Survivors Rewind: “Why Small Groups?”
September 23, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
While writing a comment for the previous post, I got to thinking about how strange it is that – in light of Sovereign Grace Ministries churches’ extreme emphases on the importance of one’s commitment, come hell or high water, to the “local” church, and on the importance of “true biblical fellowship” in one’s small group – C.J. Mahaney and his sons-in-law have bailed on their commitment to Covenant Life Church, their own “local” church. (I tend to put the word “local” in quotation marks because geographical closeness to one’s residence, one’s community, has little to do with how SGM defines what the “‘local’ church” means. For instance, it’s my understanding that Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not particularly “local” to the Mahaney family, who are having to commute something like 30 miles to attend.)
Anyway, as I was trying to articulate why it’s so hypocritical for the Mahaney guys to leave Covenant Life Church at this particular juncture, I remembered an old post, about C.J.’s book, Why Small Groups? As I was re-reading that post, it struck me that maybe some of our newer readers here might never have seen it back when it was published in 2009. So, we’re going to do what I’m calling a “Survivors Rewind.” Here we go…
————————–
Why Small Groups?
(originally posted back in August of 2009)
A new commenter (“Pilgrim”) posted the following the other day:
I am slightly troubled that a number families that have recently left SGM have begun attending our current church. Though I think it’s great that they have gotten out, I feel that they have not had much time to “deprogram,” and they tend to group together (naturally enough). Anything that smacks of PDI/SGM makes me very uncomfortable. Also, one very nice former PDI/SGM couple is in our small group. The husband suggested that we all read the book Why Small Groups?. I have never read it, but C.J Mahaney is the author. I would not invest any money in supporting SGM, and so will definitely not be buying the book. Is anyone familiar with it? So far, our group has not decided whether we will study it or not. The rest of the group is probably not familiar with PDI/SGM or C.J. Mahaney. (Anyone remember the season when he asked everyone to call him Charles?) Anyway, my tendency is to run from anything PDI/SGM (even the people), but I want to be open to what God wants. I am almost certain that I will not be reading this book, but also don’t want to offend this nice couple. Any suggestions? I honestly feel that even if the book is Biblically sound, I don’t want to read anything by C.J. Mahaney (for soooooo many reasons). Any suggestions?
Another commenter, “Amanda,” posted a link where this book can be downloaded for free. Since I’d not read Why Small Groups? either, I decided to check it out.
After making my way through the first chapter, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the implications of this book, particularly as they would play out in the culture of Sovereign Grace churches. Below, I’m going to share some of my off-the-cuff thoughts about parts of Chapter 1. I invite those of you who have read the book and/or have experienced small groups within SGM to respond as well.
What do YOU think of C.J. Mahaney’s ideas about the role small groups play in one’s Christian growth?
————————
Chapter 1 opens with an anecdote about fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, with the point being that we need to know “God’s purpose” for small groups. In what seems like a sort of explanation for why he wrote his own book on the subject, C.J. Mahaney then goes on to say,
For lack of a biblical purpose and mandate, many small groups have floundered. Other groups have been seriously handicapped by the lack of good resources available. It is no exaggeration to say that most popular books and guides dealing with the topic of small groups are shockingly deficient in sound doctrine. I don’t say this lightly. I have reviewed them for years, and have found a greater emphasis on modern psychology and sociology than on thorough, biblical theology.
Most of these materials are well-produced. They feature numerous thought-provoking questions and illustrations. Undoubtedly the publishers want to help Christians grow. But without solid biblical content, these materials can actually hinder God’s intentions for us as individuals and groups.
What immediately struck me as interesting is that after such an introduction – one in which he basically disses all the other books on the subject for not giving sound biblical doctrine for the creation of structured and regulated small groups – Mahaney himself never actually gives any scriptural backing for the idea that churches need to assign folks to such groups and require members to meet regularly in them.
He doesn’t offer up any passages from the Bible to back up the creation of small groups because there is nothing IN the Bible about this subject. Nowhere in the New Testament do we read instructions about the nuts and bolts of building friendships and relationships with our fellow believers. Yes, we are exhorted to not “forsake gathering together.” Yes, within scripture it seems to be a given that if one is a Christian, one will have a desire to be in relationship with other Christians and will want to become part of a church congregation.
But nowhere is it spelled out that such fellowship – such relationship -is something that MUST be handled in a regimented, scheduled, controlled fashion. There IS no “biblical doctrine” to support “small groups” the way that Sovereign Grace Ministries does them.
C.J. skips this very important point, though, and basically goes on to assert that “small groups” are necessary for one’s sanctification.
After quoting Wayne Grudem’s definition of sanctification (“Sanctification is a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives”), C.J. then says,
That’s the goal of the Christian life, isn’t it? Increasing freedom from sin and increasing resemblance to Jesus. Small groups provide an ideal context for this to occur.
Not every small group is intent on this purpose, however. Some put a higher priority on socializing than on sanctification. Others excel in open sharing and sympathetic listening, yet they never confront sin or challenge members to change.
This is unacceptable. A group with an unbiblical purpose can do more harm than good. Groups that meet without the biblical purpose of pursuing character development have the tendency to reinforce, rather than confront, the sin and selfishness already present in us. None of us needs such reinforcement. Instead, we need to be provoked and challenged by others so we can change for the glory of God.
I don’t know about you, but I see a very interesting leap of logic here. With no real explanation or foundation from scripture, we’re suddenly at the point where groups of Christians hanging out together without a deliberate, structured plan are now “unbiblical”? “UNBIBLICAL”??? Really? Since when?
Where does the Bible tell us that it’s wrong (hence “unbiblical”) for a church group to simply enjoy each other’s company? Where does the Bible describe what constitutes “biblical” (in other words, “correct”) procedures to get together and build relationships? Does the Bible say that a group of women cannot lay the groundwork for deep and spiritually edifying friendships while playing Bunko, for example? Is a church-sponsored outing to a football game suddenly NOT a “biblical” venue for enabling some guys to set the stage for conversations down the road that will become more deep, personal, and spiritual?
C.J. continues Chapter 1 by discussing the differences between justification and sanctification. I do appreciate that he makes some effort to establish that our human activities do not affect our “right standing” before God. Yet right after he spends several paragraphs discussing justification by faith alone, he then proceeds to say this:
Though it’s important to distinguish between justification and sanctification, these two doctrines are inseparable. God does not justify someone without sanctifying him as well. Sanctification is not optional. If one has truly been justified, that will be evident by a progressive work of sanctification in his life. Small groups contribute to this magnificent and gradual work of grace in our lives.
I agree with Mahaney that interacting with other Christians in the context of a small group can certainly help one along in the sanctification process. Don’t misunderstand – I’m NOT taking exception to the idea that Christians need deep relationships with other Christians.
But I do think that especially within the context of SGM’s culture, there’s a great deal of hidden baggage in C.J.’s statement. On the one hand, C.J. “distinguishes” between the doctrines of justification and sanctification. He spends several sentences seeming to establish that participation in small groups would not affect our position before God, would not affect our salvation, would not – ultimately – send us to hell.
But then, in the very next breath, C.J. undoes this “distinction” by declaring that, “the two doctrines are inseparable.” He says that if someone has been justified, he will demonstrate a progressive sanctification. Again, I’m NOT disputing this. But the very next sentence implies that small groups are necessary for sanctification.
So there you go. I wonder how many people have taken away from this teaching the obvious implication that if you’re truly saved, you’ll demonstrate sanctification…and you need to be in a small group to be sanctified…so therefore, if you’re truly saved, you’ll be in a small group?
A few paragraphs later, C.J. says,
It’s been sobering to observe others who have chosen not to participate in a local church or in small groups. They have demonstrated a distinct lack of growth. What’s worse, they haven’t even been aware of their spiritual condition and stagnation.
What good SGMer would ever want to risk coming under this sort of scrutiny? Doesn’t “spiritual stagnation” sound an awful lot like a lack of sanctification…which would then demonstrate a lack of justification? C.J. continues with,
If you have a passion for personal change—and every Christian should—then you will be glad when others challenge you to grow.
Again, I’m seeing an underlying assumption here, which is that participation in a church-sponsored, organized, structured “small group” is the only context wherein having “others challenge you to grow” can take place. Where’s the biblical backing for this kind of thinking? I don’t know about everyone else, but in my own personal experience, I am generally “challenged to grow” by the people who know me the best. Yes, some of these folks are from my “local” church. But most of them are not. Most of my “Nathans” (people who feel free to correct me) are other Christians whom I’ve known for years, people with whom I’ve established deep and abiding relationships, people like my parents, my husband, my sister, old friends from college days, and so forth.
I can imagine that for someone who has just recently become a Christian, it’d be helpful to have a way to develop these sorts of relationships. And yes, a small group would be one way to sort of “jump-start” this kind of relationship-building. But it’s not the ONLY way.
After some additional paragraphs about the need for having a “Nathan,” C.J. asks this:
Is there someone who can (and does) question your motives and ask for an explanation of your actions when appropriate? This is what we want to work toward in our small groups.
But what comes first? Does such questioning and correcting ESTABLISH friendships, or does it instead happen within the CONTEXT of an existing friendship?
After moderating this site for over a year and a half, I have learned that a distinct characteristic of Sovereign Grace’s culture is that confrontation and correction are considered the behaviors of a good friend. Time and again, SGMers support their criticisms and “observations” with Proverbs 27:6, which says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” Yet if you really examine it, that verse does not say that going around “wounding” someone means that you are automatically his “faithful friend.” (Otherwise, logic would have it that ALL “enemies” would offer up “profuse kisses”…or that all “profuse kisses” would come from one’s enemies.)
To me it seems to make a lot more sense that Solomon was merely making an observation about the kind of correction that a good friend offers – “faithful wounds,” in other words, the kind of “wounds” that serve a lasting purpose. Yet within SGM, confronting someone about his failings (“bringing him an ‘observation’ “) seems to be the way people are taught to demonstrate that they are “faithful friends.”
C.J. then goes on to talk at some length about the necessity of applying God’s Word to our lives, and how it’s useless to just hear the Word if we’re not going to live it out. I really couldn’t agree with him more on this point, and yet, again, we see a very interesting leap of logic. C.J. seems to say that participation in a small group is an essential part of applying the Bible to our lives. He says,
As your small group looks into the mirror of God’s Word, you should be making adjustments. Each year you should be able to look back and identify distinct areas in which you have changed during the previous twelve months. This is the difference small-group participation is to make in our lives. This and no less.
I’d love to hear a clear explanation here for why, exactly, we must depend upon small-group participation to apply God’s Word to our lives. I don’t understand the logic in thinking that one can’t put what one hears on a Sunday morning into action unless one is also attending another group meeting on a different day of the week.
The next section of Chapter 1 is, in my opinion, the strongest. C.J. proceeds to explain that small groups are a good way for people to both care for others in the “local” church and also receive care themselves. I think he’s absolutely right about this, and I can say from personal experience that this was something our own particular SGM small group did well.
The final part of Chapter 1 deals with our need for “fellowship.” But guess what? According to C.J., “fellowship” is NOT just hanging out and getting to know other believers as people. Nope. According to C.J., “fellowship” is something much more weighty, serious, and structured. He says,
Fellowship is not just another word for social activities. I really enjoy watching the Washington Redskins or Baltimore Orioles with my friends. This can be a healthy part of small-group life…but it isn’t fellowship. And you don’t have fellowship talking about the latest opinion from Rush Limbaugh or Jesse Jackson, either. Social activities can’t be equated or confused with fellowship. They are distinctly different. Nothing compares to the fellowship we enjoy when we worship together, study and apply Scripture together, encourage and correct each other, and communicate to one another our current experience of God. Nothing. Social activities can create a context for fellowship, but they are a place to begin—not a place to remain.
On the one hand, I do not disagree with C.J. here. True moments of Christian “fellowship” DO transcend a shared sporting event or a night of scrapbooking.
But are the lines of differentiation REALLY so clear? And should we always be judging and rating our interactions with others so rigidly? What of all the little moments of true depth that can occur when one least expects them? I feel sorry for C.J. if he’s never been able to experience a deeply spiritual conversation while watching the Redskins play.
I find this dualistic thinking particularly puzzling because one traditionally “Reformed” concept is that all of life is spiritual. There are not supposed to be these neat and easy distinctions between the “sacred” and the “secular.” It’s always been my understanding that if you’re living in right relationship to God through Jesus Christ, everything you do – every activity in which you engage – will become an expression of your Christian faith. If you and a few Christian friends are hanging out together, doing needlepoint or organizing your photos (hey, I’m a girl, so those are the activities that come to mind), you will almost inevitably have PLENTY of opportunities to engage in the sort of “fellowship” that C.J. is encouraging.
You don’t need to be sitting in a circle in some care group leader’s living room sharing prayer requests (after the obligatory time of refreshments and the tedious dissection of last Sunday’s teaching) in order to exhort and encourage (and even correct) another believer. While there’s nothing at all wrong with having such a meeting – we personally always enjoyed the times we had with our own care group – it’s just not the only (or even the best) way to build real Christian friendships that will go on to transcend one’s participation in that particular group.
Matter of fact – and to me, this is key – your exhortation, encouragement, (and especially) your correction will be far better received if they occur within the context of an already- established deep and abiding friendship.
That brings us to the end of Chapter 1. What do YOU think? Does C.J. Mahaney’s book, Why Small Groups?, sound like it’d be a good read for folks in a non-SGM church?
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
Here was the comment that got me to remembering this old post:
I’ve been thinking about something. Isn’t there something terribly inconsistent on display in the actions of CJ and his sons-in-law, compared to how all other SGM members are expected to behave?
Think about it.
Over the years of doing this site, I’ve heard many MANY stories from people who, for one reason or another, had conflicts with their church leaders and went on to experience spiritual abuse. A lot of these folks have shared their stories here. One thing I’ve noticed is that when we non-SGM outsiders read these stories, we frequently have the same baffled reaction – “Why did you hang in there for so long and put up with so much bad treatment? Why did you allow these people to set the terms for you? Why didn’t you just walk out the door and never return? There are plenty of good churches out there!”
I actually wondered about that for a long time. WHY did so many SGMers tolerate so much from their pastors? Why didn’t they so much sooner stand up and say, “Enough is enough!”
I used to wonder if maybe there was just a higher-than-average percentage of SGM members who were gluttons for punishment…a higher-than-average percentage of SGM members who lacked appropriate self-esteem and therefore were unable to discern when they were being treated inappropriately.
But as I’ve gained a better understanding of the huge emphasis SGM has always placed on one’s commitment to the “local” church, I’ve also gained a better understanding of why abused members feel compelled to hang in there and work so hard to jump through their controlling pastors’ hoops.
SGMers put up with spiritual abuse and seem so grimly determined to stay in their SGM churches and somehow “make it work” because the idea has been conveyed to them that church membership is a commitment akin to marriage (what’s the title of Josh Harris’ book? Stop Dating The Church). One’s relationship with and commitment to the “local” church is a key component of one’s Christian life – perhaps the most important component. I know I’ve quoted from this book before, but if you want to get a sense for where this mentality comes from, read CJ Mahaney’s Why Small Groups?. It’s available as a free download. In one of that book’s early chapters, CJ essentially makes participation in a small group a salvific issue (!) by using the following reasoning:
1. We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, not through our own efforts at sanctification.
2. However…if we are really saved, we will pursue sanctification.
3. The pursuit of sanctification can only take place if one is part of a Christian community where one can engage in “biblical fellowship,” which is defined as happening ONLY when one participates in these behaviors: worship, studying the Bible, confronting one another, and confessing sins to one another. (In other words, “biblical fellowship,” according to CJ and some of the other guys on CLC’s staff who helped him write the various chapters, is NOT just hanging out and interacting with your Christian friends and trusting the Holy Spirit to lead your interaction. No. “Biblical fellowship” is a much more intentional set of specific behaviors in which you must routinely and deliberately engage. The book specifically says that “biblical fellowship” doesn’t happen if you’re just sitting around watching a football game with some Christian friends, for example.)
By the end of the book, it becomes pretty clear that #3 – “true biblical fellowship” – can only really take place at a Sovereign Grace (or PDI at the time of publication) church. Oh, they never SAY that, not outright. But the truth is that if you go anywhere other than SGM, you’re never going to find the rigid and formulaic approach to small group that exists within SGM. I’ve attended a ladies’ Bible study for more than 3 years at my post-SGM church, and I can tell you that we do not make any formal or routine efforts to confront one another and confess our sins to one another. Sometimes it happens naturally, though. But it’s not something that is guaranteed to happen on a regular basis. And our best times of what I would consider “fellowship” – where I’ve gotten a glimpse of the other ladies’ hearts and felt very connected to them as my sisters in Christ – have happened NOT when we were worshipping or studying the Bible together (the only other behaviors where “true biblical fellowship” can happen, according to CJ & Friends), but when we were just talking honestly about our lives or (even) just sharing laughs together.
According to Why Small Groups?, the small group that I presently attend would not qualify in the “real biblical fellowship” department, most of the time.
So…
Consider those three assertions again:
1. We are saved through faith in Jesus, not through sanctification.
2. BUT, if we are truly saved, we will pursue sanctification.
3. The sanctification process MUST involve “true biblical fellowship,” which can only happen in a very certain and very rigid way.
The logical conclusion – #4 – would be this:
4. Therefore, we can only be truly saved if we participate in small groups as SGM does them.
Which then leads to #5:
5. We can only be truly saved if we are part of an SGM church.
While I want to be clear that #4 and #5 are NOT actually stated anywhere in Why Small Groups?, they are nonetheless logically implied. “Biblical fellowship” is absolutely necessary for my sanctification. If I am really saved, I will be sanctified. So I have to have “biblical fellowship.” But, the book tells me, “true biblical fellowship” can only happen when I engage in certain specific behaviors – worship, study of scripture, confessing sins, and confronting others about their sins. “Biblical fellowship” does not happen when I’m just hanging out with my Christian friends.
What else can a person conclude?
Now, I’m sure SGM loyalists are chomping at the bit to point out that Why Small Groups? is relatively old (I think it was written in the mid-1990s). It’s probably not a book that gets a lot of air time nowadays. It’s possible that there are even some younger SGM pastors who have made it through their training without reading it.
And that well may be true. HOWEVER…
The assumptions in Why Small Groups have never been recanted. Instead, the underlying assumptions are still alive and well if you dig deeply enough. Otherwise, being a member of a small group would not be something that is a requirement for continued SGM membership, as it is at CLC and several other SGM churches.
So, SGMers absorb their pastors’ assumptions about their SGM membership – it is a commitment akin to the marriage commitment, and it is essential for one’s sanctification…which of course is required evidence of one’s salvation, so therefore, continued membership is basically essential for one’s salvation.
This comment has already grown to be exceedingly long, so I won’t elaborate too much on this next point – but SGMers also absorb what they are taught about the role of their pastors in their lives. Obviously, some pastors have their feet planted a little more closely to reality, and don’t emphasize this as much as others, but in SGM we can dig through YEARS of teaching sound files and come up with plenty of places where it was clearly implied that one’s pastor will have some sort of “buffer zone” role on Judgment Day. Also, as Argo just pointed out, SGM pastors have clearly implied that their sermons are just as binding as God’s Word. A pastor also (according to CJ’s Happiest Place On Earth sermon) possesses a special ability to peer into members’ souls and somehow perceive their sins more accurately than can the members themselves.
So, to recap –
1. One’s commitment to one’s SGM church is on par with one’s commitment to one’s spouse.
2. One NEEDS one’s SGM church in order to prove one’s salvation.
3. One NEEDS one’s SGM pastor to somehow answer to God for one on Judgment Day and to help one combat one’s sins.
Once again, NONE of these underlying assumptions about church is ever overtly stated in such plain language. But they are all implied, over and over again.
And I think they go a long way toward explaining why SGM members who experience spiritual abuse at the hands of their pastors display such absolute tenacity as they attempt to maintain their member-in-good-standing status. SGM members will go FAR above and beyond what “normal” people would do, in terms of allowing their pastors to set the terms of the process for working out conflicts. SGM members will put up with so much garbage, for so long, because…well…because they feel a HUGE compulsion to do so, for if they don’t, their Christian life will never be the same again.
Now, to bring this back around to CJ and his sons-in-law…
Where is this mindset in their lives right now?
CJ spent decades promoting his beliefs about the necessity of “true biblical fellowship.” He also spent decades propagating the idea that a commitment to one’s local church is vital to one’s Christian life and is akin to the marriage commitment.
Yet now, during the first situation EVER where he is being publicly challenged and questioned, CJ Mahaney leaves Covenant Life Church? He leaves? Oh sure, he initially claimed that he thought it would be less disruptive to not be there during his “time of reflection” – less of a challenge to Josh Harris’ authority. But that’s bogus! There can be no clearer nose-thumbing to Josh Harris than leaving!
And then his sons-in-law distribute their huffy letters and also leave?
How does CJ explain this behavior and reconcile it with what he has spent an entire career teaching people? How is his behavior demonstrating that he places ANY value whatsoever on his relationship with his “local” church? Where’s his “akin-to-marriage” commitment?
What is CJ’s pastor going to tell God on Judgment Day?
———————–
And here is an addendum, because I didn’t remember all the “means of fellowship” correctly:
OK, my memory is a bit hazy. I went back and did some digging, and here is a post where you can find a link to download Why Small Groups? You can also find quotes about how SGM defines what true “biblical fellowship” is, and what it is not.
There are actually not just three components to “true biblical fellowship” – there are (according to John Loftness, who wrote this particular chapter) seven “means of fellowship.”
Here is the quote where he criticizes the usual notions of “fellowship” –
This post is the first of CJ’s writings that I’ve ever read. Is the passive-aggressive manipulation obvious to everyone else as well or am I just being too picky?
I’m referring to the “if you want to grow and are serious, you’ll be in a small group. It’s universal truth that people that aren’t in one are not growing, and not even serious about God” comments.
Does this manipulative approach exist in his sermons and other writings as well? No wonder so many have become brainwashed after years of this.
He’s quite the sneaky dude, isn’t he?
Forget about the book “Why Small Groups” It’s part of the foundational basis of SGM’s controlling doctrine.
Instead, all SGM “survivors” should get a copy of “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” and read it cover-to-cover.
http://www.christianbook.com/the-subtle-power-of-spiritual-abuse/david-johnson/9780764201370/pd/201379
After reading this book many things that didn’t seem quite right will make sense. Give yourself plenty of time to “detox” from your SGM experience (at least 6 months per year of SGM involvement).
N.S.L.B.
“concerned for the kids” –
I guess we can call it manipulation. We’ll never know if CJ intentionally set out to manipulate people – to get them to do what he wants them to do, without their fully realizing how their thinking was being engineered so that their behavior would be influenced.
I tend to look at it more as leaps in logic which were never questioned…and which people seemed to accept almost blindly. I think SGM’s culture, where a pastor’s word carries practically as much weight as scripture and where “godly members” will always be quick to put into practice what they are taught, has caused people not to dig deeply enough and notice the leaps in logic.
For instance, I’m wondering if any SGMer who studied Why Small Groups? back in the day ever challenged the notion that “true biblical fellowship” could not take place at a casual social gathering, without officially engaging in the “means of fellowship” spelled out in a later chapter by John Loftness? Did anyone ask the hard questions about why CJ and Loftness could make such an assertion? Did anyone challenge the group leader (or for that matter, the authors themselves) with a recounting of personal experiences where true fellowship did indeed take place in a casual social setting? Did anyone ever openly and outspokenly question the assertion that you cannot be sanctified (ergo cannot be SAVED) without engaging in the specific formal activities these guys define as comprising “true biblical fellowship”?
I’m curious to know that. Those of you who were part of SGM churches when this book was making the rounds (or if it’s still making the rounds), did you ever hear anyone asking the hard questions?
Quizzler,
I agree that The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse is a good read.
I also think, though, that an important part of the “detox” experience can involve recognizing the faulty thinking and the manipulation embedded in SGM’s teachings. (I guess I do agree with “concerned for the kids” about the manipulative aspect!)
Deconstructing some of the especially influential SGM teachings can help people make sense of what was wrong and what made SGM a controlling and spiritually abusive place.
[I tried to submit this on the last post, but found comments closed when I hit the Submit button. Just wondering…]
Does anyone else get the sense from reading Brent’s various documents that he’s pretty set in his own mind about EXACTLY how things need to be handled by everyone involved and he’s not going to be satisfied until EVERYONE falls in line with his own thinking?
Has there been any point at which he has said, “Okay, I can alter my demands on that?”
As much as I agree with him on the broader issues involved with CJ and the SGM board, it seems like he might be a little less stubborn on some points without completely setting aside his distrust of the other men involved. Does anyone know if he’s getting any counsel beyond himself or family members on how to proceed and interact with SGM?
Whirlwind, I read your question/comment at #6, and for some reason, a lyric from Coldplay’s song “Clocks” popped into my mind:
“Am I part of the cure or part of the disease?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtTCebEZMCQ
Whirlwind – I TOTALLY agree!!! I have been less and less “impressed” with Brent as time passes – and I started out not liking him, sooo yeah ;). Even if everything he shared in his docs is true – and I don’t doubt that the emails and such he posted were verbatim, his stridency to his own demands seems like he is just going to keep treading water.
Properly, the line is, “Am I part of the cure, or am I part of the disease?”
On the last blog post, I commented on Brent Detwiler’s statement that he tired of the overuse of the word “inappropriate” as an excuse not to deal forthrightly (since frankness, one gathers, is “inappropriate” in SGM).
Yet he himself used many SGMisms in his statements.
Brent, bless him, still does seem to have a lingering case of the SGMs.
To me, this is a perfectly recorded example of controlling peoply by sowing fear and pride. In the first paragraphs highlighted here just look at the things CJ implies that he/SGM has that others don’t: Biblical purpose and mandate, sound doctrine, good resources, biblical theology, and solid biblical content. There’s the old familiar “we’re doing it right” condescending SGM attitude on full display. Pride. UGH. But there is fear behind it too. Careful, stupid sheep, if you wonder into just any old home group, you may really be in danger. Gotta stay in our fold. Trust the leadership to protect you from your own stupidity. And while I’m sure there are some nutty home groups out there somewhere, I really resent being told I can’t figure out they are nutty on my own. Don’t I have the Holy Spirit working in me? For goodness sake, I’ve known the Lord longer than Josh Harris has been alive (almost)!
CJ says that the goal of being a Christian is “increasing freedom from sin and increasing resemblance to Jesus.” Then he implies, as Kris has so clearly pointed out, that SGM care groups with their “biblical” definition and application of “fellowship” are the way to accomplish this goal. Really? Yes, fellowship (normal fellowship) is important. Yes praying for one another and bearing one another’s burdens are important. Iron sharpens iron. I get it. But ONLY the Holy Spirit of God can change the heart of man. How many of us have tried to change ourselves when we KNEW we needed to change and have been unable to do so until the Spirit of God intervenes and puts breath behind our efforts? IMO, we are not changed by beholding the Church, its leaders, our fellow home group members, or ourselves. “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” We are changed by beholding the Lord.
Doesn’t it make “biblical” sense then that pastors should be working their hardest to get folks to behold the Lord? To point to His beauties? To know Him so well, to become so intimate with Him that they lose sight of themselves as Christ is formed in them? Not beholding and becoming living, breathing, speaking, balding (sorry), gesturing clones of a man? These men are very effective at increasing resemblance to themselves, but CJ himself said the goal was resemblance to Jesus. And gentlemen, you are no Jesus. (Okay, I was trying to do a Ronald Reagan type zinger, but it didn’t quite work…)
Here’s the other thing that’s bugging me. It’s actually something Brent said in his latest contribution where he chastises the CLC leaders for abdicating their God-given leadership by deferring to AoR. He reminds them they are “anointed to lead.” That phrase just shot through me as I read it because of what it means in SGM world and how it is applied to the “local” church. Anointed to lead in SGM, IMO, means leaders have gifting to make all decisions regarding the local church without input from regular (paying) church members. It means standing in the stead of God. It means degrading the priesthood of every believer by accentuating the authority and gifting of the pastor to a truly warped degree. And dare I say, it means de-emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit in preference to the teaching/leading/direction of men.
@Kris #5: You mention “leaps in logic” and I think that’s an excellent description for it and related to some earlier ideas I submitted on how SGM culture has been formed from various reactions against problems in culture or other churches.
I always found it frustrating to be in a church that would refer to just about anything as “fellowship” as long as it included food. It was typically a bunch of shallow, casual conversation that rarely had any spiritual or significant personal dimension to it and a lot of people wouldn’t really have much interest in talking about their faith or what they might be learning spiritually.
Well, if you’re frustrated by that environment, then read “Why Small Groups?” or come into contact with an SGM church where they’re intentionally trying to foster deeper relationships, you’re ready to jump on board – and you don’t quite catch everything that might be said about small groups and fellowship, nor do you see what problems might develop from this new found solution to your frustrations.
I think those “leaps in logic” occur because SGM hits the nail on the head for a lot of people and either:
1) There’s so much common thinking that you tend to minimize any questions that may creep in. “This may seem a bit demanding/paternalistic/authoritarian/whatever at certain points, but maybe I’m reading things wrong and there’s no way I want to go back to what I had at Church XYZ.” or “There’s so much that I agree with here, I can live with the small disagreements and see how things go.”
2) There’s so much common thinking that (to borrow from the CLC family meeting earlier in the year) you’re fine reducing a principle down to a single practice (which happens to be your own single practice). “I was starving for fellowship at Church X. I found fellowship at my SGM church. Therefore, if you want fellowship, you must need to follow the SGM way.”
It might be pressing things a bit, but if you consider SGM as primarily a reactive movement rather than a proactive movement, it might give some insight into their church planting efforts. Rather than proactively move into areas that lack a strong evangelical presence, they tend to move into a lot of churched areas and pull in members who leave their churches in reaction to perceived deficiencies. And you don’t really see any push toward missions (as understood in other evangelical churches), which is more a proactive move.
I’m guessing some psychologist out there must have studied how people might move toward more extreme commitments as a reactionary move. Do any of the spiritual abuse books discuss anything along these lines, such as what kinds of people tend to migrate toward authoritarian churches? (Remember, I’m in an SGM church, so I realize I might be one of those kinds of people.)
Kris – I would have liked to post this on the last thread, but the comments are closed.
I’m concerned by Brent’s latest actions. Brent initiated an email with Josh and implied confidentiality by putting “CONFIDENTIAL” in the subject line. Then when Josh responds to a confidential email, Brent puts the confidential reply on the web.
While Brent has raised some important issues regarding SGM, his ethics are clearly questionable. Certainly the ends can not justify the means. In at least this instance, Brent is not being an honest broker.
I’m further concerned that SGM Survivors, SGM Refuge or any other Christian venue would participate in helping Brent publicize information that Brent elicited under the pretense of confidentiality. Call it gossip or whatever you will – this is not right and any Christian should run from participating in it in anyway.
Back to Kris’ post, yes, our ‘community group’ leader still refers to that book about small groups regularly.
Ick.
Such ‘fellowship’ is why I seldom go to care group any more.
With ‘friends’ like that, who needs enemies?
What I need — but don’t get — from care group is simple friendship.
I would also like actual Bible study instead of the same sort of statements about the same sort of sermons. (In light of the Gospel, we can see we are lowly worms who deserve nothing and ought to be grateful for crumbs. It causes me to be amazed by grace! Isn’t it wonderful that our pastors serve us so well in keeping our eyes on the Cross?)
Ironically, I have LESS honest accountability here in SGM because I have learned that sharing some things is “inappropriate” and sharing others will soon find one ‘lovingly’ corrected, aka dogpiled upon.
For instance, I could share if I were having a hard time properly honoring and being joyfully grateful toward my spouse. My group would gladly remind me of the cure: remembering my own “worst sinner I know” status.
But I could NOT share that the reason I was having a hard time with my attitude was that my spouse was grievously sinning against me. THAT would be gossip and slander. :scratch :spin
Whirlwind, I see your point. Brent can definitely come across as a bit rigid and maybe that doesn’t serve him entirely well. But I also get from the documents that his rigidity has been formed by many years of intimate knowledge of the foibles of CJ and PDI/SGM and especially by his experience with trying to get specific and complete responses to specific issues.
For example, his continued insistence on a complete response to the documents from CJ. I think that just means that when he asks CJ five specific questions he wants five specific answers. Obviously, a lot of unanswered questions have accumulated. I also think that if specific and responsive answers had been forthcoming 10 years ago, 7 years ago, 5 years ago, 1 year ago, 6 months ago, 2 months ago we wouldn’t be making note of Brent’s stubbornness to this degree. And Brent should never have been alone in these efforts as he has been.
I also get from the documents that he knows CJ and CJ’s history better than almost anyone else in the world, has a lot of affection for CJ, and appreciates CJ’s unquestioned gifts. I think he has a sense of that unique role in CJ’s life and it gives him a passionate and yes, stubborn, drive to help CJ see himself.
I don’t actually think it would be a good idea for Brent to alter his requirements unless he is given some incentive to do so. And I don’t think public accusations of slander and so forth are incentive.
Finally, I think many people have been served well by Brent’s impressive stubbornness and attention to detail; although he certainly hasn’t proceeded perfectly. The synergy of the blogs and Brent have created change that now can’t be stopped.
@Gracie in #10 was disturbed by:
I agree. It’s like the SGM board is moving in direction A, Brent wants them to move in direction B, and they should all be moving in direction C. (And it’s not really clear that SGM or Brent realize there might even be directions other than A and B.)
@Jasper in #12 writes:
And Brent doesn’t seem to understand why they thought it best not to provide him a copy of the minutes from their meeting. :scratch
Jasper, please, please stop straining at gnats or you will find yourself choking on a camel. Brent is not perfect. This process is not perfect. The blogs are not perfect. Christians are not perfect. I am not perfect. You…are not perfect. God uses the imperfect. All. The. Time. The word CONFIDENTIAL in a subject line. Really?
I also disagree with what I consider to be C.J.’s faulty exegesis of the passage that has everyone chanting the mantra “I am the worst sinner I know”.
I think I know what he was trying to get at, and there are passages that come closer to saying something like that, but not that one.
Phoenix – no straining at gnats here.
If your defense of Brent’s actions are that he is not perfect, but his purpose is good, then how can you lay any charge against SGM or CJ? We would have to wait for the final outcome of SGM / CJ at some point in the distant future to judge if what they have done is good.
By your reasoning, you can justify any action you desire by being the self-judge of your intentions. Sorry, but that is just not consistent with the Word of God.
Argo #14 on Brent’s latest posting wrote this—which blew me away. These guys are not going to change, will not change–they see no reason to change!! so forget it!
“Last Sunday at my SGM church I heard the most legalistic sermon I’ve ever heard in my life bar none (and remember, I’m a 15 year vet). I’m afraid to tell you what or where for fear of giving myself away, but it was basically, and I’m not making this up, “If you hear your pastor’s sermon and you don’t apply it and do not wholly embrace it, then you are sinning and are not holding yourself accountable to GOD’s WORD! (Ipso facto, the sermon has the same weight and authority as scripture itself!) And you will have to answer to God for this ON JUDGEMENT DAY!” Again, I am not making this up. This was the message.”
Well, at small groups they rehash the Sunday message so the legalistic propaganda continues.
And now back to the topic on the table. I could not agree more that small groups/homegroups/caregroups have been heavily used by SGM/PDI as a means of surveillance and control. But I need to say that my Homegroup was the best thing about being a part of PDI/SGM for a decade of my 12 years. That was largely because (as I found out later) Grizzly was my HG leader for most of that time. He and Noel insisted on treating the HG as a means of care; not as a means of control. (e.g. they didn’t submit the required reports) That Homegroup helped me move four times; got out and looked for my daughter when she didn’t come home one December night (she was fine,) spent the weekend of my ex-husband’s wedding distracting me, prayed for my premature twin granddaughters (fine as well,) laughed with me, listened to me, fed me, kept my girls for a whole summer while I worked.
Terrible for that means of ministry to have been so misused.
I can totally understand Brent’s position of being unyielding.Especially when dealing with someone who is manipulative, that person will distract and delay by trying to negotiate minute details, or other ploys, and after so many years, I don’t blame Brent one bit for putting his foot down, and calling for an absolute. I do, however, agree with Jasper. True, we all make mistakes, and I do think putting ‘confidential’ in the subject line of something you post public is a wrong thing to do. He could have left that off the subject line..to apply it there IS misleading. That does not negate the truths that he has shared, though.
Hello. I have posted twice at this blog using the label “reformed and charismatic” and identifying myself by my full real name and location.
My husband Mark and I were quoted by Dave Harvey in his chapter in that book, under the alias Stu and Lisa. We had been through a few mediocre to bad church experiences, and decided that the next church we visited we would try the small group first. After three visits at the local Covenant Fellowship small group (at the time led by Bill Isobel and his very caring wife Colleen, later led by Dan Mueleners-sp?-a dedicated brother also with a lovely wife)we decided to go to that church as the small group was so very good.
When the book came out, I was shocked to see that CJ’s chapter had no mention of prayer. What was rather funny was when I said that at small group, the entire group said of course I must be wrong and started looking through the chapter to find the reference to prayer. It isn’t there. People were shocked.
I brought this up to Alan Redrup, whose response to me was a one sentence “well, in THIS church we have prayer in small groups”.
While at the time at Cov Fel there were prayer meetings and many praying people, that perhaps was the beginning of us starting to notice things, especially at the Celebration where CJ spoke of not really being into prayer, and he should be more into prayer, but he really wasn’t, but realized he should be, etcetcetc.
While many Christians struggle to make prayer central and struggle to have a good prayer life, and I would not hold that struggle against anybody, especially one who had some childhood scars from their own father, we felt it to be very problematic in the leading Apostle of the whole organization. “My father’s house will be called a house of prayer”.
I did not read the documents, but I did read a comment here a while ago that someone who read them looked in vain for a reference to the A’s praying together, asking God to move, asking God for wisdom, any prayer at all- it wasn’t there. Would Detwiler have failed to note times of prayer? Maybe. Maybe not.
We have been out for a long time, and I have many good memories. My small group was great, Dave Harvey preached a lot of great sermons, Alan Redrup was kind and caring to us when we first came in trying to get over a bad experience, and Bill Patton encouraged us as we adopted a daughter. But by the end we knew that we could not stay and submit up the chain to a man in oversight of churches who was not dedicated to prayer. To guard the flock, first and foremost, one must have a life of intercession for the people.
I certainly do not know what all the SGM problems are, and what God’s plan and purpose in all this is, but I do know one thing. The bible commands us to be devoted to prayer, and it must be part of our personal life and our corporate life together as well. Not as a ritual, but as a very real and alive time of drawing near to God. Anything less is spiritual death. And without it SGM will never be what churches should be.
Hi All,
I haven’t posted in awhile. I’ve caught up on most of the posts in the preview column. Many of you know that I used to attend CHBC and left for many of the similar reasons that you would find in your SGM church. I left. After all this stuff came out about CJ and then him going to CHBC, I began to wonder. I’ve had a difficult time accepting the implications of Mark Dever’s involvement and his response to the situation because I have struggled with wanting to believe the best about him, especially after having dialogue with him on many occasions and at one time, trying to develop a relationship with him as my Sr. Pastor at the time. To me, CJ seems much like the narcissitic psycho that he appears to be, and with all his goodies exposed, espeically his discipleship/sheparding past, authoritarian beliefs and control etc… I’ve tried my best to separate him and Dever–even though I knew it was coming. I can no longer think the best about Dever, and as one still-CHBCer posted regarding Dever’s comments, what I thought was going to happen is happening. ANd I’m glad I’m gone.
People have said to me that they are surprised that there isn’t a CHBC survivors blog. I have always said that CHBC isn’t half as bad as CLC/SGM but could definitely be on it’s way. Others have projected that this very well might be the case and soon. And I’m sad to say that I definitely see that in the making. CJ is preaching at CHBC. Mark makes his statements about the stiuation. And life will go on there. But like Pilgrim stated in the post above, I’d be worried too. Because as people leave CLC and go to other churches, they will bring these bad practices with them.
CHBC does church planting and ministry in the same way through sending pastor’s and elders, and sometimes members out to local churches and others in the area to try and help them become “healthy” as per 9Marks. What I see isn’t some exchange where a little good goes in and changes the atmosphere, but the reverse–what appears to be “good” actually isn’t, and a little leaven goes a long way. I think ultimately, it will be bad for these churches and the members, especially if they dont have a strong stance on what they believe and allow for differences in the cultural and individual espressions of Christianity.
Carolyn and CJ will taint CHBC in the same way. CJ will not become more like the majority there, which already isn’t far from where he is, but moreso, their ideals and visions will spread like unhealthy leaven through the congregation. Both churches are very similar in many of their practical ways of living and thinking patterns. Cognitivie dissonance is familiar for both. And even though they might disagree on polity, it doesnt quite matter when both pastors are hierarchial and authoritarian. I’d put money on it if I had some, because I believe firmly that the problems at CHBC that are apparent discipleship doctrinal patterns will become even worse and given some years time, they will have their own set of survivors. I am one of few that I know of–it’s not like many peopel around there are using discernment either. But birds of a feather definitely comes to mind, and it’s rather hard now to separate Mark from Mahaney without struggling to make it fit when it doesnt’.
Jasper, if the worst you can say of SGM or of CJ is that they “are not perfect,” then it is too late. You have already swallowed the camel; washed down by drafts of KoolAid.
I wasn’t defending Brent. He doesn’t need it. Jesus himself made distinctions between good and evil men. Brent is a good, imperfect man. Like you, maybe. CJ is a gifted, evil one. Look at the fruit.
And spare me the accusations against me. I am not my judge. God is and Jesus has taken care of that by his finished work.
Someone (KRIS?) said:
“I’m wondering if any SGMer who studied Why Small Groups? back in the day ever challenged the notion that “true biblical fellowship” could not take place at a casual social gathering, without officially engaging in the “means of fellowship” spelled out in a later chapter ”
ME: I’m curious as well. It reminds me of those pastors that preach that one canot have a thriving spritual life apart from a local, organized, body. When someone mentions that, I always think about the people in prison, or an oppressive government, or imprisoned by an oppresive gov’t, or the military (ecumenical military chapel isn’t really an organized “body of christ” in that sense). The extension of this logic means that these groups cannot grow or thrive spiritually, and when a belief system implies that a fruitful relationship with God isn’t available for everyone unless you follow the steps, I have a problem with that.
Phoenix, I can remember Larry T speaking back in the day about “small groups”. What I remember him speaking about was how ‘friends are few’, and in a large church, we can’t possibly be friends of all, so it is important to break down into smaller, more personal groups, and, as I understood it back then, those groups should almost fall within natural friendships, or neighborhoods. I lived around the corner from Doris T at that time, so I was in her homegroup for women. When I gave birth to my son, she was right there, bucket and gloves in hand, to come clean for me! There weren’t reports, and topics handed down ‘from on high’..we all brought our Bibles, we shared, we prayed, it was fellowship. I don’t remember ‘the shift’, although I do remember being in homegroups with people I neither lived near, nor had a close friendship with..that just made no sense. It sounds like Grizzly and Noel’s CG was functioning much closer to the original intent of care groups.
Argo, in the previous post #15 you said: Last Sunday at my SGM church I heard the most legalistic sermon I’ve ever heard in my life bar none (and remember, I’m a 15 year vet). I’m afraid to tell you what or where for fear of giving myself away, but it was basically, and I’m not making this up, “If you hear your pastor’s sermon and you don’t apply it and do not wholly embrace it, then you are sinning and are not holding yourself accountable to GOD’s WORD! (Ipso facto, the sermon has the same weight and authority as scripture itself!) And you will have to answer to God for this ON JUDGEMENT DAY!” Again, I am not making this up. This was the message. Now, if this is the direction SGM is taking, instead of holding themselves up humbly as leaders and asking for their words to be evaluated by scripture, and their deeds to be accountable to the greater priesthood of believers, then where is the hope for this group? Instead of humility and Christian love they are digging for themselves a trench of cultism. I walked out of their absolutely dismayed
I wanted to say that I heard you say this and agree with your assessment regarding just how disturbing this message is.
However, I think this message, that pastoral sermon equals God’s Holy Word, is a natural outcome after what SGM has been teaching for so many years. They used to try to couch this belief in SGMese…the twisted logic of SGM where they teach things that simply do NOT make sense as if the ideas were, indeed, God’s Holy Word.
Take, for instance, the subject of this current post, where leaps of logic about “fellowship” have been taken to make “Care Groups” a Christian essential.
Argo, after your pastor’s disturbing message last week…what are you going to do?
Someone said: “I could not agree more that small groups/homegroups/caregroups have been heavily used by SGM/PDI as a means of surveillance and control.”
I am surprised there’s not more discussion on the “files,” figurative or literal, that are kept on folks and the reporting up the chain to leadership of care group confidential discussions and individual’s struggles. It’s almost like people need to be Mirandized before CG: “anything you say can and will be used against you” in the future when you start asking the wrong questions.
Is it true that CG leadership is supposed to report stuff to the higher ups, are there files, and how does this surveillance actually take place?
Can anyone with insider experience separate the fact from fiction in this regard? The picture I have in my head of CG leaders reporting individual’s personal stuff up the chain is pretty bad if it’s actually how it works in practice.
For those of us who have had the misfortune of dealing with SGM leadership, we can totally understand why Brent would insist on things in writing. Trying to get a straight answer from these guys is similar to nailing jello to a wall.
The tactic of attempting to invalidate their critics is nothing new to some in SGM leadership.
Ack! My blockquote didn’t work above. The whole first paragraph was quoting Argo. Sorry.
Hugs, Happymom. You did not deserve to be discredited. Not at all.
Neither did any victims of SGM.
How evil an empire of “humble” men!
I have always thought of prayer as being spontaneous, and as being the way we converse with God. How can someone struggle with that? I dont think I understand, or do I have it wrong? I suppose if one thinks of ‘formal praying’, that can be a bit more difficult to actually set time aside, and “pray”..Yet, isn’t that part of a pastor’s “job description”? So, CJ said he was having a hard time doing his job? Somehow, I would definitely NOT feel comfortable if the person I thought I could count on MOST for prayer was struggling in it-especially when that should be one of the most important things of his day!
Here is my response to Jasper, posted first over at Refuge. With all due respect, I find Jasper’s point of view very disturbing. Someone sends an e-mail stating that they will most likely continue abusing and taking advantage of pastors and the membership of a church organization at large, and they mark it “confidential” and we’re suppose to be like, “Oh! Confidential. I gotcha. We’ll keep this on the DL, then. Wouldn’t want to risk sinning against these guys just to look out for a few thousand pesky innocent victims. Whew…that was a close one.” Anyway, here’s my response:
Jasper: sometimes the ends do justify the means. Stay silent and keep the information confidential, while abuse victims go on the being abused spiritually by seriously misguided pastors and their “doctrines”, all in the name of protecting a certain group of leaders who are committed to a certain kind of polity which gives them a certain kind of power, influence, and wealth, none of which is God glorifying, is certainly one option. But I think that instead of questioning Brent’s scruples, and feeling sorry for Josh because of a few innocuous (“Sorry Brent, I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to say or do such and such, blah, blah…”) e-mails marked “confidential” were made public after Brent gave him and SGM nine thousand chances to stop being hypocrites and hold CJ and the leadership accountable to the very things they teach and demand of the coffer-filling congregation, maybe you should examine a little more carefully the wreckage and debris-filled roads of the lives and psyche’s SGM has and continues to bludgeon, and then carefully decide whether the ends don’t justify the means in Brent’s case. Honestly, what is the alternative, Jasper? Everyone stays silent while the abuse continues? I’m not trying to be ugly here, really, but just think, again, without Brent going public, what is the alternative? Business as usual, that’s what. And four blogs and hundreds of lives deeply hurt and ruined (I know of one family for a fact; absolutely destroyed by the horrible counsel…they’d have been better off not going to church at all after their tragic family crisis than to continue at that SMG church) seems to indicate that that just can’t be right.
So Glad I left CHBC (AKA NLR) – GREAT to hear for you again!!!!!
The question: Why Small Groups?
The Answer: Control
Want more proof? The pastors assign people to a care group and move them at their will. CGL’s submit regular written reports to the pastors on the care group members. Attendance is always taken – the attendees may not know it, but it is. Just like when you where in school, the list is sent to the principal (this time being the pastors).
It’s all about control and creating the most conductive environment to control the SGM population.
Oh, and Oldtimer, that’s not all. The pastor also said that we should limit how much we study and the number of sermons we listen to. That is, we should instead focus more of our time applying the sermon (er…NOT the Bible? But then I was reminded, in essence that the sermon WAS the Bible, so, you see how they can get away with this kind of thinking, that is, by applying my sermon, you’re applying the Bible…you see? Tricky.). Also, he said you should only listen to the number of sermons that you can most realistically apply to your life. I’m still trying to figure out just what that really means, but I found it troubling nonetheless. Again, I’m not exaggerating this. This pastor really said these things.
Hi Remnant,
Please also reference my above post in response to yours. Thanks!
Thank you, Argo.
Argo, what will you be doing now that your pastor has so blatantly promoted himself as on par those few who wrote the Word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit?
I guess I’m being nosy. Sorry. I just keep projecting myself into your shoes…what would I do?
Jasper, I would like to formally apologize to you for the sarcastic tone in my last post to you. Please forgive me. That was not loving. We may disagree, but that gives me no right to have an ugly tone to my response. Again, I am very sorry.
Again, a family we deeply love was hurt very badly by poor counsel they received at the hands of SMG pastors after suffering a tragedy most of us cannot understand. Strangely and sadly, until I read Brent’s documents, I never understood how wrongly they were treated, and how SGM contributed in such ways to their family’s dissolution. I thank God for Brent’s opening my eyes to these blogs and to the egregious ways of SGM over the years to the victims of abuse and members of their churches in general. I react strongly when Brent’s motives are questioned; I react, also, inappropriately I can see. I’m convicted. My issues have been noted.
Argo
I would agree with those who take issue with some of Brent’s assumptions and ideas. While I have become something of a Brent Detwiler Fangirl in recent times, it’s primarily because I see in his documents and in his actions since the publication of his documents a level of integrity and honesty that simply is not evident among the other SGM leaders, especially as they’ve worked so hard to have CJ’s back throughout this process.
I have a lot of respect for Brent’s tenacity in attempting to live consistently – and attempting to see the leader above him live consistently – with what he was taught and has himself taught to others.
If you view Brent’s documents and his actions and responses through the lens of where he came from, the stuff that seems like petty pickiness or downright craziness isn’t actually so picky or crazy. In fact, besides Josh Harris, he’s the only one who comes close to looking heroic in this whole mess. The truth about Brent, whether you dislike his writing style or think he was laboriously Pharisaical in his pursuit of CJ, or whether you think he was wrong to publish Josh Harris’ email response to him, or whatever, is that rightly or wrongly, he at least was attempting to live consistent with the SGM system he’d bought into.
He’s not a big gigantic hypocrite, like the people who talk big (and preach and write big) about the importance of commitment to a local church but then run off to a church in another denomination the moment they are questioned.
But, that being said – it’s clear that Brent is still deeply embedded in the SGM mindset. Or that the SGM mindset is still deeply embedded in Brent. (Reminds me of the cliché, “You can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy,” only in this case, it would be, “You can take the man out of SGM, but you can’t [immediately] take the SGM out of the man.” :D )
I see Brent as he is right now the same as I see a lot of SGMers who have left SGM painfully and are still picking through the wreckage of the Christian life as they thought it was supposed to be. Brent is a victim of spiritual abuse, with all the issues and hangups that victims can have, just as much as anyone who has been through that experience. More, actually, since Brent was not just a victim but was himself a victimizer. He was so deeply “in” the system that he propagated and taught a lot of the legalistic garbage. He was so deeply “in” that he (for the most part unknowingly, at this point, I’m thinking) left a trail of broken souls who suffered under his application of what he’d been trained to think the Christian life was supposed to be.
If it takes awhile for the average SGM member to work his way through the leaving process and discern what was false and what might be worth keeping, imagine what it must be like for someone as high up in the leadership hierarchy as Brent was. Even with professional Christian counseling it would take years to sift through that rubble! Given what Brent likely still believes about the mental health profession, I’m guessing that he’s probably not getting this sort of help.
So why would we expect him to now be “normal” at every turn? Why would we think that everything he writes is going to align perfectly with non-abusive “normal” Christianity?
The guy is a victim. Yes, he was also someone who perpetuated the spiritual abuse. But ultimately, he’s a victim, just as much (more so, really) as anyone else who was chewed up and spit out by the system. The difference is that his livelihood has now been chewed up and spit out as well, and he’s in (something like) his mid-50s with limited employment prospects.
Let’s not make our expectations for victims too high.
Instead, let’s learn what we can learn from Brent, and make our best attempt to see his present actions in light of the context of his past.
:amen Kris, so perfectly said. :clap
By the way, if you happen to see ads here for “Transcendental Meditation,” I APOLOGIZE!!!. Guy is requesting that they not come up in the ad rotation. (And for those of you who are wondering, those ads are not huge moneymakers, by any means. They help toward hosting costs, and that’s it. We do NOT get paid per “page impression,” like many monetized blogs do. As silly as this sounds, it’s something of an integrity issue for me. I’ve never been comfortable with earning money from our discussions of SGM. So Guy went with an ad company that monetizes in a VERY limited fashion, typically not even enough to fully cover hosting costs.)
(And I cannot say more than that or I will be in violation of the ad agreement. But just please know that we have limited input into what might appear at the top of your screen. If we see something that we personally find objectionable, we can ask that it be removed, but we do not request particular ads.)
Argo – Apology accepted!!
I am very sorry for the abuses you and many others have experienced at the hands of this crew. It grieves me deeply. I have family who has been a part of PDI/SGM since the 80’s. The impact on them and their children is overwhelmingly sad. Further compounding my sadness is they don’t seem inclined to leave SGM. I suspect the atrocities of SGM will reach into several generations of my family.
Knowing God’s heart for children, I know He was deeply grieved by the atrocities committed against children by SGM. However, it was not Brent that brought those to light. Perhaps I’m missing your point?
Although I am deeply grieved by the spiritual and emotional harm of SGM, I have trouble embracing the philosophy of the end justifying the means which was originally propounded by the humanist philosopher, Machiavelli.
In searching God’s Word, I find no provision that asserts a smaller evil is acceptable as long as it prevents a greater evil. Furthermore, I am left wondering how one participates so closely to the product of deceit without being bearing some of the stench of the activity.
I’ve been mulling over what I’m about to discuss, and thinking of trying to shape these ideas into a post of their own. So bear with me as I try to put my thoughts into words…and bear with me if you come back sometime and see that this comment became a post. :D
I’ve been thinking a lot about the phrase, “No church is perfect.” It is the classic line used by SGM defenders to explain away and excuse the spiritual abuse their pastors perpetrated. It is the classic line used by SGM pastors who want people to ignore problems and/or accept the pastors’ solutions without objection or criticism.
It is also the classic line used when problems occur in almost any situation, whether that be a less-than-satisfying job (how many of us love our jobs every single day?), or a less-than-ideal marriage, or when we might look back at an unhappy childhood and find fault with the way our parents handled things.
It’s a classic line because it’s true, to a point. If you start talking about bad parents, the reality is that while some of us can point to some really bad clinically verifiable or even criminal behavior from our parents, just about all of us would be able to dig up something about our upbringings that was downright misguided or wrong. If you start comparing career notes with another person, you will discover that just about every work situation has its good sides and its bad sides. And even in the happiest of marriages, we can probably (if we try hard enough) find something about our spouses that we might wish were different.
So – in life, the reality is that nothing is “perfect.” We’re all flawed and sinful human beings. Nothing on this side of heaven will ever be “perfect.”
Not even church.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because awhile back, I got an email from a reader who was freaking out over some information he’d recently learned about his new post-SGM church. He’d been attending this church for awhile (something like a year) and had been growing more and more comfortable and “safe” there, believing that it was as close to “normal” as he would ever get. He’d finally reached a point where he was beginning to feel like he could once again volunteer in some capacity (“serve” in SGM parlance).
And then he found out that there were some issues. Despite the presbyterian-style church polity, with congregationally-elected elders, he’d discovered that there could be issues with a certain clique of families who controlled church decisions…and that certain people hadn’t been treated very nicely.
What should he do? What should his response be to this?
I will confess that as I started putting together a reply to this person, my first impulse was to say, “Well, no church is perfect.” Seriously! That was my first impulse. And then I chuckled, because of course that’s a silly cop-out.
It’s a cliché because it’s true, but that does not make it a helpful response. And as a response, it does not address people’s concerns, or any of the issues that might need real fixing.
I thought long and hard about what I should write to this person. I also felt really hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent as a pondered what I should say. (Another of my responses involved telling this person to share his concerns with one of the elders! What does THAT sound like?) (Answer: “Have you talked to your pastor about that?”) :lol:
As I was considering what to say, I started wondering if perhaps we were being totally unfair toward SGM and expecting too much out of them. If “no church is perfect,” then why would we seem to be expecting perfection (or at least the absence of serious deficiencies) from SGM?
I’ve shared this response before, about how there’s a difference between mere “imperfections” and spiritual abuse. I do still believe that. I do still believe that SGM’s issues demand public attention and public analysis because SGM’s issues lead in a unique way to spiritual abuse for too many people. (Polity, baby – polity!)
BUT…what about a “normal” church, one that is actually led by genuine congregationally-elected elders…but might still be hurting people? Do you pull away from a church like that? Do you let those imperfections scare you off?
And if you do, then what does that say about your rejection of your SGM church?
I was thinking about this (agonizing about it, actually, because I really despise hypocrisy and intellectual inconsistency), when it suddenly occurred to me that there’s a HUGE distinction between what goes on at a “normal” church where the polity has congregational representation, and what goes on within SGM churches.
And that is this: SGM churches pretty much require a level of perfection out of their leaders. They demand a level of trust out of their members that ordinary churches do not demand.
Back in 2009, CJ Mahaney gave the Knoxville, TN church his classic Happiest Place On Earth sermon. In that sermon, he hammers away at the verse in Hebrews that tells us to obey our leaders and submit to them. (You can read a transcript of that sermon, along with some of my commentary – warning, I might get a little snarky at times, so if you don’t like my snarkiness, ignore what’s in blue font in that post – by going here: http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=1134 .) CJ waxes quite eloquent (or at least emotional) about how God wants us to make our pastors happy, and how we do that through our obedience and submission.
Then, in the second half of that sermon, he touches on the idea that teaching obedience and submission to pastors like he’s teaching can make people uncomfortable. First, he suggests that his audience’s discomfort might be due to sin. He says,
But then CJ alludes to the very real possibility (ironic in light of SGM’s issues!) that people might be uncomfortable with such unquestioning obedience and submission because they’ve been hurt by previous churches. Here is what CJ tells his audience about that possibility:
That’s it. That’s what you can do if you’re uncomfortable with the idea that your role as church member is to “make your pastor happy,” or to “be a joy to pastor.” That’s what you get if you’re nervous because you’ve had your obedience and submission abused before – you get CJ’s apology and CJ’s word that it won’t “be your experience in this church.”
Up until very recently, SGM churches demanded a level of unquestioning trust and obedience from their members. Their members were taught that if their pastors aren’t doing a good job, it’s the members’ fault! After all, in the same Happiest Place sermon, CJ says that a pastor’s success in ministry hinges totally upon the obedience and submission of his congregation.
But with this demand, SGM churches gave absolutely no remedy for the very real potential that the “worst sinners they know” pastors might actually sometimes abuse this trust and mistreat people who were obeying them. Well, CJ gave his word that it would “not be your experience at this church.” But that was it.
So…
For anyone who is out in a “normal” church and suddenly realizes that it also is not perfect, just know that a “normal” church does not require perfection…because a “normal” church does not require the same level of total blind unquestioning trust that your SGM church demanded.
And I think the same can be applied, actually, to whether an imperfect soul like Brent Detwiler can still write things and convey ideas to us that are true and helpful.
NOTHING is “perfect,” not in this world. Except for Jesus, of course. But that doesn’t mean:
1. That “imperfect” = abuse.
2. That “imperfect” cannot at the same time be true and helpful, despite the imperfections.
and
3. That “imperfect” is OK when perfection is actually the only way that the entire structure won’t topple and inevitably hurt people.
I never had a “good” small group experiance in my SGM church. I was always the outsider but it was parially my fault as I went were I was told to go instead of just joining the caregroup that invited me.
I think they are a great idea (maybe not SGMs version though ) but if you don’t fit the SGM church member mold your not gunna fit the SGM Small Group Member mold :bang
Concerned for the Kids #29
it is FACT 8O
– comment ends –
Gracie said, “To me, this is a perfectly recorded example of controlling peoply by sowing fear and pride.” :goodpost
@ExCLCer’sMom wrote:
Given the ease with which most theologically reformed pastors refer to the apostolic priorities of Acts 6 (the ministry of the word and prayer), I wonder how SGM pastors are examined in regard to prayer. Seems that if you’re not really “in to prayer”, you might recognize that you’re not quite ready for pastoral ministry.
It has been my experience that whenever I’ve heard SGM pastors mention Acts 6, the emphasis is always on their responsibility to preach and not so much on prayer.
I understand exactly what you’re saying, Kris! Another quote (mine) I always tell my kids is “It is not how many mistakes you make, because you ARE going to make them..it is whether you choose to learn from them that counts” SGM pastors cannot learn from their mistakes, because they won’t admit to them! If one does not learn from a mistake, they are bound to repeat it! And, thus, SGM leaders continue to hide, lash out in return, cover up, and basically anything except recognize and admit to the full extent of what they have done, and then learn to do differently!
Post #48..”Seems that if you’re not really “in to prayer”, you might recognize that you’re not quite ready for pastoral ministry.”
:amen
Whirlwind, seems that way to me also!