Transcript Of C.J. Mahaney’s Remarks At The Sovereign Grace Ministries 2011 Pastors Conference
November 11, 2011 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
What follows is a transcript of C.J. Mahaney’s talk given this past week at Sovereign Grace Ministries’ conference for pastors. My remarks will be in blue.
—————————-
John Loftness speaking:
I am here right now to give some context before CJ comes to give an update from his leave of absence. More than four months ago CJ volunteered to take this leave. The board decided to expand the board of three men by having all of the regional leaders in SG – I am one of those leaders – and so suddenly in a day I was transformed into a board member. I’ve known CJ for 33 years.
Since leaving CLC and moving to Solid Rock four years ago our friendship has only deepened though we don’t see each other as much as we once did. I give you that background because of our history because the board asked me to serve as a liaison with CJ so he could get appropriate updates of our work and developments that might affect him. The board also thought it was wise and helpful if CJ could receive pastoral care from someone who knew him well and was familiar with all that was going on in Sovereign Grace. [Kris says: I realize that this is supposed to be a bit of an introduction to the notion that CJ will explain why he is no longer attending a Sovereign Grace church but has instead made himself part of Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church. But the idea that CJ left Covenant Life Church because he needed to receive care from “someone who knew him well ans was familiar with all that was going on in Sovereign Grace” cannot possibly be used as support for CJ’s going to CHBC. After all, who would know more about SGM and be more familiar with CJ – Mark Dever, or the men who have been trained by and worked along side of CJ for decades?] I consider it a great privilege to stand with my friend during this most trying time. We’ve met often, we’ve talked extensively about his soul his leadership and how to evaluate Sovereign Grace. So what you are about to hear reflects the content of many many conversations over the last four months.
CJ speaking:
Over the last four months so many of you have communicated your support to Carolyn and I and we are so very grateful.
I have been looking forward to this moment when I could address you. I have spent much time over the last four months studying Second Corinthians. Paul is uniquely personal in Second Corinthians, uniquely heart revealing and heart appealing. He says to the Corinthians, “My heart is wide open to you.” He expresses this care in this unique way it is the only time he does this…soon after this statement Paul says this to them, “make room in your heart for us.” You bear no resemblance to the Corinthians…But I think there is relevance in his communication. [Kris says: Why? If CJ’s audience bears no resemblance to the Corinthians, then CJ must want to make the implication that he himself bears resemblance to the Apostle Paul?] I want to …my heart and I want to appeal to you to make room in your heart for me.
Here is the state of my heart. I am sad, I am hopeful, and I am eager to return to the privilege to serve you. Those would be three categories. I am sad. I reflect on what you have experienced during this season, the time you have invested because of all that has taken place, the challenges you have encountered over the past four months, how this has adversely affected your church. I locate myself in the midst of that and find my way to where I bear responsibility for that, I am so sad. My heart aches and breaks because I want to serve you. I don’t want to create work for you. So I pray that my sorrow and sadness is evident to you. I want to open my heart to you. I feel like it has been four months of mourning for the people I love the most.
But I am also hopeful because God is sovereign and He is wise and He is good and He has good purposes for Sovereign Grace and His good purposes cannot and will not be frustrated ultimately.
Deficiencies can be and will be addressed. Never has there been an interim board that we should be more grateful for or appreciative of. These men and their wives have given countless hours of sacrifice. We have been served heroically by these men and their wives. I am so grateful for Dave assuming this leadership role which he did not desire, did not volunteer for, and all the men participating on this interim board because they love the Savior and they love us so let them be the object of our appropriate gratitude for the countless ways they have served us during this season. I have hope because these are humble men, men of integrity, looking to lead us wisely as we walk forward. So I am very sad and I am also very hopeful. That is a little of my heart.
I want to appeal to you to make room in your heart for me. Many of you – this appeal isn’t necessary. From the beginning you have indicated that there has been no adjustment in your heart toward us. The room that was there prior is still there. And some of you seem to have added room in your heart. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding. So many of you, this appeal isn’t necessary. Given the size of Sovereign Grace, given the diversity of questions, it is quite possible, it is understandable that for some there might be less room in your heart today for me. There may be little room , or maybe no room and if so, I understand. My appeal would simply be that I hope and I pray that what I say and in the future will allow you to make some room in your heart for me.
[Kris says: What does it actually mean, to “make room in your heart” for someone? Does it mean “continue to care about” the person? If so, I can’t imagine why CJ would honestly believe he needed to ask the men (SGM pastors) in his audience to work at continuing to care about him. Obviously they all still care, or they would not be sitting there listening to his remarks.
It seems to me that CJ is asking these guys for something a lot more complicated than vaguely “making room in their hearts” for him. It seems to me that CJ is actually asking these guys instead to be sympathetic to CJ’s own interpretation of the events and revelations of the past several months. He phrases it in the emotionally manipulative lingo of “Make room in your heart for me,” and he implies the clear comparison of himself to the Apostle Paul. But he’s asking for far more from his audience than merely continuing to care about him…or have him in their hearts. He’s asking for them to take on his point of view about SGM’s (and his) problems.]
Here is some of what I have learned during this season of reflection. I hope this provides some clarity where there has been confusion. I am not trying to persuade you. I am just providing you with my perspective for your consideration. [Kris says: The two previous sentences are patently untrue. CJ is clearly trying to persuade his audience to think in a certain way. Otherwise there would be utterly no reason for him to be standing up there in front of them, wasting his breath.]
I will address you from two categories: personal reflections and reflections on Sovereign Grace and my leadership of Sovereign Grace.
The leave of absence began in July. It was voluntary, it wasn’t imposed on me, it wasn’t disciplinary. It was a decision I made for a few different reasons. In light of the public distribution of Brent’s docs…here is what I wanted to do. I wanted to protect the office of the president of SGM. I wanted to protect the integrity of SGM, protect you and your church, I wanted to protect the integrity of the adjudication that was about to go forward. [Kris says: Does CJ continue to have a desire to “protect the adjudication”? Because if he does, why is he standing on the stage and speaking before the adjudicators – the Ambassadors of Reconciliation, presumably – have finished adjudicating?] I wanted to take time to evaluate my heart and my ministry in relation to the leadership to Sovereign Grace. After the Leave of Absence was announced I was informed by numerous leaders outside of Sovereign Grace that this decision was decidedly unwise, that it would be perceived as an admission of guilt or some form of discipline, though neither would be true. And in retrospect I do think this was an unwise decision on my part with unintended consequences and the board agrees with me on this. This leave of absence rendered me unable to communicate my perspective or defend me from all manner of false accusations. [Kris says: This is another absolutely untrue statement. CJ continues to have his SGM-financed ghostwriter at his disposal. He continues to have bandwidth on SGM’s own website for his blog. He has continued to speak publicly, both at SGM churches and non-SGM venues like Capitol Hill Baptist. One’s ability to defend oneself from “all manner of false accusations” has never necessitated being the head of a denomination.] But the leave did provide me with opportunity for reflection and unhurried evaluation and I am grateful. I have had so much interaction with individuals and received so much helpful and wise council inside and outside Sovereign Grace. I have learned much, I know God better, I love Him more, trust Him more, by His grace I am a wiser leader. So I am grateful for this unwise decision.
Next my transition to CHBC. After the public statement about the leave, I decided with the support of the board to attend CHBC during my leave of absence. I am very aware this decision has left you with a number of questions and I understand why.
Prior to the leave we had decided that Mark Dever would pay a strategic role in providing me with care and counsel …so his involvement was decided prior to the decision to attend CHBC. After my public confession and statement, it quickly became evident that for me to remain in CLC in this season would be untenable for a few reasons: there was hostility from a number in the church toward me after the release of Brent’s documents and I had disagreements with the approach that was adopted by the CLC pastors concerning these documents and in relation to my confession an approach that they thought best served the church. [Kris says: So basically what CJ is admitting here is that he was not actually submitted to the authority of any of his pastors at CLC. His primary concern was not actually to obey his pastors and make them happy. He decided he did not need to “be a joy to pastor.”]
So I didn’t see how I could remain in the church because I didn’t want to be a distraction, a disruption in the church, and I certainly didn’t want to be divisive to the church, because I love this church, I helped found this church, I gave 27 years of my life to this church. I wouldn’t want to do anything to harm this church. So I thought it would serve the church, serve the pastors that I wouldn’t be drawn in by the church to anything controversial by having to reveal any of my differences or concerns. I was desirous of serving the church. [Kris says: Actually, it sounds a lot more like CJ was desirous of serving himself and his own comfort. It sounds a lot more like CJ wanted to avoid hard questions and potentially uncomfortable conversations with other members. If his real desire was to “serve the church,” he could easily have done so by simply saying nothing if people tried to engage him.]
I realize this doesn’t fit the expected practice relative to a church that preceded this decision …I know that, and I understand the questions but this was a situation where I believed and still do believe that the Word agrees that remaining in CLC would not have served this church or have served the pastors of this church. [Kris says: CJ just pulled the Bible card here. He says “…the Word agrees…” I would be very interested in knowing just where the Bible says anything that would have supported CJ’s leaving CLC. CJ’s decision to quit submitting to his own pastors and his own local church flies in the face of everything he has ever taught about the overarching importance of the local church, and of the need for members to constantly be going around asking themselves if they are obeying and submitting to their pastors and making their pastors’ job a joy. Certainly if CJ is going to imply that the Bible supports his decision, he ought, as a responsible “theologian” and elder, to rightly divide the Word and show his audience where he gets this idea.] I did consider becoming part of Solid Rock Church but I didn’t want to be a distraction to that church either, didn’t want to draw that church unnecessarily into this controversy. I am at this time a walking controversy and I did not want to distract another church, to disrupt any church or to be divisive in a local church.
Finally I made this decision as a husband. My wife has an unusually strong constitution but I needed to protect her from the assaults that we were both the objects of. [Kris says: “Assaults”? Isn’t that a pretty melodramatic word for CJ to use to describe what he and Carolyn might have theoretically experienced if they’d remained at their SGM local church? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I’ve always had the impression that people were a bit in awe of Carolyn anyway and have always treated her with the utmost respect. Would she really have been vulnerable to “assaults” if they would have quietly continued to attend CLC?] I am a husband before I am a president. When it was announced that I would be attending CHBC it was suggested that i was fleeing accountability and my response is as follows. I was not under any formal church discipline. Actually I was pursuing accountability. I was taking a leave of absence that I thought was a statement of accountability. I continue to participate in my small group with Bob and Jeff and Gary and continue to receive their care and council, encouragement, correction. I was running into, not away from, two separate panels and I was placing myself under the care and council of Mark Dever for the purpose of adding even more accountability. Mark is a true friend. We have a history of relationship. He is an excellent pastor and the man does not flatter.
One final reason – I needed help, I needed pastoral care I needed the benefits of worship and preaching where I wouldn’t be distracted, where I wasn’t viewed suspiciously, where I didn’t have to be concerned about anyone approaching me before the meeting or after with questions or accusations. I needed to sit and listen to sermons that could speak to my needy soul. Mark is a dear friend to Sovereign Grace and I will never forget their kindness to us.
I don’t consider myself an exception at all. I do think these were exceptional circumstances.
[Kris says: If CJ doesn’t consider himself an exception, then he is really out of touch with what has been the reality for pretty much all other SGM pastors who have times of stepping away from the ministry, or being outright de-gifted. When other SGM pastors have been de-gifted (fired), they were then commanded to remain in SGM churches after they were forced to step down. They were not given the luxury of getting to seek the “benefits of worship and preaching.” They were forced to stay put and face people who knew all about their situations, Sunday after Sunday.]
Next, reflection on personal sins. At the beginning of the week of absence I have acknowledged – like all of you I have examined my heart – would be a practice for me – self examination in some form has been a practice for me my entire Christian life. Perhaps for some it appears this self examination, particularly as it relates to Brent’s docs, began in July with the leave of absence. But actually this began just after I received Brent’s first docs which would be more than a year prior to July. [Kris says: As someone else pointed out, it’s interesting how CJ and other SGM leaders continue to refer to the materials Brent shared as “Brent’s Documents.” While it is true that Brent did write significant amounts of commentary himself, what has always reflected most poorly upon CJ and the enablers surrounding him were their very own email communications which were quoted in the documents. As far as I know, nobody – not CJ or anyone else – has ever disputed the authorship of the many emails Brent shared. Nor has CJ or anyone else disputed the basic facts revealed in those emails. Calling the damning information “Brent’s Documents” is a clever way of distancing himself from the truth, which is that CJ’s own words in his own emails paint a very poor picture of him as a manipulative and controlling egomaniac.] When he sent the first docs I immediately sent it to those I serve with. I began to consider the contents of his documents and invited the observations and evaluations of those I serve with and through this process I was able to identify with the help of friends and the eyes of others, my wife at my side providing her insight as well, and I was able to identify more clearly certain incidences of sin, habits of sin, most of which I had previously acknowledged years before but I was engaging them again. By God’s grace I was engaging them in a more perceptive way and I hope more thoroughly.
So over a period of a year I crafted and sent to Brent two written confessions as a means of humbling myself and in hopes of being reconciled with him. I want to make clear that my written confessions to Brent were sincere, I was convicted of those sins. I did grieve and still do over the effects of my sin and I communicated that to Brent as well as to other men that were affected by my sin. I still want to communicate that to anyone and everyone that has been affected by my sin. It is a part of what informs my sadness. [Kris says: I wish that CJ would have taken a couple of minutes here to spell out in a few sentences just what, precisely, he’s talking about. What were his sins, if he’s so familiar with them now? I think some simple yet specific statements about what he actually considers to be his wrongdoings would go a long way toward helping those who continue to perceive CJ as not really having come to a place of repentance for anything relating to Brent’s complaints against him.]
However, it does appear that some assumed or concluded that I agree with Brent’s narrative, his accusations and interpretations and judgments of my motives, and this simply wouldn’t be true and it never has been true. Brent’s docs construct a narrative that I disagree with. That narrative portrays my sins as scandalous, calculated and deceptive, and uncommonly intentionally hypocritical, and pervasively so, and this is false. Yes, sadly I am a sinner and throughout my Christian life I have never viewed myself otherwise, and I think I have acknowledged this however inadequately throughout my Christian life but I don’t believe my sins are uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying. I have never believed that since the day the first doc arrived.
[Kris says: So coercing Larry Tomczak – his co-founder – to remain silent about half of the real reasons Larry was parting ways with PDI was not uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying? In order to secure that silence, threatening Larry Tomczak with exposing Larry’s then-teenaged son’s sins, which had been confessed to CJ in what was understood to be a private setting, was not uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying?
Setting up and ruling over a system wherein many men have been disqualified from ministry and fired from their pastoral positions for far more “common” sins (such as “pride” and the “fear of man”) while spending more than a decade refusing to make oneself even remotely accountable – that wasn’t “uncommonly intentionally hypocritical”?
I guess CJ has some singularly unusual ideas about what constitutes “uncommon” sin. Perhaps that would help to explain the pattern within SGM churches of responding so oddly to situations where child sex abuse had occurred. Perhaps that would help to explain why SGM pastors have appeared to take on the part of the perpetrator and further victimize the victims. Perhaps it’s because there’s an organization-wide faulty understanding of what makes a particular action an “uncommon” sin that demands appropriately harsh consequences?]
So I was grateful for the findings and rulings of the first panel in this regard and their agreement with that assessment. I look forward to the review panel, the second panel’s findings and rulings regarding this matter as well. I wish those panels started today.
I think I made a significant error in how I related to Brent’s docs. I viewed his docs as a means of personal sanctification and I related to him as if this is a matter of personal offense. [Kris says: I’m starting to wonder just how closely CJ read Brent’s documents. It was very clear throughout everything Brent shared that Brent was very concerned about ongoing patterns in CJ’s life that were not just about offending Brent on a personal level! Off the top of my head, I can’t even think of a specific conflict or disagreement recounted by Brent that would have been “personal,” with no ramifications for CJ’s role in the ministry.] All of one of my friends and counselors urged me to view his docs this way. [Kris says: CJ apparently has friends and counselors who don’t give good advice.] So I pursued personal reconciliation, I appealed repeatedly for mediation, I held out hope that Brent and I could be reconciled, and sadly to date that has proved to be a false hope.
I should have realized that Brent was making accusations and making charges, he was calling into question my fitness for ministry. This was First Timothy 5, not Matthew 5. [Kris says: Perhaps this is an error in the transcript, but if not, I think CJ meant to say, “not Matthew 18.”] So this whole matter should have been turned over to the SGM board early on for formal adjudication. But this was a new experience for me, and this was a new experience for us and one we weren’t prepared for. [Kris says: If receiving correction is a “new experience” for CJ and the SGM board, that fact is highly telling and actually supports all the charges in Brent’s documents.]
I think it might also be helpful to say something about the confession statement to Covenant Life and to you via a letter. Those confessions were sincere. I do, like you, take my sins seriously. I see them in light of the holiness of God. I need a Savior and I am so grateful that the Father has provided a Savior for my innumerable sins. But after making this confession I have received much helpful critique from a number of leaders about my confession and I have concluded that I did not serve you well with this confession. My confession has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and exploited. My confession should have been more precise. It was my desire through my confession to humble myself, to take responsibility for my sin, to set an example, to protect SG. [Kris says: It would have been helpful here for CJ to explain further what it was about his confession that he’s not somehow retracting. Also, maybe it’s just me, but I think the line, “I did not serve you well with this confession” is utterly bogus. Nobody at CLC or within the larger SGM organization was harmed (or “not served well”) by those letters. The only person who might have experienced unpleasant fallout from them was CJ himself. What CJ really meant to say is that those letters did not serve himself well.]
Instead, my communication in some ways create speculation that left me vulnerable to interpretation, that left me vulnerable to exploitation. I left the wrong impression of my sin. In that confession I was trying to convey that I take my sins seriously but I regret that my language conveyed that my sins were unusually serious. I do not think that I have never thought that. I didn’t distinguish my sins from Brent’s accusations, judgments, narrative and I should have.
One member of the first panel said this to me – quote: “I respect, CJ, how seriously you take the respectable sins but you left the impression that you did something scandalous. But nothing you confessed reached the level of public scandal requiring a public confession. Your sins are routine and common.” [Kris says: Again with the “routine and common” thing. I am really concerned if panel members cannot discern that strong-arming a cofounder, through what amounts to blackmail, into falsely portraying himself as leaving the organization because of his personal sins, rather than because of a major disagreement with a dramatic doctrinal shift, is somehow “routine and common.”] That is not to minimize my sin. But it did help me to see the wrong impressions I left and I regret that.
Another member of the panel said this: “I think you made a genuine effort to be humble. You overstate the level of offense and you confuse those outside of Sovereign Grace.” I happen to think that is an accurate critique. I didn’t just confuse those outside Sovereign Grace, I confused those inside Sovereign Grace as well. I over-stated. I think I did that as well the year before at this Pastors’ Conference. My apology in relation to the polity process. A number of you came in afterwards and said in effect, you overstated that. I think you were right. I think this panel has an accurate assessment.
[Kris says: Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’ve never yet seen or heard anything out of CJ Mahaney that would even come close to taking a shred of true responsibility for the decades of authoritarian leadership, harsh disciplinary practices, faulty teachings, and an overwhelming concern for protecting SGM’s image that resulted in bad policies for reporting abuse to law enforcement officials. I’m not sure which statements CJ is talking about here.]
Finally, in relation to my confession, I wish I had defended myself. I think I briefly, at the outset, possibly at the conclusion, referenced my disagreements with Brent’s narratives and accusations. But I wrongly concluded that it wouldn’t be humble of me to defend myself. I am now convinced that this really reveals an ignorance of, a misunderstanding, a wrong application of humility. I had no category for an appropriate defense against criticisms and accusations, especially public ones. I think not having a category didn’t serve me.
I have no category for an appropriate defense against criticisms and accusations, especially public ones and I think not having that category didn’t serve me, didn’t serve Sovereign Grace, didn’t serve this process. [Kris says: OK, I am revealing my lack of years-long experience as a real SGM member here, but I really don’t understand what CJ means by “not having a category for an appropriate defense against criticisms and accusations.” What in the world does “having a category” mean? Is this some special SGMese? Some phrase that occurs in Spurgeon’s writings? Or a Grudem textbook? I have been in church my entire life and have degrees from both a Christian college and a Christian university, and I have never heard anyone talking about needing a “category” in order to speak the truth when accused of wrongdoing. I wish this transcript came with an interpretor!] Actually as I look back and reflect, though I was new to this process and evaluation, I wish I hadn’t made that confession statement at that time and what I should have done is postpone any confession statement until both panels had ruled. It made my confession statement all the more [unintelligible]. Not doing that left me vulnerable to critics and I don’t think it served you. Those are just a few personal reflections that I hope are helpful.
[Kris says: How would CJ’s vulnerability to critics not have “served” the pastors in his audience? Wouldn’t it be far more accurate for him to say that it did not serve himself?
Also, does anyone else join me in finding it quite revealing that CJ claims he was “new to the process” of being accused and criticized? Is it at all realistic that a leader of a decades-old “family of churches” could have made it this far without ever having done anything or made any misstep that was deserving of an accusation or criticism? I don’t think so!
Instead, it’s much more logical to think that CJ lacks experience with being criticized because Brent Detwiler’s accusations are correct, and there really hasn’t been anybody who has been able to deliver corrective criticism to CJ or point out his missteps and mistakes.]
Now reflections on Sovereign Grace, reflections on my leadership of Sovereign Grace. Prior to this leave of absence I had become convinced, with the help of others, that I am not gifted to manage a movement. I lack the necessary organizational skills, I am not good at establishing policy and procedures and processes that set an appropriate expectation for how we serve together.
My gift of leadership is more strategic than it is tactical, it is more theological than it is practical. [Kris says: To echo a reader who had commented on this thought, what would a statement like this mean? Does CJ now consider himself to be a theologian?] And given the growth we have experienced even in the last 10 years we need practical leadership here, and appropriate structures and procedures. It is critical for SG, not optional and where change has been required in SG a process is necessary and here I would perceive definite other weaknesses in my leadership. I can introduce change quickly, I can assume when I have introduced quickly everyone understands it.
I can change quickly. I can tell you it is frightening how quickly I can change, it is disconcerting how quickly I can change. I can change quickly, I can make major decisions quickly. This doesn’t always serve a movement where process is necessary. Certain change is required, explanations, and more explanations, discussion, debate, and more explanation and persuasion. At times my leadership has helped create confusion. If you add to this our history of not communicating wisely – another area I want to take responsibility for, not communicating wisely and well, especially when you have made some significant changes.
[Kris says: This is actually the strongest part of CJ’s entire talk. Seriously. It is. He actually admits here how mercurial and ever-changing his ideas and views can be…and how those changes have not been clearly explained to people as they were foisted on them. Excellent.]
There are additional deficiencies with their consequences. As I reflect I realize that I so often am not even aware of the effect of my statements. I can be musing while interacting with guys, or musing in the context of a message, yet I am unaware that guys are assuming that I am setting direction and it doesn’t serve. Or I am peering in the future and sharing my musings and not considering how to communicate that so that they are introduced wisely, so that there is a process of explanation and consideration, so there is a procedure and plan. Too often I have not done that. So at one point I am just musing about transferring the gospel to the next generation of pastors. [Kris says: Again, I need my SGMese translator. What on God’s green earth does CJ even mean when he uses the phrase, “musing about transferring the gospel”? What is “transferring the gospel”? If the gospel is the simple yet profound truth of what Jesus has done for us through His death and resurrection, what is CJ saying in his “musings” that is so hard to understand that he isn’t “introducing it wisely”?]
And I can leave all of my friends my age assuming that their season of effective, fruitful service is quickly coming to an end. I don’t want to leave that impression. But I realize that I can leave that impression and let me just say to all of the older guys here, and not just because of the economy, you have many years of service left and Sovereign Grace needs you more than ever. That is not a criticism of the younger guys. Thank God for our younger guys. You bring us great joy. This movement isn’t ready for you to have a transfer of leadership at this point in time and I am sure you don’t desire that particularly with the number of wise older men in this room who want to serve you till their dying breath and with the grace of God.
As it relates to my leadership over the past four months, as I have reflected in particular over the last eight years of my life, I think I ended up serving in the areas that I am not gifted to serve to the detriment in the areas where I am gifted to serve, and have been the most fruitful over the years. The first among these would be preaching. For the last 3 years there has been a rising course of voices of friends inside SG and outside SG who have spoken to me, met with me personally, and communicated the same concern: Why aren’t you preaching? We are perplexed. Why aren’t you leading a church? What are you doing? I have a friend, a leader outside of SG that took me out to breakfast in the context of a conference, and in complete seriousness said, this breakfast informs a rebuke. I said what is the concern? Took the entirety of breakfast, I took 2 pages of notes and he just said you need to get back in the pulpit and you need to die in the pulpit and you need to lead from the pulpit. And he was quite forceful to impress on me what he felt like would be a form of disobedience if I didn’t because he said God has created a [indiscernible/inaudible] how can you not perceive this? Why are you not doing something about this?
I think he is right. I think I have neglected my call to preach. I think I have accepted a role that is more managerial and quite obviously I am not a manager. And I also think I am a pastor. That is what I think I am. I’m a pastor. And over the last 8 years I have become detached from serving a particular local church. I hope that changes soon. It is my intention to change that soon. [Kris says: Hmm, I’m no fortune teller, of course. (That would be unbiblical.) But if we were in the book of Daniel and there were writing on the wall, I’d feel free to make something of a prediction. These statements from CJ, about his true gifting as a pastor and not a manager, certainly make it sound like he is positioning himself to go back to pastoring. Perhaps Josh Harris needs to be updating his resumé?]
So during this season of reflection I have just benefited significantly from objective evaluation of my gifting from men inside of SG as well as outside of SG and I think I stand before you with more clarity on where I am called and gifted to serve and where I am decidedly not called and gifted to serve. Hopefully that will make me more gifted to serve.
And as I have looked at SG and myself, evaluated my leadership but SG more [unintelligible] I am aware that there are a number of areas to be addressed. Dave is going to communicate areas that need to be addressed. I just want to give you three.
Before I do, this practice of evaluation is the norm in Sovereign Grace. If you are new to Sovereign Grace, areas of deficiency aren’t unusual. You won’t be growing out of areas of deficiencies in our lifetime. So it is not abnormal for us to evaluate ourselves. I think it is abnormal this time. There is a loud voice from critics and the prevalence of slander that tends to intrude upon this evaluation, to distort this evaluation. [Kris says: I wish CJ would provide us with some sort of explanation for why he feels free to write off the “loud voice from critics” as insignificant, as something he and his cohorts can ignore. He indicates in this message that SGM has been without any sort of process for redressing wrongdoings by leadership. Since PDI/SGM has been around for more than 30 years, operating under one name or another, it would only make sense that without channels to address institutional wrongdoings, there would indeed be a “loud voice from critics.” Why does he automatically discount this? Why wouldn’t his critics’ “loud voices” be legitimate?] The process of evaluation is one we are committed to and have been historically and will be in the future and actually even bringing these few areas to your attention I have to qualify what I say. I don’t believe these are systemic and I am not attempting to evaluate all of Sovereign Grace. I don’t assume my preferences in [unintelligible] that it applies to all of Sovereign Grace. And I don’t agree with our critics who evaluate Sovereign Grace this way. I show concern for anyone, beginning with myself that make statements about Sovereign Grace that are categorical in nature. [Kris says: HOW? How does CJ “show concern” for those who make categorical statements about SGM? Thus far, all I have heard is his desire to blow off the “loud voice of critics” and call them slanderers.]
But just a couple of areas. First the doctrine of sin. I am deeply grateful for how the doctrine of sin serves the Christian. I am grateful for how it has served us in many ways. The doctrine of sin must be handled with great care and I don’t think we have always understood it properly and I bear some responsibility for this deficiency. Many years ago as I began to teach more about sin and sanctification I did not at that time anticipate all the potential pitfalls in the understanding and applying the doctrine of sin, especially as the amount of churches increased over the years. Oh my, I regret not foreseeing this. I regret not preparing us for this. I think I also assumed that our emphasis on the gospel would sufficiently protect us. Not necessarily so.
So as I have reflected over the last 4 months, I think this has been a 6 year process, in relation to the doctrine of sin I think there are a few areas where we have been affected by a misapplication of the doctrine of sin. [Kris says: So, it’s all about “misapplication”? It’s not because CJ’s teachings and writings were faulty to begin with? Typically, misapplication has to do with mistakes made by the listeners, rather than the teacher. It’s interesting how CJ is really only acknowledging the flaws of others (those who “misapplied” his teachings) rather than problems with what he taught.] First area is fellowship. This has been a strength in Sovereign Grace. I pray it remains a strength. At times the doctrine of sin has had too much of a prominent place in our practice of fellowship. Very careful here, so no misunderstanding. The practice and experience of fellowship is much much much broader than the application of the doctrine of sin. And our practice of fellowship must not be reduced to identifying sin or rehearsing sin or endlessly exploring the potential idols of our heart. Our practice of fellowship should primarily be a means of preaching and applying the gospel to each other. It should be a means of identifying evidences of grace in each other. The category of what it should be could be expanded.
[Kris says: Golly…sure sounds like CJ, or more likely, one of his lackeys, has been reading here. :D ]
But it is all too easy for our practice of fellowship to become a preoccupation with sin, primarily about sin rather than a fresh proclamation and application of the gospel to our lives. I regret these misunderstandings and misapplications where they have occurred. I wish I would have anticipated them. [Kris says: Wow. Just wow. During the one instance in this whole talk where CJ gets relatively specific about a problem, the most he can do is apologize or express regret for the deficiencies and mistakes of those who followed his teachings – because they “misunderstood” and “misapplied” what he said.] I think it was about 6 years ago I began to perceive these deficiencies. I’ve looked back through notes where I was – OK – I was attempting to address it but, OK, it was just a point in a message. I asked David Powlison to come to our Pastors’ Conference and preach a message on introspection. So that was all by design. That was simply the single message, had the privilege to teach the pastor care class at pastors’ college last 3 years and this has certainly been a section, but I should have done more. [Kris says: If anyone was under the impression that CJ was taking responsibility for one of SGM’s flaws – that of being too obsessed with pointing out the sins of others and considering that to be “fellowship” – here we have further proof that CJ is actually trying to vindicate himself, to prove just how he is NOT responsible for this particular problem. Not only has he now stated a couple of times that the problems arose through his listeners’ “misapplication” and “misunderstandings” of what he taught – he now also makes a case for how he actually did recognize the problem “about 6 years ago” and made attempts to address the problem.
All he really says here is that he’s sorry his listeners misunderstood and misapplied what was taught, and he did try to fix their problems by having Powlison come in and talk.]
And the second area in this regard is the area of correction. At times the doctrine of sin has been unhelpfully applied in relation to others instead of towards ourselves. So individuals have been corrected and pressed to acknowledge sins that others perceived, sins of the heart and when there isn’t immediate agreement with that correction and assessment then the category of pride can be introduced. The person appears to be unteachable then that is in sin, particularly if everyone else in the group is in agreement with each other about your sin. There is a wonderful quote, I think over the years it has been misunderstood and misapplied. This is from J.I. Packer’s work on the Puritans, Quest for Godliness, “Our best works are shot through with sin and contain something that needs to be forgiven.” The purpose of this quote is to humble us and to provoke us to guard our hearts. I don’t think this is a mandate for us to suspect the hearts of others or to pursue the sins of others or to correct others. I regret not perceiving this misunderstanding and misapplication. I regret not more effectively guarding misapplication. There is more I wish I would have done.
[Kris says: While all of this is definitely true, and it’s great that CJ is actually finally acknowledging what has become an unhealthy pattern of behavior among SGM’s leaders, does anyone else join me in feeling a bit cynical that he’s finally saying all this stuff only now – now, when it is to his own benefit to point out the pattern and declare it wrong? Where was CJ when hundreds of other SGMers were suffering similar fates?]
The second would be pastoral evaluation. This is another area that I think my leadership has been inadequate. More could have been done, more should have been done, more will be done. Sovereign Grace needs to provide our pastors with guidance, the content of a process where objective evaluation of pastors so that pastoral evaluations are theologically informed, objectively done, uniformly done, not arbitrary, not suddenly announced. A pastor shouldn’t be blindsided by an evaluation. And this is particularly critical when there are concerns about the pastor’s character or gifting. The content of this evaluation should be theologically informed, predetermined as well as the timing of this evaluation. I’m aware I’m aware I’m very aware that there are pastors that feel that they have been inappropriately evaluated, even mistreated by Sovereign Grace. Listen, I don’t believe this is systemic from my experience and I have pursued a number of these situations. Here’s what I have decided. Each situation is very different. Very different. [Kris says: It’s interesting that CJ doesn’t believe the various de-giftings represent systemic problems within SGM…and that he’s saying each situation is very different. When it comes to the de-giftings of various pastors (as well, come to think of it, as the way many members have been shown the door), I think anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge could list multiple similarities that would form a distinct disturbing pattern. I would love to have heard an explanation for just how these situations are all “very different.” I would be surprised if the differences outweigh the similarities.
But even so, I can’t imagine that focusing on the differences, rather than the clear similarities, would be helpful or productive in terms of SGM’s addressing its issues. However, trying to individualize and privatize situations where wrongdoing of leadership took place is a good way to enable denying and minimizing problems. SGM has used this tactic many times over the years, in terms of trying to make organization-wide abusive practices all about “Matthew 18” rather than acknowledging wrongdoing and addressing and fixing it out in the open.] We certainly do want to give attention to it. We are giving attention to it. In some ways I spent almost 2 years trying to give attention to it. And we are thankful for AoR and they are serving us even this morning.
One more thing before I finish. Once we have a pastor in place in Sovereign Grace we want to do all we can to keep that pastor in place. We do not want our pastors fearing that in some way that we are looking for a reason to disqualify them. We want to do all we can if at all possible for our pastors to have lengthy, fruitful service.
[Kris says: OK, I’m going to beat the same dead horse I’ve beaten in comments over the past couple of weeks. This particular piece of CJ’s speech is intriguing to me because I think it contains a tacit admission that SGM-the-national-corporation functions in a governing capacity within local churches, a capacity that is nowhere acknowledged officially.
Basically, right here we have an admission from CJ himself that SGM Corporate is in charge of hiring and firing decisions. That’s a far cry from the self-description that is posted on the SGM website, where SGM’s mission/purpose is described thus:
We are a family of churches passionate about advancing the Great Commission through church planting. In support of that mission we facilitate partnerships among pastors, operate a Pastors College, host events, and publish books, music, and other resources.
I wonder why SGM Corporate isn’t more forthcoming about its role in controlling which pastors work where, and how long these pastors remain in their positions. How is this governing/controlling role for SGM Corporate reconciled with the notion that each SGM church is “independent” and self-contained?
I know I have hammered at this for weeks, repeating myself again and again, but I think this is an important topic that needs clarification, particularly for the poor sap churches that are considering being adopted by SGM. I don’t understand how SGM can claim that local churches are independent – and how, pre-adoption, churches can think that they will retain their independence but just get some vague level of support from SGM Corporate – when the reality is that SGM Corporate is the governing entity for hiring and firing decisions.
This is especially head-spinning for me. Why do SGM churches continue to assert their independence when hiring and firing decisions are made for them by SGM Corporate? Why do they continue to believe the lie that they are independent, when they don’t really have full freedom to select their own pastor?
And why does SGM Corporate not disclose its governing role but instead portrays itself as some sort of hands-off support group?]
Finally, polity. you are aware of this involved in the process, it will continue. It is not something that should be done quickly , different ways. … 2 years this process. It has been the tireless work of Jeff and Dave, thanks for your patience and participation. I think we are making progress. It is going to take much longer to make the kind of progress we need to make. We should not be surprised about that. I had a leader say to me just the other day “the fact that you guys don’t have all of your polity clarified and formalized is not a sin. You are a very young movement. ” So that is encouraging, gave me hope.
[Kris says: While it’s great that SGM is retooling its polity, it is not a very good sign that these changes are apparently being engineered behind the scenes, by the pastors themselves, with little (or no?) input from ordinary SGM members. One of SGM’s hugest problems has been its culture of secrecy and control, where the thinking and decision-making are done behind closed doors by pastors and then announced to or foisted on people, sometimes even without even informing them directly. If SGM is serious about change and has a good handle on its problems, any changes to polity would be done out in the open, with plenty of feedback from tithe-paying members.]
One aspect of polity that I do regret not having in place and that would be the appropriate handling of grievances in conflict resolution. We have not had grievance procedures in place for pastors or church members so no doubt there are instances where former pastors or church members would have been greatly served by these procedures. I am sorry that. I am sorry for the effects of that. The board is addressing that. Obviously receiving the value of AoR concerning that become a consistent part of Sovereign Grace church and Sovereign Grace procedures as well. It needs to, we want to, it will become .. so that’s not exhaustive. It won’t surprise you that I have lots more to say. I am not going to say it today. I have lots more to say. I have never been this quiet for this long in my entire life. I was going to say it is killing me, but it is sanctifying.
Finally, it would not be good leadership on my part for me to leave you preoccupied with areas of deficiency. It would not be good godly leadership. Do we have problems. Yes we do. But listen. Problems we are facing., confronting, experiencing. These things do not define us, and they do not define our churches. Sovereign Grace is a gospel preaching movement. And by God’s grace Sovereign Grace will continue to be a gospel preaching movement. One thing I would like to say and stress. We must not let our critics define us, or redefine us. I think the days ahead are going to require all the content of Dave’s excellent message.
I think the days ahead are going to require more discernment as it relates to the identification of slander and the influence of slander in our churches. I think the days ahead are going to require courage on the part of pastors and when necessary publicly identify those who are divisive. I think the days ahead are not only going to require, I think they are going to require courage. I think in some ways in SG we have more humility than courage. And we are going to need more courage. Humble courage. It doesn’t mean we don’t learn from critique, we do. But there is a difference between learning from critique and allowing critics to define you. We are [not?] capitulating to slander in the name of humility.
[Kris says: I think every SGM member ought to be asking their pastors what this section of CJ’s talk means. SGM has historically redefined “slander” to mean the sharing of any information or thoughts that might not reflect positively upon leaders or the organization itself. Is that how “slander” is going to continue to be defined?
And what does it mean to be “divisive”? Why would “divisive” people need to be “publicly identified”? What would such public identification entail? Are people now going to be outed for asking questions or expressing disapproval of or disagreement with what SGM Corporate and CJ do at the top? Why would pastors need “courage” in order to deal with “divisive” people, unless this pubic outing of the divisive folks is going to involve some sort of messy and unpleasant confrontation?
More importantly, how would such a witch hunt for the “divisive” jive with CJ’s own words in this very message, the words about how people misapplied CJ’s teachings about fellowship and have focused too much on confronting others about their sins? Isn’t it a total contradiction, to on the one hand condemn the hunt for sin in others while on the other hand end this message with a call to arms for pastors to exhibit “courage” and go and “publicly identify” those they think are being “divisive”? Wouldn’t such a process involve a whole lot of the same sin-sniffing CJ claims to now condemn?]
So we are going to continue to evaluate ourselves. But it would not please God if we minimize the evidences of grace in our midst, that have been present and pronounced for so many years. This is not spin. This is not hype. This is not some form of SG self promotion. This is simply and humbly and accurately an acknowledgment of the mercy of God in and to SGM.
© 2011, Kris. All rights reserved.
For the curious…
Yes, you just saw 2 comments disappear. I decided that it’s best to move on from the Twitter stuff. We can discuss the transcript of CJ’s remarks, or any of the other concerns that anyone has.
Kris: Excellent commentary. I think CJ answers himself what his definition of divisive is here:
CJ’s Dictionary:
Divisive people = critics, who critique the church leaders/organization in a negative light and refuse to back down when discussing it with the pastors, after hearing the pastors’ explanations/rationale. If the pastor(s) don’t agree with your critique, well, then your critique is wrong—and if you don’t retract it, you are a divisive person.
I think it is interesting that he uses a word like “capitulate”. It is a combative word, meaning “to not yield or surrender”. He’s in a personal war.
:beat dead horse = critics
Kris:
A resounding, but sad, yes.
CJ “I don’t think this is a mandate for us to suspect the hearts of others or to pursue the sins of others or to correct others. I regret not perceiving this misunderstanding and misapplication. I regret not more effectively guarding misapplication. There is more I wish I would have done.”…. this made me cry. I would be so happy to see that he FINALLY gets the damage he has done by leading a church to be sin-focused to the point he himself described. This application of doctrine was beyond damaging…but to admit it and then whitewash it makes me puke because it is insincere and manipulitive…really! To say…there is more I wish I would have done…from the man that STARTED this practice….no one misunderstood!! I was in CLC when this started…it came from CJ! I could throw up reading that he is blaming someone else for this damaging doctrine….maybe even us? Heartbreaking. This above all screams craziness to me! Wow.
“I think the days ahead are going to require more discernment as it relates to the identification of slander and the influence of slander in our churches. I think the days ahead are going to require courage on the part of pastors and when necessary publicly identify those who are divisive. I think the days ahead are not only going to require, I think they are going to require courage. I think in some ways in SG we have more humility than courage. And we are going to need more courage. Humble courage. It doesn’t mean we don’t learn from critique, we do. But there is a difference between learning from critique and allowing critics to define you. We are [not?] capitulating to slander in the name of humility.”……WOW :koolaid I think this means we are going to kick out the people that disagree… (Pastor Harris)????….this reads like manipulation to me. It means people are going to get upset that we kick out those that aren’t going along with the CJ program…and ah….we will call it courage…..I mean control….oh no godly courage ..yeah that is just what SGM members need. This is just sick. …that is all SGM members need more courage to do as they are told. So sad.
CJ states:
Here he is using the terms of slander and divisiveness as almost interchangeable, or slander an identifying mark of a divisive person. In the normal, real world where the definition of “slander” is “a false and defamatory oral statement about a person”, I can see the correlation and the need for pastors to protect a local church from a doctrinal schism, or something of that magnitude.
However, in SGM-land, with a skewed definition of slander as “sharing of any information or thoughts that might not reflect positively upon leaders or the organization” identifying “divisive people” becomes immediately a witch-hunt of anyone who dares to speak up! (It sadly reminds me of the Whack-a-mole game!)
I would like to thank CJ for helping me to finally see that he is just plain sick. I always tried to still give the benefit of a doubt…that God would convict him and he would come to see the damage he has done…but this. This reads to me anything but humility. He damaged many many people….and now is blaming someone else and calling it misapplication. The only misapplication made was all of us elevating CJ and leadership higher than was bibilically correct. So totally crazy.
1 John 2:26-27
26I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
Praise God that it is Jesus “abiding”in us that we can see through the doctrine of man. That Christ holds us close through these times. I pray for His annointing on the members of SG churches that all would draw close to Jesus (Risen!) through all of this!
In the final sentences of CJ’s sermon, he ends with this:
I actually think every one of these statements is an exact contradiction of the truth. This message was all about spin. It also contained what definitely felt like hype – about how much CJ has learned and grown spiritually from the experience of Brent’s documents, about how much progress they’re making on all the areas of concern and so forth.
And while I’m not exactly sure what “some form of Sovereign Grace self promotion” would be (frankly, it almost sounds like CJ had a bit of a Freudian slip here, where he reveals to us that he actually does feel like he’s promoting himself when he promotes SGM), everything in this message was all about making himself and SGM sound better, like he really didn’t do anything very wrong and SGM’s problems aren’t anything that terribly big.
In the end, it’s like CJ views his critics as the problem. The “divisive” people with their “slander” are going to get “publicly identified” (whatever that entails). But CJ himself, and SGM? They’re doing A-OK…if it weren’t for those pesky slanderers.
Kris, I would like to know if CJ allowed any Q&A at his PC Family Meetings.
Also, this speech made by CJ reveals that he has very little empathy. How would he feel if someone called him and tried to shut him down by sharing sensitive information about his son?
He says he is sad to cause any more ‘work’ to sgm pastors? What about embarrassment and loss of membership?
He says he was trying to ‘protect’ his wife? What about trying to protect his own reputation and organization?
His followers needed specificity about his sin and details about how the organization is going to reform. Instead, CJ is defensive and self-focused.
When he should rather be seeking more details of how he has failed the membership for over 30 years, he gives orders to publicly identify anyone found divisive?
We may never fully understand what makes him tick but something dreadful is wrong with that part of the brain or heart that produces empathy.
Mary,
I agree with you! This message reveals more to us about how out of touch with reality CJ actually is than pretty much anything else thus far. CJ really incriminated himself.
Muckraker,
I have always thought that SGM’s readiness to toss around the “slander” word in a very loosely (and incorrectly) defined manner was one of the signs of its dysfunction.
In normal organizations, there is not such anger and so many counter-attacks in response to negative feedback. The really loyal diehard SGMers are extremely quick to be unusually angry and defensive when someone points out something wrong with SGM.
I guess it’s easier to cry “Slander!” than to be honest with oneself…
I’m reposting this from the previous thread with a few changes as it relates to this post what was been shared at the PC.
Well, what does this “family of churches” want to be? Do they want to be a denomination with a strategist/theologian at the helm? The Board does not know how do run this movement/family/denomination without him (where is faith in our heavenly Father in this). The top guy has been declared beyond humble and fit for whatever it is he is going to do (vague on that one). This leader was sure to quote the men who have declared his sin common and that he was beyond humble (that would make me feel good). Mind you, they were not those who have worked closely with him for thirty years. They were not those from his own board of directors of years past (those still with him and those gone) who have had concerns since 2002(?) and possibly before that. No, he was declared fit for ministry by others who see from a different perspective. And this is necessary because why? Those that he works with (“with” used loosely here) might be
in fear of loosing their jobs and are now certainly in fear of being publicly rooted out for being divisive and slanderous (still not clear on what would be considered divisive and slanderous).
Did anyone hear – I’m sorry; I was wrong; I have hurt many because I (__); please forgive me; this is what God was showing me, personally, during my time of reflection? Doesn’t he need to repent before he whole “family of churches.” Hasn’t the whole “family of churches” been harmed?
Well, maybe the change of title was what he came away with from the time of reflection, along with the issues regarding the doctrine of sin and the polity issues – but now wait, sin issue (6 years ago), polity problems (2+ years). Does it take this long for issues to be addressed and changes put in place when men are humble and truly see the outcome of their ways on real people; and if the gifts of all the saints are being put to use? I’m hoping there was more that God was speaking to CJ, and he just doesn’t want to share that, which is fine.
I don’t have a problem forgiving, even if someone does not ask for forgiveness, but that doesn’t mean that I trust someone with great responsibility. I trust God and his perfect love toward all of us. I just don’t see some of these men imitating Christ. I don’t see the heart of God in what they do or say. They hardly speak about people or God at all. Most of what I hear is words about the “family of churches.”
An example – after listening to some of CJs teaching to the pastors about “When a Pastor Loses Heart,” it seemed to be just misery to prepare a sermon for a Sunday morning. It seemed like there was no joy in the process at all. (I know sometimes it is that way and one has to press through.) But, honestly, it made me want to tell my pastor to just read a long passage of scripture verse on a Sunday if he was in such a state over preparing a sermon. I don’t sense that CJ, along with some of the other men, really find joy in serving, or maybe they prefer to lead. And if folks are viewed as the “Corinthians,” and not “the Bride of Christ,” then that pretty much sums it up.
We also seem to be finished looking at our issues (although AoR is not finished) and we are in a place of “looking at the days ahead.” :huh Move along little doggies . . . move along.
As a current SGM church member, I find the comments from CJ about publicly identifying divisive people to be a bit scary.
I am not opposed to asking truly divisive people to repent or leave, but only those people that are actually intending to divide. Disagreements aren’t divisive so long as we keep the right focus.
The Bereans were commended for studying scripture to see if what Paul said was true. I try to do the same with the sermons I hear. I don’t think that is being divisive.
Persona,
If there was a Q&A at this session, I haven’t heard about it yet.
Your remarks about CJ’s clear lack of empathy made me think of something else.
Something CJ attempted to really beat into his listeners in this message was the notion that the sins he confessed to weren’t anything scandalous or extraordinary. I happen to think that his quasi-blackmail of Larry T was pretty extraordinary…but I know there are people out there who would still defend CJ and minimize this sin by saying that it was a long time ago, that Larry and CJ reconciled (conveniently…after CJ already knew that Brent was likely to go public with the documents), and that it was a rare one-time occurrence.
But even if someone would want to argue that CJ’s 10-year-old sin of blackmail against Larry isn’t actually that bad, that “uncommon” a sin, I think there’s a tremendous likelihood that the quasi-blackmail was probably just ONE symptom of a much larger and broader tendency within CJ. Maybe CJ didn’t stoop that low again in precisely the same way. But the reality that he thought along those lines – that he would threaten to reveal a kid’s sin in order to silence the kid’s father from talking about stuff that CJ didn’t want disclosed – well, I don’t think that would happen in a vacuum. I don’t think that that would be something that popped up out of nowhere, without other similar kinds of behavior.
Not saying that I think CJ went around coercing and blackmailing a lot of people…just that it seems quite likely that if he thought along those lines once, he’s gone down that road many other times, just in different (and less potentially illegal) ways.
The root of the blackmail question isn’t exactly technical or legal. Rather, it’s what was going through CJ’s head at the time…and what still apparently is going through his head, in that he seems unable, STILL, to take full responsibility for something like a faulty teaching. (Instead of owning the faulty teaching, he just blames his listeners for “misapplication” and “misunderstanding.”)
I might be wrong about this, but I think the root issue for CJ is about maintaining his own superior control and authority at all costs. He was afraid that if Larry T shared the doctrinal reasons for his leaving, a bunch of PDI people might have left and gone with Larry, since many of them had no idea that CJ was shifting things over to the Reformed/Puritan ideas. CJ was afraid of losing control. CJ wanted to retain his power. That was likely what drove him to threaten Larry the way that he did. (Which…as far as I can tell…is NOT actually “slander” and has NEVER been refuted.)
So, thinking along these lines, I’d say that the Larry T quasi-blackmail incident is likely just ONE symptom of a much bigger problem…which WOULD be an “uncommon sin,” if CJ were ever to admit and own up to it.
Tom – exactly! And then you have CJ making that statement to the Pastors, no less, with no explanation of what the statement means (unless the pastors have a secret dictionary). What are the pastors supposed to do with that? And CJ already made it clear that some of what has been taught by him has been misapplied(for years) by OTHERS. Why would he say this if he has a heart for the Bride of Christ and understood how that might be misapplied? :scratch
I don’t get it!! I hope and pray that pastors are thinking, praying, and asking for wisdom and not buying into the fluffy words.
….CJ said,
….and said,
Since CJ is admitting that there are flaws (gasp) with his teaching…pause for public service announcement: this man has been acclaimed for his excellent public speaking and theology – how can a man so wonderful in public speaking and theology have erred so greatly for so many decades with such important elementary things???
Back to my other point: Since CJ is admitting that there are flaws with his teaching, since CJ is acknowledging there is obvious room within his high tower to be wrong, since there were others who were wise enough to notice these flaws and since these others sought to bring these errors to CJ (Brent for one), but since correcting CJ is akin to blasphemy, just how is “divisive” going to be defined?
Is it divisive to bring an “observation” to CJ (or to the church) that there are glowing errors in CJ’s theological understanding and teaching?
Is it divisive to care enough about theology(defined as the study of God) that one wants to correct CJ’s errors?
If CJ is teaching wrong doctrine, is it divisive to seek to attain to holiness by pointing to the correct and speaking out about it?
Is it divisive to want a man of integrity to sit at the helm of a ministry supposedly dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ?
Is it divisive to believe, and to state that belief, that CJ is not a man of integrity as the coersion of Larry T testifies and the hundreds who post and read here affirm?
Is it divisive if it is only to the cause of CJ that is affected rather than against the Church and those who make up the Church?
Is CJ filled with ANY love for the people who have faithfully made him a wealthy man or does his love extend only to the tip of his nose?
Kris #15
“I might be wrong about this, but I think the root issue for CJ is about maintaining his own superior control and authority at all costs.”
I don’t think Larry is the only guy CJ has bullied into agreeing with him. It happened to me once when I disagreed with CJ on a point he made in a teaching.
That day I learned how he uses body language as well as words when he tries to dominate a conversation.
That day, I told him something he said was not true in our particular experience and told him how grateful I was for that. At that point CJ leaned forward and placed his face inches from mine, and said definitively, that he was right and I was wrong. No room for disagreement there! It was apparent to me that he would only allow affirmation.
That little window into his behavior, showed me that even on a non-doctrinal issue, even on a tiny point of contention, even in private discourse, CJ would simply not assent to a differing point of view. No compromise, no retreat no allowance for another opinion. Period.
He seemed quite comfortable using this methodology. And, I would be very surprised if I was the only person he has ever attempted to bully.
Kris, “This message reveals more to us about how out of touch with reality CJ actually is than pretty much anything else thus far.” I seriously agree!! This really speaks volumes to me and it should to any SGM member. I hope that SGM members don’t just let CJ steamroll anyone. I would hope they do have courage in the days ahead…courage to protect those that are trying to bring needed change. Courage to not let CJ control the body of Christ. Courage to evaluate what godly leadership really means. Courage to be like Tom above and not just do as they are told but to take time to weigh the leaderships actions against the word of God. This speech of CJs should cause huge alarms to people; most certainly should to anyone in CLC that sat under CJs teaching all these years to see all this unfold. I do hope they do have courage in the days ahead…courage to hear God for themselves and to see that it is God’s house and not CJ Mahaney’s. Courage to stand up to leadership if need and say “no thank you”.
Uggh..John Loftness with him..I find it so apropos that this whole Penn State thing breaks loose during the Pastors Conference, and find it amazing that those men will still hold their heads up proudly in public as the sins of not protecting children is discussed everywhere.. This whole thing is getting more disgusting by the day.. :barf:
Ashleigh had some good tweets-she was one of my favorites..I am sorry she is not strong enoguh to stand up to them, but will be commanding to Kris? Shouldn’t we, as Christians, always be ready to stand by what we say (tweet, type..etc)?
I am wondering if these SGM guys care so much for CJ. If John Loftness, Gary,all these guys care for him and his heart, why doesn’t someone insist he goes in for a psychiatric evaluation. Even Carolyn must see that he is clearly clearly in need of psychiatric help.
jedi:
Simple answer- SGM does not endorse, recommend, believe or refer to the medical field of psychiatry. They are so therapeautic-phobic that the are helpless in defining anything else other than sin. Even grace, as evidenced by CJs preaching at PConf, is hard to comeby at SGM.
CJ:
“Next, reflection on personal sins. At the beginning of the week of absence I have acknowledged – like all of you I have examined my heart – would be a practice for me – self examination in some form has been a practice for me my entire Christian life. Perhaps for some it appears this self examination, particularly as it relates to Brent’s docs, began in July with the leave of absence. But actually this began just after I received Brent’s first docs which would be more than a year prior to July. ”
I know that Kris already gave a good critique of this paragraph but I just wanted to add that this whole paragraph really doesn’t make any sense except for the clear fact that CJ is extremely uncomfortable acknowledging any personal sin. As soon as I read the words ‘like all of you’ (and it doesn’t matter the context here) I knew he hadn’t changed a bit. He will be guilt ridden until he is able to come clean and that without any of the pain relieving drug of deflecting manipulation. He has not yet allowed himself to be broken by God. I speculate that if there are truly any men on his side that cant see what we are talking about that they also have the same problem that CJ has.
A little more about the ‘like all of you I have examined my heart,’ his psyche is hoping that everyone else’s examination of their hearts has been as faulty as his. Or he is insinuating that they have not examined their own hearts thereby excusing his own lack of ‘honest’ examination.
If any of us still use that kind of phraseology then we are more like CJ than we want to admit. Oh but the continuous cleansing flow of Christ’s blood when we can acknowledge one hundred percent of our responsibility and make things right with our brother is far more glorious than the delusion that people actual respect me for something I am not. I pity dictators and tyrants, how can you ever know who your true friends are.
Also, if he considers his leadership errors to be normal, why would I ever trust leaders again.
My gosh. Anyone this out of touch with reality has no business leading a church. I find it dreadfully worrying that CJ only now decides his doctrine on sin has flaws; my goodness, can’t people see how utterly self-serving this is; and how hypocritical? Again, my gosh. If this were another pastor, say one not on CJ’s good side, then his doctrine of sin would have been right on, and he’d be giving a different opinion on his doctrine were he speaking of this other pastor on that stage rather than himself. The more they talk, the more disturbed I am.
I mean…you could simply go on and on about how dreadfully, woefully ostentatious and self-preserving this was. I cannot believe they think this glorifies God. I’m incredulous.
I say CJ will be officially back in the saddle when he writes a blog post “correcting” Joe Paterno.
SGM Refuge has a new post with the entire transcript. Apparently there was a middle section that Kris didn’t get. http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/11/11/cj-mahaney-at-the-pastors-conference-family-meeting/
Towards the end of that five minute YouTube vid, CJ is telling the pastors that when they find preparing next week’s sermon hard for “this ministry” with a hand held virtually the same height as the other hand for “this gospel”, and he says it:
“…involves a process of DEATH in you in private preparation so that as you arrive at the pulpit, your process of preparation results, by the grace of God, in LIFE for OTHERS as you ex-egis the text and draw their attention to the gospel from the text and God reveals his Son afresh to all who are saved and present and dispels darkness in sinners and gives sight to the blind.”
And earlier, around 3:30, “…and as we serve, death working in us is the result of life in others.”
My question: Didn’t Jesus already do this?
This is THE proof…I have always said that SGM feels that when their pastors preach on THEIR DOCTRINE, THEIR PERSPECTIVE, it IS the very word of God. They are weekly re-enacting Christ’s death on the cross in such a profound way that it carries the weight of God speaking and God doing Himself, and therefore, any speaking against your (SGM board approved) pastor, or his teachings, or any criticism of his authority or his management is a very assault on God Himself.
Now, this is where I want to say that this is only my OPINION:
When CJ stepped down in “humility”, he was acting as God, being gracious and kind and forbearing, allowing Josh and pastors room to see how holy and wonderful he is. But then the subjects did not respond the way he hoped. Josh continued to have concerns with CJ’s actions. Brent did not capitulate his demands; and questioned, rightly, the legitimacy of CJ’s “confession”. The blogs continued to cry out; his “confession” was a way to show that he can humble himself as the humans do, but they weren’t viewed this way, and now, God is angry. God is outraged at the divisiveness, and the dividers. And God is explaining afresh how His commands do not apply to Himself.
Now, I’m not saying that CJ is consciously thinking in this way, however, I do think that, if Brent’s documents and all the primary sources he quotes are to be believed, this is more disturbing talk from a personality that views himself in someway as high above the norm, in a position of authority not reserved for others.
Moniker,
Someone actually emailed me the corrected transcript, and I am working on editing it right now. Thanks.
I think CJ is definetly including pastors in his “divisive” comments. Sounds like SGM has more control than they let on. If you are a SGM pastor on the fence, and you heard CJ’s comments, you will think twice before making waves now. A pastors college course doesn’t do much for the resume and the word is out. Be divisive and we will deal with you. I think any momentum left for reform is totally dead. I left SGM before all this happened, how anyone with any discernment can stay now is beyond me.
Kris I read your transcript of CJ and all I can do is :barf:
The missing section is up now.
I have two comments. First, I notice from reading the transcripts that, not only is C.J. not eloquent at all, but he doesn’t make sense.
As far as C.J. being out of touch with reality and needing a psychiatric evaluation, it brought me back to my last church experience. It was quickly becoming apparent that my pastor there was a narcissist, as he suggested I leave the church when I questioned him about something. I called one of the men who was supposedly an accountability partner and shared our conversation, and expressed that I felt this pastor was losing it mentally. Unfortunately this “accountability partner” circled the wagon, and it was the worst use of my cell phone minutes ever.
Kris- Impressive analysis.
My vote is he’ll take over at Solid Rock, the family is already there, right? Smaller but more likely to fall in line 100%.
Ironically, the one thing he can’t do is preach. Tell stories until your sides hurt from laughing, yes, but a decent solid bible exegesis- sorry, no way. Wonder which big dog it was…..hopefully can’t have been one of the good teachers in the Coalition, but who knows….
It’s a long long post but John Immel’s Aug. 27 thoughts on this over at http://www.spiritualtyranny.com are pretty insightful. Whether you can go along with him on the tie between Reformed or even neo-hypercalvinist theology and SGM’s troubles or not, there’s some good thoughts on authoritarian power structure as it relates to SGM’s view of leadership.
Barring a miracle, CJ will never be able to see himself as anyone other than a member of a special ruling class of anointed leaders, where he is First among equals, The SGM leaders “serve” you because you are incapable of serving yourselves. The concept of the priesthood of all believers will never fly at SGM.
So, good SGM’ers, put yourselves back in the capable hands of the master of theology and church strategy…
:barf:
“Those confessions were sincere. I do, LIKE YOU, take my sins seriously.”
“I had no category to defend myself” – That’s cause when ya stepped down out of the anointed ruling class, ya gave up the right to shout down, bully and threaten your critics, silly boy….
Thanks for the post Kris. Another great job. Just goes to show how deep embedded CJ’s issues are.
Persona#18: That situation sounds very disturbing. How sad that so many across CLC and SGM put so much faith and admiration into this guy. How sad that Josh Harris looked up to him so much only to at one point discover who he really is. He deceived so many and it’s becoming apparent and heartbreaking to many. Many wish he would just change, that his apology was sincere and that he would grow from it. Yet after the SGM board declaring him “Fit for ministry” and the “Leave of Absence” becoming a newfound preaching circuit, I think many begun to suspect that CJ was not repentant. And his speech at the Pastors Conference just proved the point stronger.
And with those saying CJ is in need of psychiatric evaluation I completely agree. How sad that so many other SGM pastors are too deluded to tell him this.
Also, just goes to show how much he actually believed about him being “the worst sinner I know” and doing “better than I deserve”. If he truly did believe he was the “worst sinner I know” he wouldn’t have trivialized and minimized his sin as being “unscandalous”.
It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that Gary and the Mahaney family will be at Solid Rock and some statement was made that so many people are leaving CLC that if everyone that wanted to leave CLC for solid rock would come it would double their membership…but I didn’t hear that directly..
If everything is slander, then will CJ say which is it? What is not the truth? Also, I’m sure he has a laptop and could start a blog defending himself. Which things are half truths? People who are slandered against will do whatever it takes to get the truth out. Sadly, i really think there is more that we don’t know about.
Oh and about someone saying how CJ’s sins were not uncommon. Maybe that means the pastors who said that committed the same sins or know people who did and thats why it is not uncommon.
New sgm blog post up :http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Ted-Kobere28099s-sermon-and-some-initial-observations-on-Sovereign-Grace-Ministries.aspx
Lynn said,
Yeah. I’d love to know the answer to the question of what, precisely, CJ would call “slander.”
I’m tending to think that he’s using “slander” in the usual SGM redefined fashion, where it doesn’t mean “untrue information” but instead means “disagreeable, non-supportive, or unflattering information.”
While Brent’s documents contained much that would be considered disagreeable, non-supportive, and unflattering to CJ and SGM, I don’t think the actual truthfulness is in dispute. Otherwise we would have heard more about that by now. Those documents have been out there for 3 months. SGM and CJ have had plenty of opportunities to point out factual inaccuracies. But instead of doing that – and thus supporting their charges of “slander” – they seem to prefer general condemnations of Brent and the other critics.
I just checked the SGM site, has anyone read or listened to the AOR comments and messages yet that SGM has posted?
not sure if this was ever posted, but this screams sgm
Sorry forgot link for #43 http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html
Look what I found. Calvery Chapel is has their own blog too. http://calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/?p=986
-see there is something wrong, very wrong with these churches that are family of churches.
Kris, you ask some questions and offer an observation or two about “SGM Corporate.” And, as always, you invite other insights and viewpoints. I will comment on the following:
Kris wrote: “I don’t understand why SGM Corporate isn’t more forthcoming about its governing role and I don’t understand what a church like NCC would possibly be gaining by deceiving themselves and telling themselves that they have some sort of voice in these decisions…when pretty much, it’s already been decided.
“This is especially head-spinning for me. Why do SGM churches continue to assert their independence when hiring and firing decisions are made for them by SGM Corporate? Why do they continue to believe the lie that they are independent, when they cannot even have full freedom to select their own pastor?
“And why does SGM Corporate not disclose its governing role but instead portrays itself as some sort of hands-off support group?]”
The practice of governing a collection of local churches “from above” and “outside” (governed by “SGM Corporate”) is complete and definite proof that the group is, in fact, a denomination and not merely “a family of churches.” These churches are ruled and directed, with a thin veneer of internal leadership via pastors/elders.
No one should miss this in the primary focus on CJ personally and his issues. This is 100% denominational thinking. It is the stuff of “bishops” and “superintendents” and control of both positions and personnel and ultimately, property and money. Corporations are about control. Jesus did not say, “I will build my corporation,” but that is what people do when they want to govern and rule and decide who takes the spoils.
The SGM leaders (“Board”) do not trumpet their authority or plans to (continue to) rule their associating and related churches. Why? Because they do not want to scare anyone. In the final analysis, it’s about the money, the control. There will still be hiring and firing and re-assigning and territorial rights and putting certain men “up” and taking cerrtain ones “down.”
Caveat emptor! (For those contemplating staying, going, or on the fence.)
I remember when my kids were young, I pulled the “because I’m your father and I said so” line out once in a while, and it worked okay especially if not obeying would also result in the loss of some privilege, or maybe even punishment. But with mundane things at stake, it only worked until the kids reached a certain level of maturity. For my kids that was about 10 years old.
With grown adults, it takes something as significant as the threat you may lose your soul to be able to play the “because I’m your pastor and I said so” card effectively.
Lynn,
Yes, Rick Ross rocks! , I wonder how much he charges for that BS Detector he’s ‘advertizing.’
Lynn #45
Thank you for putting up the calvary chapel link. That is so shocking and sad. What on earth is going on?
I mean…the cover-up of rape, sexual abuse, molestation in churches… :huh
haha…I just had a memory of one time CJ preaching and putting down country music and talking about the “sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug” song….well..CJ you have been a hammer for a long time and now you can’t handle being the nail…instead of acting like it was all misapplication … maybe you could just admit that the sin sniffing/slamming/shunning world you – yourself – created ..actually hurts…hurts a whole lot! Welcome to our world! I hope you’ve enjoyed the ride. A sane person would realize the pain they caused others now that they actually feel it themselves….it makes me wonder why you still don’t get it. um….