RBD’s live, breathe, and exist in a different world than we do.
There is no recognizable ministry or accountability in these guys lives, and what they see and touch on a daily basis is so different than the whole of what a Church or Gathering of Believers should be. I think these guys are useless to the kingdom by design. They are who and what they need to be in the context of their role as the head of a multi-national not for profit/but still for a type of hidden profit religious based enterprise.
Not really trying to dump on the RBD’s, as long as Americans crave froward thinking/ not your parents/big corporate church, they will continue to get institutions that have big corporate issues.
No church may be perfect, but the scale at which these guys can fail and take down tens of thousands of people is staggering. (So much different than ol Zeeke getting sticky fingers with the collection plate, or the ladies of the congregation wanting bingo type of “problems” most churches “suffer” from.) The CEO/Pastor/RBD is just one of the trappings that comes with the world recognized ministry.
So I say, #2
Hey Hey Hey. What are you all expecting from these guys? Do you really expect that any of them are sitting around, like you are, checking these blogs out every day, obsessing over ever bit of minutia relevant to the SGM sick-o-verse? Guys…they have lives. They are all consumed with the pressures of their own denominations, churches and families…assuredly with many problems of their own. Your problems, grievances and frustrations aren’t on their radars in the way you want. They cognitively know that SGM is a mess, but its not their mess to jump into. Its SGM’s. Frankly, SGM is a retarded, backward and obsessive system of thinking. Anyone associated with it will in some way be affected if not damaged. Brent Detwiler is a victim of it – he is also a creature of it and his very documentation/blog approach is a living example of the type of sin-hunting “creature”that SGM produces. He’s a victim (Im sad for him) and a creature. Run away from it all. As for the RBD…they love CJ because he’s a fun guy and a great preacher. But they don’t know where to start with this crazy cult he started. It fits no paradigms that they are used to. They just dont know what to do with it. Its a disaster, a failure, an embarrassment. As someone who almost became a SGM pastor in 2006 all I can say is “thank you Lord” that I was sparred the stigma of this sinking ship. Guys – forget about the rest of the RBD and any other christian leader. SGM has to clean up its own house or go down with the ship. I am very very angry right now with CJ. He has pulled the ultimate SGM trick. He’s managed to turn this fiasco into a problem between him and Josh Harris, with the emphasis on the need for reconciliation between them. Very crafty. I wish Josh would just walk away from these poisonous guys (CJ, Dave Harvey, etc). He’s worth salvaging.
@tomcov #13: +1 great post. That was very well said.
Good analysis, Kris; well worth pondering for a bit. However, as you yourself will no doubt agree, who the RBDs are, how they think, and what they think of C.J. and SGM is all essentially immaterial to what Survivors has been and is about (from my two-month exposure). Apart from legal intervention (and there might be a basis for that eventually if charges are brought that are actionable — not simply leaders/pastors made bad decisions or “I was told to find another church,” etc., but serious infractions of the law), the House of SGM must fix itself from the inside (or rebuild after it has imploded). The only way “the people” can have a voice in what comes down ultimately is to “storm the gates” by a) leaving and/or b) withholding finances. (I’m not prescribing anything, but I do speak from extensive research in the past yielding knowledge of the rise and fall of certain churches, denominations, and/or movements.) A lot of history shows that only when an entrenched corporate leadership goes broke will steps be taken to try to salvage the machinery. If people stay and give support ($$), the show goes on.
Why is the Crystal Cathedral bankrupt? Why did nepotism and cover-up almost cause ORU to collapse (and please don’t think it wasn’t a close call). Bringing in Mark Rutland was an inspired move — he is not family and is simply a righteous man and good administrator. An early 20th-century Fundamentalist evangelist named John R. Rice almost caused big portions of the SBC Sunday School materials publishing agency in Nashville to go broke, as he proved that liberal thinking was replacing the simplicity of the gospel in the lessons, often written by “advanced” (read: unbelieving) seminary professors, and his battle cry in his paper, The Sword of the Lord, was “Wake up, Baptists! Save your money! You are supporting unbelief! Stop giving to the denominational budget, the ‘Coopertative Program'”! (This global budget was essentially a mandatory support tool of all the agencies, approved schools, etc., of the Convention and hid many areas where solid biblical belief was fading and being replaced by doctrines that the grass-roots constituency did not believe or want.)
People listened. Pastors listened. Check the history if you are in doubt. Hundreds of churches started designating funds to the schools and agencies they believed in (or to foreign missions through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering). Other hundreds started using Gospel Light or Scripture Press or David Cook SS materials. SBC leaders were going berserk. I won’t continue the history lesson (forgive me if this is tedious), but eventually conservative leadership got control of the strings that had to be pulled to bring conservative trustees onto the school boards and other Convention agencies, etc., and the rest is history — which included the emergence of Albert Mohler, who is, regardless of anyone’s thought here of him as a pro-Mahaney RBD, a vitally important breath of fresh air and conservative thought to the number-one SBC seminary at Louisville.
I won’t continue this — no doubt too long. But, FWIW, I will write again to offer a brief analysis of why — in a Detwiler-Mahaney standoff — the RBDs have little choice but to choose C.J., regardless of how revealing and potentially damning and damaging the Documents are or can be. More to come; I believe it will make sense, though not my opinion as to how the RBDs should respond — but will not.
tomcov #13 wrote —
But obviously not enough of a disaster, failure or embarrassment to limit or temporarily cut our denomination’s up-front participation at jointly-sponsored church planting conferences or T4G 2012.
I agree with most of tomcov’s analysis (except for the unfortunate insinuation that because we care about SGM’s “minutia,” we somehow don’t have lives!). But I do think that he’s missed something rather significant, the whole reason why I got to writing this post in the first place.
And that’s this: the fact is that these guys HAVE thrown their own considerable credibility behind CJ. They HAVE waded into SGM’s mess through this very action.
It’s one thing for them to “have lives” and therefore stay out of SGM’s issues. But they have not done that. Through their various statements, they have gone on the record in support of CJ. That was their mistake, and that is why, YES – I do indeed expect more of these guys!
I’ve always been intrigued, as a SGM member and someone with a love of history, as to the original impetus for the creation of Together for the Gospel (T4G) and our involvement as a denomination. One can “reverse-engineer” from the 2006 T4G document as to a few of the possible reasons (e.g. protection of conservative evangelicalism from egalitarianism, creeping liberalism, the New Perspective on Paul and/or the expansion of “emergent” thought), but I’ve never read/seen anything that, flat-out, answers the nitty-gritty “who” and “why” questions. Not to move this conversation into the egalitarian/complementarian debate, but I tried some “reverse-engineering” back in October ’09 on a different group blog:
It would strike a great note for new “transparency” if someone in the know wrote up a historical something-or-other explaining the who, what, where, when and why of our denomination’s associations with other conservative evangelical parachurch organizations. What happened circa 2004-2005 that made Mohler, Mahaney, Dever and Duncan decide that the time was ripe for a regular conference? T4G was registered in March 2006 in Washington DC using CHBC’s physical address — was this because it was easier to do it that way, or does it mean that the idea started with Dever in the first place? I’m not trying to be Nixon/Woodward/Bernstein about this — “What was known, and when was it known,” but, again — as someone who is part of SGM and is interested in, for lack of a better term, the “geopolitics” of American conservative evangelicalism — there is little public record to go on for something that has, over the last seven years, been a core component of the New Calvinism movement.
Sorry, the last sentence should have read, “over the last five years,” as T4G started in 2006.
Kris, while you and others here ponder the reason behind the support of the Reformed Big Dawgs, I thought I’d make my virgin post here to give my 2 cents on today’s sermon and some observations at CLC.
Robin Boisvert preached and in my opinion along with my husband’s what he did not say was as important and what he did say. My notes from the sermon included my thoughts shown below in parantheses.
His message was from 2 Peter 3:14-18 and entitled “The Stability of our Times” or How to Have Stability in an Unstable World. In his synopsis of this book of the Bible he said, “Peter was concerned about those he was writing to…false teachers (hmmm… is he warning us about one in our midst?) were abounding… he was concerned” “Bad theology can kill you spiritually.” (big warning for CLC folks to think for themselves and see what the scriptures say NOT man)
He then went on to speak about Peter being an servant (as opposed to CJ) and an apostle (did CJ ever claim to be a servant AND an apostle or just an Apostle?) and the fact that Peter does not pull rank (as CJ does or is still trying to do). He defined an apostle as one who is sent on a mission, a herald for the King, one to bring the message of the gospel. (is this definition outlined so CLC folks will see what an apostle is NOT?)
He described a farewell discourse by a great man and how he would address his friends with words of things to remember when he is gone, especially warning them not to slip away from the gospel. (Who’s leaving now or is this how CJ should be addressing SGM/CLC as he departs) The problems of churches will not prevail but God will prevail. (This CJ drama will be nothing but a distant memory soon)
Robin spoke of our equality as believers and how we’re equally loved, judged, forgiven, etc. (stressing equality!)
Robin did not verbally make any analogies to what’s currently happening in the church or SGM, but I sure had a hard time listening without making them mentally along with my notes.
At the end of the message Josh again stressed our equality as believers. I can’t quote word for word but he said if you’re a new Christian don’t compare yourself to other Christians who might pray beautiful flowery prayers or “professionl” Christians. He then gave a benediction, the second one recently we remembered hearing. This is not usual, and I thought it was interesting he read it from scripture, leading the congregation to see it’s not his/man’s words but the inerrant word of God.
All the while during the sermon I saw analogies or sharp contrasts to CJ and by the time we made it to the car and began discussing the sermon my husband and I agreed we (CLC members) were being primed for a SGM pull-out.
Another key observation by my astute husband was all the super-sized family portraits of all the CLC pastors are no longer hanging in the lobby. Hmmmm…. is this so as pastors leave it won’t be so obvious when holes occur among the smiling families?
OK, go back to discussing the RBDs and why they’ve got CJ’s back. I don’t get it either, but to be honest I’m not really sure I care.
BTW, I love reading here and enjoy the freedom to think and ponder the whole mess. :new (new poster/old reader)
Happiola,
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the site! I appreciate the summary of today’s message at CLC. Interesting times, that’s for sure.
Tomcov-loved your post!
Interesting question Oz. Not sure we’ll ever find out the answer.
About the male leadership thing, I’d say the way it is listed here makes it clearly an essential. That’s standard with the Reformed, far as I know.
http://t4g.org/about/affirmations-and-denials-2/
Didja notice this?
“We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful disciple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel Church.”
Well, I guess that smacks quite a few great missionaries in history, who went alone to foreign fields, out of the faithful disciple category. No wonder SGM can’t talk about global missions. How many guys ( and gals) gave their whole life to win the lost in places where no congregation existed? John Paton, David Brainerd- the list goes on and on and on.
Happiola #20: “my husband and I agreed we (CLC members) were being primed for a SGM pull-out.”
There seems to be discussion of this at CLC and a strong support for this move from the members. My question is how long will it take and how will it be executed? I figured this was going to happen as soon as Chesemore and Bradshaw decided to resign their positions at CLC. The timeline and execution of this will be interesting. I think many at CLC, pastors and members alike, are really opening their eyes to the many problems that were created by the Shepherding approach that CJ so largely advocated (in addition to his dismissing of mental health professionals for many years). They do not want to continue because they have heard these stories, brought in large part by the blogs and people are now speaking out more about these things that happened for so long.
As for why the RBDs like CJ I’m not quite sure. My gut tells me that it may have something to do with the advocacy for Complementarian ideas within the Reformed circles, which CJ did largely push for in SGM. After all these are the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” people who so largely advocate for the complementarian approach. CJ, along with his wife, did largely stress the importance of gender roles and “Biblical womahood” throughout his “reign”.
CJ has given the RBD’s big inroads with the charismatic and home schooling groups. Those are two very large constituencies that, for historical reasons, the other RBD’s had few connections with. Oh, and the money didn’t hurt, either.
Kris, in #17 you state a conviction with which most here, if not everyone, will want to agree:
“Through their various statements, they have gone on the record in support of CJ. That was their mistake, and that is why, YES – I do indeed expect more of these guys!”
I will, for a moment, play devil’s advocate. I expect to be torn apart by the greater experience and logic and debate skills you and others possess that I don’t, but let’s see if I can make a case that makes sense. I will not “defend” my thoughts beyond this post. so I’m not in anyway desiring to redirect the thread. I will start by asking you this: what is the “more” you were or are expecting from “these guys”? If it was/is an indictment of CJ, I cannot see — based solely on the “evidence” — that such an expectation is realistic. I’ll state why.
You posit an opinion that it was a “mistake” for the RBDs to have gone on record in support of CJ, but isn’t that more of a wish than a point that can be proven? What, if anything, do the RBDs owe to Brent and to his charges in the Documents (and to Survivors posters) that would outweigh their solid (even it tainted) relationship to CJ — and perhaps to the SGM brain trust?
I guess we can assume that the RBDs do not know Brent. (BTW, I have known Brent as a personal friend for about 30 years — casually, to be sure, and with years and miles of distance between our visits. And when I wrote to him and expressed my full support and admiration for what he had done in compiling his documented record, he knew at once who I was and responded warmly.) So even if Dr. Mohler and the others read every word — yet not knowing the history and not knowing Brent or his deep-seated convictions and motivation — he (Brent) doesn’t come off in the documents as the calm, polished, objective friend who loves CJ and SGM, as he states. I think if we are candid and honest with ourselves, there is at times and in places a strident tone — well documented, mind you, and with personal confession of his own shortcomings, yet with sufficient basis of being hurried and careless with some of the syntax, etc., to appear to be going after CJ as a personal vendetta.
Every writer needs an editor, and it doesn’t appear that the documents have been carefully edited. I’m not nitpicking, but there is room for those looking for things to criticize to question Brent’s scholarship — perhaps his credentials. In fact, when Brent decided to begin blogging, I wrote him again, privately, and urged him to have someone else read his stuff and offer at least a modicum of editing. Whether he thought that was a good idea, I don’t know.
My point — and I’ll wrap up — is that CJ is the entity the RBDs know and flow with. Brent is an entity they do not know; they feel no allegiance or trust toward him. He could be interpreted as a gadfly, a malcontent, someone angry and with a vengeful motive. I think that would be a shallow, incomplete and terribly wrong assessment. But why would we or should be expect more from the RBDs given what they had to go on?
I’m not commenting on the cushy and mutually beneficial ties that might be valuable to all of them to support CJ 100 percent. But I am suggesting that what Brent presented would have required of these men a lot more investigation, interviewing, corroboration, and assurance they were being asked to evaluate that many pages of “truth” rather than mere criticism in response to Brent’s own obvious mistreatment — wounds at the hands of former friends and trusted allies. In other words, they would have had to make themselves a significant part of the process, and I’m guessing that both time and a solid and trusting relationship with CJ precluded that. I can’t see that such was their job — and was it actually possible for men with their level of responsibilities, respectively?
Finally, do you (anyone involved) really care what the RBDs think, say or do? I think Brent (and some of those writing here) have nailed it when saying that this is a local church issue, and the key for CLC to move forward is to act as a local church should act in helping to bring a recalcitrant member to repentance and disciplined restored fellowship. Ultimately, if they are to follow a biblical pattern, they will not let CJ call the shots. Josh and his fellow pastors/elders will have to do what their jobs demand — in the words of the now nearly archaic KJV, “Quit you like men. Be strong. . .” The pastors should not let themselves be conned. Let CJ decide if he will ultimately keep dissing his church and the pastors of his church. That will be far more powerful a testimony than any concern about what his RBD colleagues and peers think.
Friendly makes good observations.
Friendly Observer asked,
I don’t think the RBDs owe anyone anything. That’s my point.
They don’t “owe” the people here anything. But likewise, they don’t “owe” their friend CJ their endorsement, either.
Barring the reasons I outlined in my post, it would have made far greater sense for these men to withhold any sort of statement. Except for the fact that they share a stage with CJ and make money off of conference fees and book sales (and books that need endorsements, of course), they did not need to go on the record with support for their pal. It would have been far wiser for them to sit back and let the investigation take its course and the organization to address its own problems.
Again, I’ve never expected any of the RBDs to “do” anything to help the survivors. But at the same time, they really have no business promoting CJ and SGM. Their continued endorsement of SGM and CJ, especially now, when there are obvious issues that need resolution, just seems very irresponsible. And unfathomable, unless there’s some deeper self-serving level of motivation at work.
Welcome Happiola! Insightful comments, thanks for sharing.
The changes occurring in CLC at the top in word (such as emphasizing the equality of believers) and deed (removal of the family portraits) reflect to me baby steps of Josh and the pastors trying to de-emphasize areas that got out of hand and are now seen as distractions especially since so many people are more freely discussing their concerns. In the past members were more ignorant and more silent about these things but now there is less fear, I believe in part due to these blogs and that many people’s eyes are beginning to open. In no way am I convinced that CLC is taking steps to pull out of SGM. The leaders and their relationships are too closely interwoven. The Mahaney sons-in-law may be gone but the pastors who remain, dare I say even Josh, still love CJ though they may be in strong disagreement with him now. SGM sprung out of CLC and there is too much at stake to pull apart, all the books, music, conferences, and such benefit both sets of men. I dunno, I’m just not seeing any indications from the inner circle that CLC would pull out of SGM, but more so that the pastors genuinely desire change and as the largest church of SGM may see themselves in a position to influence and effect reform starting with themselves such as the changes you noticed today.
#28 -I agree with Blue Sky. I also don’t think clc will pull out of sgm. I don’t think Josh would make such a move in this amount of time. I may be wrong though, I was not at clc. The reason I say this is because I’m always jumping to conclusions and over looking something. I really believe Josh is now at a point where he wants to be honest and not hide anything. Thats just my two cents.
Also, with the topic of the RBD’s maybe this is not affecting their income. Maybe if people who are part of their denomination start to not tithe because of this mess and their support, then maybe they would not be so supportive.
What? Did I just read that CLC had super sized family pastor posters?!?You mean in a main area? Not just in their personal offices?
That is really weird you know.
Patti
There were framed family portraits of each of the pastors with their families. They weren’t posters. :o) It was mainly so the members could have a face for the pastors, wives and their children. I never thought it weird before…maybe I should have.
Prediction: By the first snowfall of winter Josh will no longer be on staff at CLC. No way will CJ allow “his church” to leave the cult. That would cause a crescendo of affiliated churches abandoning SGM. Within a few weeks you will begin to hear about Josh’s sins in failure to properly protect the church from descension and gossip BLA BLA BLA.
This is getting so predictable that it’s like being home sick with the flu and watching Life Time television. In between the vomiting & diarrhea you have managed to figure out what will happen next and find yourself asking, ” have I seen this before, I should be sleeping”.
Yep you have seen it before folks, it’s a circus and CJ wants to be the whole show. One of his idiot son n laws will be the next pastor at CLC.
In regard to Ashburn: I have known Brain Gash since the early 80’s. We were in the singles ministry at Christian Fellowship church many years ago. Although I honestly can’t see him pastoring, teaching or counseling I will say he is an honorable man of great integerity that wants to do the right thing. I’m shocked and saddened that he got sucked up in the SGM cult. Last I heard he was at this little church in Fairlakes, Community Bible church. It has been a struggling church for it’s entire 20 year history with a revolving door membership and a new pastor every few years. They still meet in the Afcea building in an auditorium that holds maybe 80 people. Brain didn’t pastor the church but was very involved there.
Brain, if your reading this why don’t you give Kelly S. a call and get together over lunch. He has been in several church situations which may give him some insight into your current situation. You have a precious family and I don’t want to see you guys get hurt. Please consider getting away from Sovergn Grace. In case you don’t know Kelly is back in the area and on staff at Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Va. Yep Gary’s church. Take care.
@current CLC Member #32: That strikes me as off. Why would they need a family portrait so that people know who the pastor and his family are? Shouldn’t the pastor be mingling and fellowshipping with all the members of the congregation on a regular basis? The family portrait should be totally redundant and unnecessary.
@everyone else – I agree that the RBD’s should have sat this out and let SGM deal with their own problems. I wonder if any of them have ever challenged CJ on SGM’s polity like that blog post I linked in the last thread did. Didn’t T4G arise out of their theology discussions originally or am i misremembering? Or do they just assume SGM polity is reformed when they don’t know for real? I think tomcov’s post earlier brought up some great points but I am wondering about this.
@current CLC Member #32: my perspective on the over-sized portraits, in case it helps although I could be off base, is that they always seemed a bit narcissistic and awkwardly out of place in a church, where the emphasis is supposed to be on Jesus. I understand your point about seeing the pastors/families faces, especially when there were like 20 of them, but it still felt strange. The other strange part is that I always felt like they were showing us what “the perfect family” looked like, which was reinforced to me because almost the first thing everyone asked us during the meet and greet part of service, was how many kids we have and where we met (so many people said “we met at church” as though it was a badge of honor). Like I said, I could be off base so my apologies if I am, but those portraits were very uncomfortable to us as people assessing the church and whether we wanted to join.
A while back someone was posting summaries of the CLC weekly member meetings. Has there been an ongoing series of weekly meetings? What is coming out there?
The mention of the pastor portraits in the lobby of CLC has somehow made me remember something. And what I’m remembering is very hazy, just a wisp of a recollection, so maybe some of you can help me out.
I seem to recall that there was a discussion here once about “serving your church” and “serving your pastors” – like either it was something that got stated from the pulpit as though it were an important part of the Christian’s relationship with church, or else it was a deeply held assumption about what it means to “serve” as a Christian.
I’m searching through the comments but haven’t been able to find what I think I’m remembering…but my “search” function isn’t very efficient. My memory might be hazy, or else maybe this concept came up in conjunction with CJ’s “Happiest Place” sermon, where the whole “Be a joy to pastor” thing was taught – how you’re supposed to go to your pastors and ask them if you’re a “joy to pastor.”
At any rate, whether the “serve your pastor” thing has been taught explicitly, or if it’s just been implied through telling people they need to “be a joy to pastor,” I think the pastors’ family portraits in CLC’s lobby are kind of a symptom that in SGM thinking, a person’s relationship to a church has a lot to do with his relationships with his pastors.
Well, my opinion, for what it’s worth – when I read about the family portraits – was: you’ve GOT to be kidding me. That’s a bit STRANGE. That’s what a church directory is for.
OK, I went back and searched again, and yes, there indeed was a discussion about the SGM teaching that we need to “serve our pastors.”
This was apparently stated by CJ in a teaching:
(It was quoted by Unassimilated back in early June of this year.)
I don’t know if I agree with you Andy the Picketer on your prediction.
The feel we get at CLC is that lots of folks are supporting Josh and plan on staying if CJ stays out, and leaving if he’s back at the helm. We’re currently assessing and in this camp. We don’t have the starry-eyed Kool-Aide infatuation with CJ which some folks do.
When CJ preaches it creeps me out. The rocking, the repeated words/phrases/speech patterns, the unusually long times of silence between statements, the tears, or no tears during the apology, oh and the way he allows a crowd to go on and on when he’s introduced. Yep, I’ve heard the Jude tour and was not impressed.
Regarding the poster-sized family portraits of the perfect pastors, their wives, and all their perfect pks, you do need to see the photos because unless you see a pastor preaching or teaching a class you don’t know who they are unless you’re an old-timer. These guys are not hanging out in the lobby chattin’ up the brethren.
I’ve observed CJ and his family, where they’ve sat in church, etc. over the years and noticed they high-tailed it out of the service as soon as it ended. I don’t think I’ve ever seen CJ in the lobby after services. I have noticed Josh spending more time talking to folks or at least making an effort to be with the members before and after the service.
Another observation: Less if any SGM music.
Question: What’s happening with CJ’s other son in law? Isn’t he also a pastor in SGM? I thought he was at Ashburn. If he is still a SGM pastor I think it’s very telling relationally why he wouldn’t jump ship with the otha’ brothas’.
Signed- staying and observing (for now)
I am thinking of pictures in the halls of the County Buildings, of judges, etc. Aren’t they something like an 8X10, or an 11X14 size? I could see a wall devoted to “meet your pastors” perhaps, with 8X10 pics maybe, but wouldn’t it be better to be “known” and “recognized” not by your picture but by your actions in the church? What difference does it make what their kids look like, or their wife until you meet them? I have always been impressed when I am at a church, or business, and I find out that a person who was relating to me in an ordinary, but somewhat personal way was actually the owner, or pastor-someone ‘of importance’, who keeps themselves among the ‘ordinary’. Isn’t that what Jesus Himself did?
Waiting/deciding, I will admit that I am ‘guilty” of asking people questions like family size, etc, not because it makes a difference in their worth at all, but simply looking for a ‘common ground’, or a point to carry a conversation further. When someone tells me they are from a large family, I always ask next, “Where did you fall in that line of children?” I ask that not because one child is more important, but because it gives me a point of reference to understand, or relate to them better. Kind of like, “Where did you grow up?” kind of questions. I am not sure it is the asking of the questions, but more, perhaps, their response to the answer that would be more “telling”. I will admit, there are a lot of other “points of reference” to begin a conversation with, though. Those questions possibly reflect what is most important to them.
Once upon a time, it was the pastors were serving God by serving his church. :(
Kris, my sense of it largely rests with #1. That is, the Det-docs have not been read closely or thoroughly.
1. Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan commented very early…within the first week or two. Al was quoted by Ms. Boorstein recently, but not Ligon, Trueman, Ortlund or DeYoung. My sense of Al and Ligon is they just don’t understand the details of a close reading. TomCov #13 has a partial handle on it–they aren’t sitting around reading these things. I never expected very much from the gadfly Tim Challies and he didn’t disappoint with his thin post. So, Kris, I think you have the sense of it with #1.
Also, at scribd.com, only 25K reads of the first document. The other six have 5-7K, significantly less.
Also, there siginificant weight in #3. For an outsider, Al and Ligon, they don’t understand the SGM culture and foibles. Upon my first read of the Det-docs, it sounded like a disgruntled, if not angry, ex-exployee of SGM. Yes, a detailed document, but by a Whistleblower offering payback. Who was Brent Detwiler? What stuck out in the first read was the Tomczak-coercion and legal involvement. I don’t think Al and Ligon went much further than this scribe did. Yet, and here’s their erro, “they spoke publicly.” That was hubristic and unscholarly by both men. Ya’ just can’t interpret a serious document like that without the context. They should have learned the background, context and timelines.
Ergo, my sense, then, is #1 and #3.
As an aside, nothing from Piper, Colin Hansen, Driscoll, Chandler, or MacArthur. Nothing more, publicly, from Duncan. Nor DeYoung, Trueman, or Ortlund. I have a few connections to Trueman’s world and made some hefty–very, very hefty and very, very open–challenges about and to Trueman and Duncan commenting on things they didn’t understand or research. I heavily criticized them for their absence of scholarship (a painful thing to be told when you have PhDs and have written books). Duncan will go underground. Trueman’s “qualified” endorsed of CJ was a “scholarly qualification” that told readers that he, Trueman, was so limited as to be useless. I suspect few men will rise to speak favourably at this point…other than the noisy Al Mohler.
But back on point, methinks it’s #1 and #3.
Andy the Picketer,
Very astute. If one looks at the long history of guys who have pissed off CJ and what comes of them, your predictions are exactly correct.
This time, THIS time, “things are different.” This is what we are all hoping for and what the current members of CLC are holding fast to.
There are a couple differences:
1. CJ is still CJ and Josh has pissed him off probably worse than anyone before him. He had his dossier of offenses against Josh completed in under 2 months of the poop hitting the fan.
2 The CLC polity cannot possibly change fast enough. Even if those guys WERE changing polity, it’s too late. CJ is already making very decisive moves. If CLC had a proper “elder” led government, none of this could happen. If CLC’s senior pastor weren’t as the president, he wouldnt be the only one in trouble right now.
3. This is CJ’s baby. CLC is his church. What more reason to get it back?
Andy, based on history and based on CJ and based on CLC’s government, I tend to agree with what you’re saying.
The only reason I could see CJ not getting rid of Josh is if he realizes how many people will leave CLC if that happens. And money does talk. With a multi-million dollar mortgage and a bunch of fat pastor paychecks, how many people need to tithe to CLC in order to keep it afloat? I don’t know.
I’m sad to say that so far, it’s playing out like it has numerous times already.
Sid
The pastor portraits are posters…they were originally some kind of posters, hung by fishing-line like strings from the ceiling…they were not yet framed, nor were all of them up, when we left in ’07.
Remember, Brent insisted/insists on CJ’s response in writing…there is a reason for that. CJ has a sharp tongue, a gift, if you will, of persuasion with his tongue. That Brent knows does not operate in writing. I would therefore submit, CJ’s verbal gift of persuasion is a huge factor in the RBD’s position. His gift of persuasion is also the reason for the in law boys resisgnation. He had/has their ear, and in their youthful inexperience, they are persuaded.
“not going back either” –
I agree with you about CJ’s gift of spoken persuasion. When we read CJ’s actual words in a sermon transcript, it’s so much easier to cut through the fog and see the lack of depth, the odd repetition, the emotional manipulation, and the way he twists scripture and plucks verses out of context.
I’m a member of CHBC and am fascinated by all this discussion ever since our pastor, Mark Dever, became so involved. I’m not interested in speculation about why Dever seems to be standing so strongly behind CJ, but I can report what is going on at CHBC. Dever announced yesterday that CJ will be preaching the morning sermon this coming Sunday. Also, he has twice defended CJ publicly during member meetings, voicing his opposition to Josh Harris’s decision to ask CJ to step down and telling the congregation that we shouldn’t read Brent’s expose because it is not “edifying.” He told us we needed to receive CJ and Carolyn with open arms and be continuously in prayer for them as they undergo what he sees as completely false accusations. When asked if this incident would have any impact on CJ’s involvement with T4G next year, he said “absolutely not.”
CHBC Member –
Welcome. Thanks for joining us.
I know you say you’re not interested in speculation about why your pastor is so thoroughly supporting CJ, but I would dearly love to know your personal opinion. As someone who is there at CHBC and familiar with Mr. Dever, do you have any ideas about what might be going on?
friendly observer #25….
….the one comment on your thinking I would make is that it could be a fair defense of the guys who wrote immediate positive defenses of CJ, ie Mohler and Duncan.
However, once you have the hand picked golden boy protege Josh, who first says that the problems are sustemic and God is trying to deal with the entire organization, and then secondly resigns from the SGM board, well, any defenses after that seem to me to be arrogant and ignorant, unless they called and spoke directly to Josh and heard what Josh had to say and decided they didn’t agree with Josh but took CJs side. Was there any mention by Challies of talking to Josh, or by Larry Moe and Curley’s initial panel review? No.
Josh is CJ’s son, like Timothy to Paul (bad analogy I know, Paul was a true apostle). Yes, a son can seem like a real jerk (Franky Schaeffer writing of his fallible parents) but Josh does NOT come off that way at all. Not one bit. He comes off like somebody realistic and burdened, and his thoughts are valid- more than Brent or anyone else- because of his intitmate and long mentored relationship with CJ. And a few big dogs seem to be throwing Josh under the bus.
Andy the Picketer:
CFC, huh? Route 7 or Loudoun? We were involved there beginning in ’82.