C.J. Mahaney Preaches At Capitol Hill Baptist Church During “Season Of Reflection,” Refers To Mark Dever As “His Pastor”
September 25, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
On Sunday, September 25, C.J. Mahaney was a guest preacher at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. You can listen to his sermon (a variation on what he presented while doing the “Jude Tour” at different Sovereign Grace Ministries churches) here.
A couple of minutes into his message, C.J. makes mention of a Tabletalk article by an author named Scot Dever – who, C.J. tells the Capitol Hill congregation, is “no relation to our pastor.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m confused. I thought that C.J. Mahaney, as president of Sovereign Grace Ministries (from which he is still receiving his entire salary even in the middle of his “season of reflection”) is a member of Covenant Life Church. I thought Joshua Harris was C.J.’s pastor.
How is it possible that Mark Dever is now C.J.’s pastor?
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
I understand the appeal of sensationalist headlines, but you shouldn’t quote “His Pastor” when he didn’t actually say that. Quotation marks should be used for quotes.
Jason,
I wasn’t trying for a “sensationalist headline.” But thanks for the chuckle.
I don’t understand what you’re finding objectionable, anyway. CJ said that the Dever he was referencing was “not any relation to our pastor.” “Our” connotes “yours and mine.” Which would indicate that CJ was referring to Mark Dever as “his pastor.”
What’s the big deal?
How is it not clear that CJ was calling Mark Dever HIS pastor? And not Josh Harris?
The Commission on Accountability and Pollicy for Religious Organizations by the US Senate is launching an investigation as to whether religious organizations need to have more accountability to the government. While overall, this may be viewed as a church / state thing, I think it is important that a church should have to divulge a public IRS 990 like any other non-profit.
http://religiouspolicycommission.org/Content/Commission-on-Accountability-and-Policy-for-Religious-Organizations-Appoints-Panel-Members
Kris #43 :goodpost
What needs to be done is so simplistic. You said it perfectly. Make themselves mandatory reporters in good faith, with a policy committing them to working with the victims in a support role, not legally enabling or covering for the perpetrators. Its not controversial or questionable whether this is good and right, from a humanist, secular or religious standpoint! It so simple, and yet, it boggles my mind why they cant seem to commit to this.
Two weeks ago I emailed yet another one of the CLC head pastors regarding yet another past instance of multiple child sexual abuse, which, from all accounts, was never reported by him when he was informed. I asked him point blank if it was true. He replied telling me I had “false information” and someone was being “slanderous”. I then asked him directly what exactly was false about it — that the abuse occurred?, or that it was told to him?, or that he didn’t report it? This is where he began to avoid the question completely, and instead ask me to tell him who told me, to give him contact information for people who knew about it, and question how I came to know this information, and said that he wanted to be truthful about it but would only discuss it if I had a “redemptive motive”.
I replied that just by me asking him directly was clearly a “redemptive motive” since the definition of redemptive is: Acting to save someone from error or injustice. So if it were true the injustice is to the victims, and the potential future victims, and if it is false the injustice is to his integrity and reputation as a pastor.
His reply still did not answer my question. Instead he said he felt this could best be dealt with by speaking to the victims involved and for the sake of the victims in this situation, handled only between them and the parties (pastors) that were involved (at least finally acknowledging there WERE “victims” and “parties involved”).
In my reply to this I told him I would like him to tell me where he personally stands, as a pastor, on the reporting of child sexual abuse to the authorities –not in regards to this particular specific accusation, but hypothetically. I said:
I got no response. I re-sent it. I got no response.
Am I the only one who finds it strange/perverse/mind boggling that church leaders have such an issue with publicly taking a stance on a crime as uncontroversial as child sexual abuse? It seems it should be a NO BRAINER to anyone and everyone, except maybe child molesters, (all though studies show even the molesters know its perverted and wrong and they need to be stopped). A pastor who feels he is qualified to counsel, judge, instruct and involve himself in these situations of ethics, also feels like he is not obligated to communicate his stance on the issues he feels he is so qualified to preside over???? Un-friekin-believable, and more so anyone who would allow them to be their guide when they have no clear idea where they stand. Reminds me of the way people don’t bother finding out where politicians really stand until they are elected and their stance comes out during policy once its too late and you’re screwed by it, all the while paying their salary to do it to you. EXCEPT in politics there are checks and balances and some clear laws to prevent obvious abuses, whereas these pastors have no accountability at all. This is enabled by the congregations who pay their salaries, without requiring they be held accountable for their positions and actions.
I would like to get a real response from this pastor on this, but am not holding my breath. I can say he was quick to respond after my initial question (unlike the others I wrote to for years with no response). But he didn’t respond once the hard questions came at him, and if you cant take a stance against child sexual abuse, where are your values and morals really?
With respect to Jason’s comment –
One thing I’ve been noticing lately is that when people start complaining about technicalities, that shows just how desperate they are to avoid dealing with the larger issues.
It’s bad enough that CJ is standing behind a pulpit during what is supposed to be his “quiet season of reflection.” It gets worse when you consider that he’s accepting a relatively hefty paycheck from SGM while not being a part of any SGM church. When he makes it “official” by making a statement unifying himself with the Capitol Hill Baptist congregation – referencing Mark Dever as “our pastor” – that’s really the icing on the “Bug off, Josh Harris!” cake.
But I misquoted “his” when I should have said “our.” That’s the real concern. :huh
I listened to part of the sermon but honestly I was so bored with it I couldn’t listen. He preached the same sermon in March at CLC back in March….I wonder if there is a difference in tone? I listened to part of it back then but don’t remember completing it.
This is certainly not exegesis. Maybe CJ should go to seminary and really learn how it is done.
AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
:barf:
:barf:
:barf:
Good pastor: “I am sosososososo sorry I failed to protect people in my church who I am called to guard. In the future I WILL strongly admonish any perp that ANY fellowship activity involving perp and any church children MUST be run past me first, told to parents, and safeguards put in place IF activity is approved of. Otherwise perp will be asked to leave church, the entire church will be warned, and a report filed with cops.”
SGM pastor: “Oops, it slipped by me.”
:barf:
I can see why happymom and wallace find the apologies less than convincing… :roll:
Kris–
I hope all is well, and thank you so much for your tireless work. I hope you won’t think that I’m complaining about technicalities, but I have to agree that I thought the same thing as Jason before he posted. I think it would be more true to rewrite your headline as “C.J. Mahaney Preaches At Capitol Hill Baptist Church During ‘Season Of Reflection,’ Refers To Mark Dever As ‘Our Pastor'”, and I don’t think it takes away anything from your posting. It is clear that he is including himself in “our.”
Thank you again!
Just playing through #53 :goodpost :!: an investigation which is WAY OVERDUE! Separation of church and state is one thing, but when religious organization (corporations) involve themselves in politics and policy making they should at the very least be paying taxes and held to the same accountability for ethics as other secular corporations, lobby’s, and organizations.
exCLCer,
Wow. Great questions that you sent to the CLC pastor. I can’t help but wonder why you got no response. Mandatory reporting seems like a no-brainer solution to SGM’s past problems with the way they’ve handled child abuse cases. Why is this so obvious to everyone but the pastors?
It really makes me wonder about those guys.
Leo, re #30
Feel free to use my nickname for Dave Harvey, which is “Mouth of Sauron.” Although that is probably giving CJ more significance than is actually warranted. Maybe Wormtongue?
Kris,
Sorry, I didn’t word that well. I shouldn’t have said sensationalist. Not trying to attack you, just bringing up a concern. I’m not trying to redirect the conversation, as I actually agree with your points here. I’m just as sick as you with SGM spin, and I’d hate for the same thing to take place here in quoting things that weren’t actually said. That’s all. Yes, “our pastor” implies his pastor as well.
Also, I am not desperate “to avoid dealing with the larger issues.” I never said that, and please don’t make assumptions about me, my beliefs, or my motives based upon a two-sentence post.
Again, I agree with you! Let’s be friends! :)
Yes Kris, that’s my point exactly. WHO IN THE WORLD cant say with confidence and good conscience that they feel like reporting child sexual abuse is the only right thing to do??? There’s only two types of people who would be hesitant to take a stance on that:
1) a perp actively molesting a child in fear of being caught
2) a person who has already done wrong by not reporting child sexual abuses and does not want to admit to it
How could anyone, let alone at least two, think that you were verbatim quoting CJ to be saying, “Dever is ‘his’ pastor”? “His” wouldn’t work, would it? Wouldn’t it have to be “my” to meet the high standards set by these grammarians? I think there is more than one way to correctly use a quotation mark…
Jason,
I think I’m feeling a little cranky this morning. Either that, or you’re pretty good at the passive-aggressive word games. Or maybe both. Your “Let’s be friends” struck me as really icky and patronizing…insinuating that I’m somehow the one who was trying to be disagreeable…when the reality is that you totally did not communicate in your initial comment anything but what I took away from it.
You started out as the disagreeable one. Not me. If you want to “be friends,” then say what you claim you’re really thinking, rather than nitpick and then – when called on it – try to back-pedal.
I totally agree with the content of your post Kris, but I too was a little bothered by the wording. To me “his pastor” gives a stronger impression of him turning his back then “our pastor” does… but it might just be my understanding. Like I said I totally agree with what your saying it’s just saying “his” instead of “our” I think gives it a slightly different slant. There is less room that he wasn’t saying “Mark Dever is my pastor instead of ____”. To ME saying “our pastor” is still easily taken wrongly, but could also just mean “I am making myself a part of your church right now and this is “our pastor””
But then again, I mean… if CJ is putting himself under Mark’s authority doesn’t it make Mark his pastor?
I miss simplicity. As a kid I just loved Jesus. :-p
Here’s how Wiki explains it:
I don’t think Kris caused misunderstanding.
Kris- I totally read Jason’s initial comment to just be saying “Hey, maybe you should quote what he said – I know it doesn’t read as well, but it’s more honest. Just a thought”
I did not think he was being disagreeable or passive agressive in either comment. Just my opinion. :)
I sound like I am ganging up on you Kris. I am sorry. I really appreciate SGM Survivors and didn’t mean to come across b***hy.
I just didn’t want Jason to feel ganged up on either, and I know the status quo on public forums is to not express disagreement with the majority.
Kris said, “One thing I’ve been noticing lately is that when people start complaining about technicalities, that shows just how desperate they are to avoid dealing with the larger issues.
It’s bad enough that CJ is standing behind a pulpit during what is supposed to be his “quiet season of reflection.” It gets worse when you consider that he’s accepting a relatively hefty paycheck from SGM while not being a part of any SGM church. When he makes it “official” by making a statement unifying himself with the Capitol Hill Baptist congregation – referencing Mark Dever as “our pastor” – that’s really the icing on the “Bug off, Josh Harris!” cake.
But I misquoted “his” when I should have said “our.” That’s the real concern. ”
Plus, Happy Mom said..
“A perp had a huge party five weeks after going to trial for his second felony, invites went out, pastors kids went…I asked Mark how that could happen, his response…”opppss, that one slipped by me” I’m sure most of the parents who sent their kids to this party were not aware of the perps background ”
Plus, ExClcer said, “I got no response. I re-sent it. I got no response.
Am I the only one who finds it strange/perverse/mind boggling that church leaders have such an issue with publicly taking a stance on a crime as uncontroversial as child sexual abuse? It seems it should be a NO BRAINER to anyone and everyone, except maybe child molesters, (all though studies show even the molesters know its perverted and wrong and they need to be stopped). A pastor who feels he is qualified to counsel, judge, instruct and involve himself in these situations of ethics, also feels like he is not obligated to communicate his stance on the issues he feels he is so qualified to preside over???? Un-friekin-believable, and more so anyone who would allow them to be their guide when they have no clear idea where they stand. Reminds me of the way people don’t bother finding out where politicians really stand until they are elected and their stance comes out during policy once its too late and you’re screwed by it, all the while paying their salary to do it to you. EXCEPT in politics there are checks and balances and some clear laws to prevent obvious abuses, whereas these pastors have no accountability at all. This is enabled by the congregations who pay their salaries, without requiring they be held accountable for their positions and actions.
I would like to get a real response from this pastor on this, but am not holding my breath. I can say he was quick to respond after my initial question (unlike the others I wrote to for years with no response). But he didn’t respond once the hard questions came at him, and if you cant take a stance against child sexual abuse, where are your values and morals really?”
:goodpost :goodpost :goodpost
But all the most recent comments are on whether Kris should have quoted “His”, or “Our”?? :scratch :P
Some very serious issues have been raised this morning! Happymom and Ex, I dont know which response (or lack thereof) is worse! Both ‘pastors’ should not be pastors IMO!
Kris, I have made note of the same phenom of nitpicking (which,in its icky literal meaning of picking the eggs of lice, sounds a lot like straining at gnats.) It is certainly a way of distancing oneself from the real issues. In Jason’s case, his “retraction” opened the door for him to equate SGM’s constant, egregious, puerile spin tactics to a minor typo here. While objecting to being “judged” on the basis of a two line comment, he nicely confirmed your “judgment.”
Brokenhearted, you are a dear, but bullies (even passive-aggressive ones) need to be ganged up on.
Kris #43 and Exclcer #54 and #63 OMG! Great, succinct postings. :word and :word
I promise to ‘go play in the sandbox’ some more before I attempt to have so many quotes in a post again. :?
Kris said:
“One thing I’ve been noticing lately is that when people start complaining about technicalities, that shows just how desperate they are to avoid dealing with the larger issues.”
That can NEVER be said enough here because it happens SO often.
5years,
We not only found their apologies unconvincing, there were outright lies in some of them. One read through “Wallace and Happymom’s Response to Fairfax’s Family meeting” posted here on August 23, 2011, will show our perspective on their “apologies”
Kris,
I said I was sorry about using the wrong word. Not so sure about your backpedaling claim though. I was wrong and I admitted it. Anyway, make whatever claims you want to about me.
However, I have to be very careful about every word I post because I feel like you are reading into my motives. Please don’t do that to me. Please. I do want to be friends with all here and not “nitpick,” “insinuate,” be “disagreeable,” or any of the other things you have said to me. I have not made any similar judgements toward you, nor do I want to.
Anyway, I guess that’s it. Thanks for your work here.
Three themes seem to be occurring here: (1) The extremely minor grammar issue, (2) A more major issue: CJ’s sermon itself at CHBC which was way-off base and way-off-mark from the book of Jude (maybe more on that later, after a third listen), and (3) mandatory reporting requirements.
Re: that last theme, reporting requirements, a few observations. Source: Pellauer, Mary and Barbara Chester. “Sexual Assault and Abuse: A Handbook for Clergy and Religious Professionals.” (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p.216.
By law, the following must report child abuse: physicians, nurses, social workers, probation officers, all emergency room personnel, directors of hospitals, counsellors of all sorts (psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers), employees in day-care centers or nurseries, teachers, school counselors, school principals, and all law enforcement agents. Most states require clergy to report abuse al.
Most, but not all, states require clergy to report suspected abuse. This especially applies to clergy working for hospitals, state prisons, federal prisons, for military chaplaincies. It applies also, very widely, for civilian pastors. Also, anyone should and can report instances or cases of child abuse.
If a case is reported to a clergyman, by a victim or family member of a victim, that is “outside” the confidentiality arrangement.
True case in point:
A late afternoon. A 14-year old girl stops by after school got out to talk to the Pastor getting ready to the leave the church. She wants to talk. So, he talks with her. She’s troubled and can’t get it–the story–out. He knows something is really amiss. Slowly, it comes out about “Daddy.” Details will be withheld here, but he–the Pastor–gently gets the story. Through questions and talking, ultimately, she sees that the Police must be contacted. But she resists (understandably, she’s afraid, this is the only “Daddy” she’s known and he’s gotten rough more recently, has fears, is withdrawn, etc., the standard stuff). But, the girl understands that the Pastor will help her and will call for her. From the office, with the girl present, he calls the Police. The Father is an Elder, runs his own company, makes good money, is affable in the same congregation, easy to get along with, and is a leader. Finally, the Pastor is able to show the girl that a “greater arm” must get involved. He calls the police from his office with the girl’s understanding. The police come, the girl goes to the hospital and Pastor goes too, the mother arrives at hospital, and the father does too–angry as all get out and threatening the pastor, his job, etc. It goes to trial. The Dad goes to jail. The family breaks up as a result. The Pastor stands by the girl and the mother throughout. Point: legally, there was no “cleric-penitent” relationship since the girl was not confessing her sins for absolution, but crying for help “to make it stop.”
Backdrop more largely, p.202:
–Batterers and molesters will reoffend unless there is an intervention
–offenders minimize, lie and deny abuses
–offenders will not follow through on stated intentions of reform without outside controls
–treated is better rendered through court-driven monitoring
–the secret (and in the above case) and pattern of abuse must be broken to protect the victims
–most clergymen do not have sufficient training in the necessary resources to treat victims or offenders
–“quick forgiveness” is likely to be cheap grace and will likely lead to reoffense.
Now, back to the sermon “that was not on or about Jude’s theme.” Maybe Job or Habakkuk, but not Jude (or a closely related book, 2 Peter). I hope Dr. Dever caught the substantial contrast between Jude and CJ’s sermon. It’s basic NT Introduction 101.
Geez, you guys are rough. I’ll say it again: the content of this post is important. This is a serious issue, and I don’t want to distract from the issues. I just wanted to point out where someone was quoted saying something he didn’t say in those words. I’m not defending CJ, and I don’t want to. I do think I’m done posting here though. Thanks everyone.
Jason, you could never be more nitpicky than Detwiler even if you tried :D . Stick around. I too would make the lead post as accurate as possible.
Like I said, I’m feeling just a bit cranky today, I think. :D Which is why I haven’t felt like making any edits to the title.
Think about it. What sort of direct quote out of CJ’s own mouth would involve the words “his pastor” and would go on to indicate a MORE personally possessive statement about Mark Dever than what CJ actually made?
Hypothetical CJ statement: “In an article by Jonathan Dever, no relation to his pastor, we can read that…”
If “his pastor” meant CJ’s actual words that he actually spoke, he could not even have been referencing himself or expressing personal ownership, now – could he?
:lol:
Fact is, what CJ did say – calling Mark Dever “our pastor” – was far more telling than if he’d have said the words “his pastor.”
Oy.
Like I said. Or I think Lucy has said. My crankypants are getting tighter by the hour this morning.
Jason –
There seem to be 2 incontrovertible “truths” on this forum:
1.) Everything CJ or SGM does is evil
2.) Everything Brent does is good
It is a very bipolar view of the world that results in people like you being criticized as being pro-CJ when you feel he has been misquoted.
The pursuit of those 2 “truths” has resulted in people believing they can corrupt their own actions as long as their goal is to end corruption. Although it is very consistent with the philosophy of the humanist, Machiavelli, it does little to deliver the ultimate healing that I suspect most on this blog deeply desire.
Ultimately, significant healing of wounds will begin when people can experience true forgiveness, in their hearts, toward CJ & SGM. As people start to move into forgiveness, they will start to see that CJ’s actions are actually a blend of both good and bad (as is the case with all of us).
Hopefully at that point, they can affirm the good while rejecting the bad. Once they reach that point, you probably won’t get “jumped” for asking that CJ be quoted accurately.
BrokenHearted #29,
Fairfax is no doubt making every effort to calm the fears of their members regarding sex abuse. The hypocrisy behind their claims of a “safe church” however is the reason why many of us post our stories and continue to comment on this issue.
It makes no difference how many official agencies they call in to speak on how the church is now a safe haven for children. In my view, from personal experience this is a smokescreen as the real problem still remains. The root of the issue is not, and has never been connected to a child’s safety in the building or anywhere else on church property. Happymom and I were members at Fairfax for 12 years and had never heard of sex abuse occuring on church property.
The danger for children has been clearly demonstrated in the past when families interact on a social level outside the church and there is an underage sex offender in the mix. In 3 known cases during our time at Fairfax,(2 of which involved our family),the pastoral staff knew the identity of each of the offenders but failed to warn people at risk because they were minors.
Mark Mullery told us the reason they do not inform people at risk when it involves a minor was: “Because that perpetrator could grow up and sue us for defamation of character.” One thing they fail to mention at the family meetings is that they are protected by Virginia law from having to divulge the identity of sex offenders to authorities or anyone else as well.
With this scenario, there have been, and may currently be underage sex offenders in the church where people at risk are ignorant of the fact because the leadership refuses to inform them.
BrokenHearted, don’t be impressed with Fairfax’s solicitation of the FBI to assure member’s all is well within the church. All is not well. The “shift from the past” as you mentioned was a necesary move by Fairfax to alleviate member’s concerns but in all their enthusiasm, neglected or chose not to address the heart of the matter. Unless leadership now informs people at risk of the identity of an underage sex offender nothing has changed.
Ask Fairfax leadership why they do not inform people at risk. I doubt you will get a straight-up answer. They may tell you they leave that task for other people to do…that’s not good enough.
Jasper,
What is your opinion of CJ’s decision to make himself part of a non-SGM church?
Re: the FBI and training on abuse prevention – great idea, I wouldn’t trust SGM to come up with anything on their own, they’ve already proven they’re incompetent. Sad that it seems to be another instance of SGM “fixing” a problem that they won’t ever admit to having (or causing) in the first place.
Re: exCLCer #63 – I’m thinking the continued evasion is because these guys are all on the same page regarding potential legal liability, or you’re spot on and there’s a lot more in SGM’s junk drawer than most people know about at this point in time. Either way it sucks. Truth doesn’t seem to matter to these guys.
Kris – I find CJ’s actions to be hypocritical on several fronts. I remember CJ praising a doctor at Bethesda for refusing to fulfill his work duties (living w/in 15 min of the hospital) and instead choosing to live near his church.
So, it does seem hypocritical for CJ to part with CLC during this “time of reflection” and now that he is going to CHBC, I suspect he has yet to move downtown as he instructed others.
As most, I don’t know the discussions on the SGM board. (I think that is appropriate) However, my hope is that the SGM board is using this to build consensus that CJ must step down permanently. Since CJ had way too much control over SGM, this type of change takes some time and effort to pull off. Although I disagree w/ CJ attending and preaching at CHBC, I think it equips the board to build the consensus to have him step down.
Although I have significant disagreements with CJ, I’m not ready to scrutinize his adjectives when his actions say plenty. Public speaking is tough and even the best speakers use the wrong word to say what they really mean.
However, I am inclined to agree with Jason. If you choose to scrutinize his adjectives, then it is best to use the adjectives he actually used.
I agree with Jasper #80. CJ and SGM have many faults that are worth discussing. People on this blog have many worthwhile things to say that I think members of CLC and other SGM churches can benefit from. I certainly have benefited. But, when writers to this blog act like everything related to CJ and SGM is corrupt and evil, I think they lose credibility and standing. What often comes across from what is written is not the wisdom of the content that is communicated, but the bitterness and anger behind the words. Don’t get me wrong. I think, in many cases, that bitterness and anger is understandable. But, if you want to be listened to by more than the handful of people who keep posting on this blog, I think it is better to guard your heart, because it is out of that heart that words come.
There seem to be 2 incontrovertible “truths” on this forum:
1.) Everything CJ or SGM does is evil
2.) Everything Brent does is good
Really, Jasper? “Everything”??? There are a number of people who still express a strong dislike of Brent on this site – even though he wrote the 600-page document. I’m wondering how you managed to skip those posts.
And CJ and your use of the word “evil”? I don’t know about that, either. Narcissistic? Yes Controlling? Yes Proud? Yes
Stickin’ in my 2 cents on the grammar controversy—I took the 2 sets of quotes to imply that Kris does not believe that both CJ’s “season of reflection” is a true season of reflection AND that Mark Denver is not really his pastor even those CJ references him in that way. In this way, the uses of the quotation marks are grammatically accurate. :D
ooops :wink: “even though”
It is true that discussions about CJ Mahaney that take place here tend to focus more on what he has done or is doing wrong.
But why would anyone expect otherwise? Why do we have to give nods and pay lip service to what others might like about CJ, in order to maintain some sort of “credibility”?
The fact is, if people were really understanding the title of this post to mean that CJ uttered the very words “his pastor,” that would NOT have indicated any sort of personal possessive on CJ’s part. That would have been CJ referencing a male person with the male personal pronoun “his”…and not CJ’s own pastor – which apparently is the implication that some of you would like to avoid believing. Apparently, some of you would like to believe that CJ does not actually think that Mark Dever is his (CJ’s) own pastor.
It strikes me that the people taking issue with my use of quotation marks around “his pastor” ought to be happy about a phrase that is actually technically LESS indicative of personal possession rather than MORE.
I will own it here and stand by it. I have said on this blog that Brent is a good, imperfect man who has done evil things like all of us here. And been forgiven.
And I have also said that CJ is an evil man. Gifted. Apparently lovable to many. Has accomplished much and has done good; because of God’s ability to work all things for good. Has been and can still be forgiven. I would refer you to M. Scott Peck’s People of the Lie where he equates narcissism with evil.
I’ve also said that CJ has NOT been served well by his supporters/enablers. Without the enablers he could have been very different, I think.
That’s me. But I don’t think an open-minded reading of this blog reveals a demonography of CJ and a hagiography of Brent. Lots of anger towards the former, sure. Some admiration of the latter, yes. Open, self-correcting discussion.
Kris – I did have another thought typed up that seems to be lost in the ether somewhere.
Here is the summary:
– The ministry of Christ is one of reconciliation (while we were still sinners, Christ died for us)
– Something moved God to show compassion to a totally undeserving people (Titus 3:3) with a heart of reconciliation.
– Either Matthew 18 is a passage of reconciliation or the Apostle Peter was in a different conversation when he asked Jesus how many times he had to forgive in Mat 18:21
– CJ seems to be hurting and fighting during this time of discipline.
– If we are followers of Christ, how do we synthesize the above points into cohesive and coherent efforts without showing compassion and the hope of reconciliation toward CJ in our actions.
Just for clarity, reconciliation does not mean CJ returns as the head of SGM. However, how do we God’s heart of compassion and reconciliation toward CJ?
Kris,I would encourage you to actually consider whether the larger point of what I am saying is correct. Again, I am not saying that criticism of CJ or SGM is not warranted and should not be discussed. I also am not suggesting that you say nice things about CJ or SGM – though perhaps you should (recall what Paul said about the Corinthians and remember how messed up they were). But, what comes across from what people write on this blog is that no matter what CJ or SGM do, writers on this blog will see it as evil or as disingenuous. I am only suggesting that you be more even handed. I think it will help people take in the good content of what is often communicated.
Robert @#85 — I concur, could not agree more, especially the last sentence, which is very important.
Things are too much black or while here and thereby loosing credibility.
And Kris, re: the quotated words in the post title; come on, don’t be soooo defensive. Just say “Oh, maybe I was a bit over-the-top”, no explaining or defending, just plain humility.
At least this website lets all comments through. The SGM blog deletes any type of negative comment, even those asking serious questions.
When I originally reported this last night I intentionally wanted to make sure that I was as accurate as possible in stating what CJ had said. My jaw dropped when I heard him say to the congregation “Our pastor”. OK … maybe he could have used the context in a wrong manner … however, if you closely listen to the entire message he makes mention of several other inferences that, if I didn’t know who CJ was, would have easiliy led me to believe that CJ was a pastor/member of Capital Baptist Church.
THE issue is that CJ is being paid by SGM. THE issue is that CJ has multiple broken relationships at CLC & SGM but he continues to preach. THE issue is that CJ is causing SGM a boat load of money to address CJ’s sins! THE issue is that CJ still has not publically apologized to CLC/SGM about his blackmail “coercing” of Larry Tomczak which personally effected me greatly! THE issue is that CJ has not/will not repent from multiple people, very close to him, that have brought serious charges of sin against him. THE issue is that CJ even “allowed” his son-in-laws to leave CLC because of CJ’s “hurt” against Josh Harris. THE list of issues with CJ go on and on and on and on and on …
CJ has physically left CLC. This sermon appears to have confirmed that CJ has emotionally and spiritually left CLC for Capital Baptist church and “OUR PASTOR”, Mark Dever.
I said SERIOUS questions. I have asked questions on that blog (and I am member and used my real name) and received an e-mail from Andrew stating that i was gossiping. One particular question I asked last week, was what was SGM’s official stance on CJ attending church at CHBC
Yes, I did say any negative. That is not true, my bad. But I have posted (in the past) negative comments against polity that dont get posted. I tend to be a feather ruffler.
To Jasper #91 …
I was moved to pray for CJ last night as one could easily tell they he has a tortured soul right now. That being said, where CJ was asking God “Why?” (he says so himself in the sermon), he should be asking Jesus for complete forgiveness and humble himself protrate before God without thoughts of position, rights, what people might think of him, etc.. Something more important is going on with CJ right now that, because we have such a caring and loving God, is going to come to its complete fullnes in Christ as the Holy Spirit continues to work on CJ.
Sometimes we just need to step back and look and see God’s hand in terrible situations. CJ, and CLC/SGM, is going through one right now. However the Lord is doing a DEEP work in all of us. Even CJ. Pray for him. Pray for Josh, Brent, Dave, CLC, other members across SGM. We all need God to guide and direct us.
Now … this may ruffle some of my reformed brothers out there, but people CAN and DO resist the Holy Spirit. When that happens God is just and merciful to us to keep after us. For some of us it is CLEAR as to what is going on with CJ. To CJ it is not. Pray that God illuminates his heart and mind through the power of the Holy Spirit. Pray against Satan’s hand in all of this. The great deceiver loves all of this stuff. We need to ask the Creator for His help and guidance.
I personally have my own opinion on what should happen with SGM, with Dave, with CJ and even with Brent … and I will make my own decisions as to remaining a member of SGM based upon the outcomes over the next few months … in the meantime please remember that this isn’t a battle against brothers … it is a battle against Satan himself.
Another negative comment: I asked on the Dave Harvey Show if he was going to answer the tough questions in a public forum as opposed to putting up smoke and mirrors. Never got posted.