What Sovereign Grace Ministries Is Telling SGM Members About The Lawsuit
April 24, 2013 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
Sovereign Grace sent the following letter to members recently:
Dear [Member Name],
Last October, we informed you of a lawsuit filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), two of the local churches that were at one point affiliated with SGM (Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax), and eight individually named pastor-defendants.
As a valued partner in Sovereign Grace’s mission to plant and build churches with the gospel of Jesus Christ, we write to update you on this matter and provide you with the latest details as we prayerfully trust the Lord and submit to the legal process.
The allegations in this lawsuit are vague and largely unclear, but to the extent they can be summarized, they claim that several church members were the victims of physical or sexual abuse by a number of alleged perpetrators at various times and places across a number of years and that a number of pastors failed to report this to the secular authorities. The suit alleges that some of the pastor-defendants failed to properly report the alleged abuse to the secular authorities after the victims’ parents told them of it. There is one pastor-defendant accused of abuse, and these accusations appear to be that he physically disciplined one of his children. We do not believe there was a “cover-up” of sex abuse or pedophiles at the two local churches involved and we trust that the local churches carefully reviewed any reports of abuse to see that the proper response was made. We would encourage any pastor or church member to step forward if they were aware of any such behavior.
Our actions on the legal front do not reflect a denial of real pain for the victims or an effort to avoid the rightful course of justice in these cases. Rather, we are simply exercising our right and obligation to oppose any litigation that claims, without any evidence, that SGM was involved with some sort of conspiracy to wrongfully or neglectfully respond to reports of sexual abuse. We do this while remaining devoted to caring for the victims of abuse and to encouraging our local churches to develop policies and practices to ensure they remain places of safety and healing. In the interest of pursuing truth, we are obligated to answer and defend accusations against our ministry, even at the risk of a perception of marginalizing our regard for any victims and their families. We regret this challenge and, again, commit to do all that we can to seek truth and minister to all who are affected by these allegations. If the process of review and evaluation of this case uncovers any issues of which we are not aware, the Board stands ready to address those concerns in a manner that pleases God and respects and cares for those affected.
We will keep you informed of any progress in the ongoing litigation and ask for your continued prayers for a just resolution to this lawsuit. We have received questions about the use of the 1st Amendment as a defense. Please make sure to read that section below. Here are the updates:
Motion to Dismiss Filed February 25, 2013
CarrMaloney, SGM’s counsel assigned by its insurer, determined there were a number of valid reasons to file a motion to dismiss the case with respect to SGM. As their motion states: “Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is a vague, confusing document that fails to state any legal or factual basis for the claims against Defendant (SGM).” Because Plaintiffs’ complaint is so vague, it is difficult for SGM to know the specifics of the incidents that have been alleged. Further, the alleged reporting of abuse would have been handled at the local church level and therefore would have been a matter strictly left to the local churches, not SGM. SGM does not have the authority to control local churches or govern their internal affairs.
Below is a summary of SGM’s Motion to Dismiss, as filed on February 25, 2013. The entire motion is 25 pages long and is a matter of public record. Because many of the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ allegations are applicable to all defendants, several of the arguments SGM made were similar to those made by the other defendants. The following is a summary of our arguments. (The sections below in quotes and italics are taken directly from SGM’s Motion to Dismiss.)
- “[Plaintiffs’] complaint is so vague and factually deficient that it is nearly impossible to tell who committed the acts of abuse and when and where the alleged acts of cover-up occurred, much less how old the alleged victims were both then and now. Plaintiffs appear to have done this in a deliberate effort to deprive SGM of the factual grounds that it is entitled to for various defenses, including statute of limitations.”
.- “By alleging the alleged tortious conduct was a product of the churches’ teachings that conditioned the church members to “unquestioningly obey” their “spiritual leaders,” Plaintiffs have put the spiritual and doctrinal affairs of SGM and the local churches directly at issue. Plaintiffs allegations therefore violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment and must be dismissed.”
.- According to Maryland law, Plaintiffs have failed to state valid claims or have no legal basis for any of the alleged torts against SGM on grounds of negligence, infliction of severe emotional distress, conspiracy to obstruct justice, negligent hiring and supervision, or misrepresentation. In addition, the Motion to Dismiss includes a number of grounds for dismissal relating to each individual plaintiff, including statute of limitations and lack of legal standing,
.- Even if Plaintiffs are able to show that their case satisfies the legal criteria for stating valid claims, they still have no grounds to impute liability to SGM based on the alleged acts of the other defendants. It appears they are alleging that SGM owned and operated both CLC and SG Fairfax, and that they can therefore impute to SGM any liability these churches have for the alleged cover-up actions of their pastor-defendants. However, SGM does not own, operate, or control any churches. And, at the time of the alleged conduct, SGM did not employ any of the defendants who are alleged to be “personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.” Therefore, there are no legal grounds to impute liability for the actions of the individual-defendants to SGM, which is simply a religious denomination, and does not control or govern the local churches.
1st Amendment Defense
The second point summarized above addresses the 1st Amendment defense. Plaintiffs claim that the alleged abuse and/or cover-up was a product of the local churches’ religious teachings and doctrines that ordered the church members to “unquestioningly obey” their pastors. Our First Amendment defense points out that such a claim cannot stand because it asks the court to inquire into the legality of the churches’ beliefs. It is a matter of religious liberty to not involve the courts in determining whether the doctrinal teaching and pastoral counseling of a ministry or church is done correctly in their eyes. That is why this is included as part of the legal defense.
I want to strongly emphasize that we are NOT in any way using the 1st Amendment as a defense to somehow protect sex abuse or a conspiracy to cover up crimes of any kind. We fully respect the gift from God of established legal authority according to Romans 13. And we strongly encourage all our churches to fully comply with all laws pertaining to the reporting of crimes in their state.
With these commitments firmly established and understanding the nature of this lawsuit, we must use all appropriate legal means to address the spurious and defamatory charge of a cover up of sexual abuse as well as all the destructive legal implications that come with this lawsuit.
Please note that our November 17, 2012 statement referenced this First Amendment issue prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint. I hope this explanation adds any needed clarity as to why it is necessary for our legal counsel to make this defense.
Next Steps
Now that SGM legal counsel has filed their Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs have responded to the motion to dismiss, a hearing is scheduled on May 17, 2013 to consider the defendants’ arguments for dismissal. After this hearing, the judge will rule on the motion, normally within two months of the hearing. So, as we have communicated before, this is more of a marathon than a sprint. If the suit is not dismissed, the actual court date is currently scheduled to begin on February 3, 2014, but there are many things that could happen before then including judgment being granted in favor of some or all defendants based on the evidence presented during discovery.
We are all pained by a process by which we are perceived as “guilty until proven innocent” through a “trial” seemingly already taking place in the court of public opinion, resulting in myriad questions being asked based on incomplete information presented online. But, we are providing this information to ensure you that we are doing all we can to address these charges and address them in a way that honors God, and the members of Sovereign Grace churches. Thank you for your prayers and support.
Sincerely,
Tommy Hill
Director of Finance and Administration
Thoughts???
© 2013, Kris. All rights reserved.
“we are obligated to answer and defend accusations against our ministry,” . . .
That is correct … It is “your” ministry and not the Lord’s ministry. Enjoy it!
How any one can stay in a SG church and KNOW what is going on is beyond me. Staying to make change WILL NOT work. Been there, done that. The pastors have sold their souls to men.
stunned……too bad it is wrong to gamble. I would wager big money that you are incapable of being condescending.
I will probably go to my death thinking John Piper is the greatest preacher I ever heard, but he is down off the pedestal now, down with us very fallen and sinful ordinary folks. Piper and quite a few others.
Persona #49 —
From this blog post: http://jonrising.blogspot.com/2009/09/seventy-five-years-ago-in-old-tire.html
Ozy53 Thanks; I wondered who he was.
Oswald #45, see Kris #42, not all members…
Hi Persona #49. I remember CJ, or maybe it was LT, so many times say that they were meeting TAG and people would not have a church to attend on Sundays. The Lord asked, ‘Do you love me?’ ‘Yes, I love You, Lord.’ and the Lord told him to ‘Feed My Sheep’…and that’s how they started their first church. I’m going back to the beginning of CFC when LT and CJ would come up from DC, before Bill Patton and Alan Redrup started CFC. I enjoyed reading about Mr. Beall, even though I don’t remember hearing of him in those days.
Philly Girl 56
We went to TAG and heard them say why they wanted to found their own church, too. But, I never heard anyone mention James Beall, who was quite Charismatic, along with most of their associates at the time. The elements of motivation of their founding of a new denomination interests me. And, their rewriting of history interests me even more, I guess.
“We are all pained by a process by which we are perceived as “guilty until proven innocent” through a “trial” seemingly already taking place in the court of public opinion, resulting in myriad questions being asked based on incomplete information presented online” …um…I would feel sorry for you because that seems like what you are asking for but there is a thing called sowing and reaping. So, sorry, no pity here.
Is SGM enlisting the help of their pals to help try to convince pastors to stay in SGM?
http://www.9marks.org/journal/pastors%E2%80%99-forum-are-denominations-worth
I think what galls me the most about this SGM response is the “we don’t know what we did” attitude that comes across in their defense of themselves. This belies the fact that many years of attempts by the most of the plaintiffs to bring SGM abuse to the limelight PRIVATELY were ignored, minimized, rebuffed, covered up and lied about. IMO, they know exactly what they are being accused of. Very little is nebulous at this point. Many of the plaintiffs have taken every road available short of a lawsuit to work these issues out. But even now, EVEN NOW the SGM brand has to be protected. It turns my stomach.
1.In regards to the letter sent and Kris’ comment #42:
Is anyone who received this letter willing to speak up regarding the circumstances surrounding receiving the letter? Did you email your local pastor(s), elders, SGM and then receive this letter?
2.Can anyone elaborate on this statement from the letter?
Is this “lawyer” talk?
“The allegations in this lawsuit are vague and largely unclear”…
Thanks!
The Seven Solas of Modern Day Ministries:
Here is the layman’s guide to the key drivers of the 21st Century Church:
1. Sola Cultura – let culture define church life.
… 2. Sola Successa – let numerical success legitimize activities.
3. Sola Entertaina – let entertainment be the guiding principle.
4. Sola Edificia – let the edifice be the center of church life.
5. Sola Programma – let programs dominate the people’s time.
6. Sola Thralldoma – let the people be enslaved by whatever thrills them.
7. Sola Processa – let the church be managed by business philosophies and processes.
somewhere…pretty funny, and very clever, and sadly often true.
Somewhereintime: Thanks for giving me a huge laugh!! So sad, but so true. Kris could do a post on each one of these…”doctrines”?
Let’s play SGM buzzword bingo
This isn’t confined to SGM-ese, but you’ll know these buzzwords….a quick laugh this morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjN_IDhCDZE
This is sad, but I couldn’t help but make the connections to SGM in a couple of news headlines this morning; Brand companies deny approval for continued use of collapsed Bangladesh clothing factory, Judge rules that tampering with communications to inmates is unconstitutional.
@soarin’ #61 – “Is this ‘lawyer’ talk? ‘The allegations in this lawsuit are vague and largely unclear’…”
I would assume anything written as part of an attempt to dismiss charges is “lawyer talk”. Since their attorneys are being appointed by their insurance company, I’d expect their goal is to minimize any damages that will need to be paid by their employer – that is, the insurance company. I don’t believe they are going to be too concerned with how their defense plays out as far as SGM’s reputation is concerned, but they will pursue whatever option is most likely to get them out of court quickly and cheaply. If this means using a 1st Amendment defense to dismiss charges, I’d expect them to use it and leave any “clean up” to SGM as far as it relates to public opinion. I would doubt SGM has too much voice in what defense strategy is used, but maybe someone who knows more about how these things work can weigh in.
From my limited experience being involved in a court case, I’d say there are “Christian ethics” and “legal ethics”. “Christian ethics” would say, “Admit your guilt, bear the consequences.” “Legal ethics” would say, “You’re only legally responsible for what they can prove. Let’s see what they can prove in a court of law before we concede anything.” We’re seeing “legal ethics” at work.
Nickname, is it bad that I started getting uncomfortable from the flashbacks of counseling sessions that watching that video brought?
Whirlwind, and they’re the ones who defined themselves legally as a corporation, not as a church.
Nickname, that was a hoot!
James, I assume you mean “in house” counseling?
I have a phrase to use in the bingo game; speak truth into their life. Can that be used, or are we talking individual words only?
Whirlwind #68
“From my limited experience being involved in a court case, I’d say there are “Christian ethics” and “legal ethics”. “Christian ethics” would say, “Admit your guilt, bear the consequences.” “Legal ethics” would say, “You’re only legally responsible for what they can prove. Let’s see what they can prove in a court of law before we concede anything.” We’re seeing “legal ethics” at work.
By precedent, appointing an attorney to be a representative in all SGM church matters is in order then. That would be too funny watching an SGM pastor participating in the standard MO…coverup, deception, lies and spin with legal advice on standby to start asking questions, hard questions.
Since “legal ethics” appear to be the only basis for response given by our SGM “brothers” in Christ, they seem to be setting the standard of transparency at an all time low! In essence, “I will share only what I have been advised by my attorney to share.” I wonder how that would work in a care group setting? I know, us sheeples would get a good dose of spiritual abuse from the religious authorities for not being transparent…I guess it only works one way! But then related to SGM church matters, it is “reprehensible” to be transparent and walk in the light :)
Hold on…I need to contact my attorney to translate SGM’s latest statement…so that I can give an official response.
Whirlwind, yep. In house. And phrases are definitely acceptable!
Ok, I am back…after consulting my personal attorneys (a.k.a. legal team) they have advised the following-
HOLY SCRIPTURES
John 3:19-21
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
My attorneys have also advised that there are no exclusion clauses for walking in the light. Further, a lawsuit is not a valid reason for not walking in the light. In fact, darkness has no relationship with light for fear of exposure.
SGM- What are you hiding?
Somewhereintime said,
Muckraker said,
Here’s the interesting thing, though – with the exception of point 5, and possibly point 7 (because your average SGM member has no clue just how much SGM’s leaders have elevated business principles as the guiding force behind what they do), SGM has gained members primarily through portraying their approach as the antidote to this kind of thinking.
Let’s go through each of the remaining points and see what a hypothetical SGM defender might say about his church in comparison to these “solas.”
1. Sola Cultura – let culture define church life.
I think it’s very accurate to say that for virtually all of its history, SGM has set itself up as the antithesis of following the prevailing culture. That’s why SGMers were taught to spank their children, homeschool their children, watch over their children’s (daughters’) modesty, make sure their children found spouses through parent-led courtship rather than dating, and really push for their children to not even kiss before the altar.
And since the Bible does tell us all sorts of countercultural things, like, “Be in the world but not of it,” “Do not love the world,” “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” “Narrow is the way,” and so forth, and because our world since at least the 1970s has not valued the type of morality that the Bible commands, SGM’s overtly spelled-out, cut-above-average-wimpy-watered-down-Evangelicalism sort of counter-culturalism really appeals to a certain kind of believer.
I think it’s safe to say that our world’s current culture does NOT define life within SGM churches.
2. Sola Successa – let numerical success legitimize activities.
Hmm. Originally I’d said that SGM doesn’t, on the face of things, have issues with a couple of these points, but the more I think about it, I do think many SGMers would point to the organization’s relative numerical success as proof of the rightness of its approach. SGM defenders here have been pretty quick to point out that it’s practically impossible (in their minds) for such a widespread family of churches like SGM to actually have manifested systematically cultic, controlling traits.
3. Sola Entertaina – let entertainment be the guiding principle.
See, this is another of the points that I think SGMers would not believe characterizes their organization. SGM has deliberately sought to create its own more authentic, more biblical (in their minds!) style of worship.
In my experience, SGM’s approach to worship – at least on its surface – seemed deliberately designed to not seem entertaining. Songs usually emphasized sin and our wretchedness, and our debt to “the Savior” (almost never “Jesus”). The SGMers I knew appeared to place a great deal of emphasis upon producing the “right” (enthusiastic-enough) response. Often, it could feel like they were so intent upon making sure they were raising their hands at the right times or clapping enough that it was laborious.
It was work a whole lot more than it was entertainment.
4. Sola Edificia — let the edifice be the center of church life.
I’d be willing to bet that most SGMers would not think of their church life as primarily taking place in the church building. Maybe I’m wrong about that. But considering how quite a few SGM churches meet in schools (or in the case of CJ’s new Louisville plant, hotel ballrooms), church life cannot be focused on a particular building.
5. Sola Programma — let programs dominate the people’s time.
As I already mentioned, I think this one is pretty clearly a trait that does indeed characterize SGM churches.
6. Sola Thralldoma – let the people be enslaved by whatever thrills them.
Here, I’m going to try to articulate something that might be difficult to put into words. While I actually think a case could be made that SGMers are indeed “enslaved by something that thrills them,” they would never think so, because on the face of it, what enslaves them seems like it would have to be the opposite of “thrilling.”
After all, on the face of it, it’s not especially “thrilling” to focus on sin and all the ways a believer needs to work harder and implement more specific tactics to eliminate sin and become more righteous. It’s not especially “thrilling” to be confronted about one’s sins…and it’s not especially “thrilling” (at least at first thought) to embrace full submission to another human being (one’s SGM pastor).
The reason I say “on the face of it,” though, is because from my observations, a great many SGMers actually do find a type of “thrill” in all these things. There’s something grimly appealing – bracing, even – about this hardline approach, especially for the person who is very sincere and earnest about his faith.
I know that in Guy’s and my own time at our SGM church, we really appreciated the serious intensity people had about holiness. It was such a refreshing contrast to what we’d seen at our previous more loosey-goosey “anything goes” hyper-Charismatic church. In a peculiar way, it is very easy to see how SGMers can be “enslaved by what thrills them” when what thrills them is the constant emphasis on how they can become more pleasing to God by following their leaders, confronting their sins and failings, and working harder.
7. Sola Processa – let the church be managed by business philosophies and processes.
This one is very true of SGM and SGM churches, although a great many ordinary members have little awareness of how SGM’s model bears a whole lot more resemblance to fast-food franchises than the true New Testament church.
The Tolling Bell is reporting that there are rumblings of a Larry Malament church plant in Clarksburg, MD – in CLC’s back yard.
This type of behavior is exactly why SGM churches on the fence about staying/going should go. Are they intentionally trying to be divisive?
Was this the church plant SGM was planning and then backed off when other pastors heard about it and were upset?
Whirlwind #68
Thank you -very helpful.
I am not trying to beat a dead horse with this question but the statement I referred to from the letter really bothers me. It is conversational in tone but yet worded so carefully. Maybe I am reading too much into that one phrase but it seems like it is a subtle slap to the face(s) of the victims/their lawyer. I think I could pass it off if it came from the insurance company but it is from Tommy Hill – a good guy. ??
“worst sinner I know”
“Believe the best.”
“better than I deserve”
“observation”
“bring correction”
“strongly encourage” or a command worded as a suggestion
Jenn – I thought SGM was at one time looking at Germantown. But either way, feels like a stab-twist.
SGM (and all churches) need to stop using the phrase “church plant.” They are not planting (starting) a church because their is a need due to new believers in an area. What these organizations should call their process is church stealing, cultic gathering, people poaching, or some such thing.
“happiest place on earth”
“humility”
Rorschach – you are right – it was Germantown. I noticed Clarksburg is the next town over from Damascus.
“That information would not serve you.”
“Dear Brothers,”
The entire text of Sovereign Grace Ministries’s Motion to dismiss the pending lawsuit against it can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131017243/Sovereign-Grace-Ministries-Inc-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Lawsuit-Case-No-369721-V
The rebuttal of Susan Burke, attorney for the Plaintiffs, can be found here:
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/class-action-lawsuit/
Jenn,
ugh! That burns. I wonder how SGM will spin this? “there are sooooo many unsaved people in Clarksburg!” it’s like totally sandwiched between CLC and the frederick church.
It’s a church-wedgie-plant.
What they said, in private, about Germantown was the people wanted a church like CLC used to be. My guess is that some flower spin will accompany its announcement if it ever comes to fruition.
The question is, what church will be the sending church? Are any churches in SGM flourishing financially right now?
Jenn:
I hope that Larry malament will not be a senior pastor. He was not even a good associate pastor. He was only good as Mickey and cj’s lackey
Hi,
I wonder if CJ will be at the court hearing on May 17? I would hate to me CJ! CJ will have a cow when the judge does not dismiss case. What kills me is why SGM -CJ have not counter sued the young women? More than half the members of SGM are gone- Over 20 church gone—Bad press-tv -radio-CJ name is mud. I want to see what SGM spins on May 17.
I am not/never have been a member of a SGM church, but am very familiar with the “movement.” I am a victim of abuse by a Catholic priest and as such I have great compassion for the victims who were abused. I pursued my abuser in court and he pled guilty and spent time in jail. Even so, I have to ask: is there ANY chance that perhaps the folks posting on this blog about the lawsuit might not have the full story? I guess you think that SGM and the individual churches and the named pastors have vehicles to state their cases, and this blog is for the ‘other’ side. But even so, I rarely – if ever – see any of the posters seasoning their comments with grace for those accused. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a value we prize in America, but it seems to me that y’all have found the pastors, churches and SGM guilty already. Even if you have discussed the tragedy with a family whose child was abused, is there any chance that perhaps that family isn’t remembering everything, or that they may unwittingly be presenting only a part of the story as a way to salve their very valid wounds?
Again I am only posting about the lawsuit, the comments that have been posted in the past regarding how SGM has been run in the past – many/most of you posters have been personally affected and I would not challenge you on sharing your perspective. But regarding the lawsuit….do you know for sure that pastors didn’t apologize to the families? When you condemn them for how they handled the different situations – do you know for sure all the details from both sides?
I appreciate this blog as a place for those who were wounded by SGM. But the lawsuit is, to me, a different story since I can’t think most of the posters have direct knowledge of the individual situations. Aren’t we as Christians – not SGM Christians, not PCA Christians, not Pentecostal, Charismatic, non-Denom Christians, just CHRISTIANS – called especially in a situation like this speak with grace? I ask again…before you try and convict the defendants based on your experience and opinions with SGM, is there any chance you don’t know the whole story? Grace, and peace to you, and healing to those that have been harmed.
DD – I am not 100% convinced that the case will not be dismissed. The judge does not have to determine if what the plaintiffs are saying is true, the judge has to determine if there is enough information for a credible case. I am greatly concerned that observers will view this case to determine if the accusations are true. They can be proven to be 100% true but still not give the plaintiffs a win. Not only do the plaintiffs have t prove their accusations are true, they have to prove that SGM is more responsible for the harm done than the parents. It is not going to be an easy case for the plaintiffs to win. Depending on the judge’s bent, it is quite conceivable that the judge would dismiss.
So, SGM could get off scot free with the justice system but they answer to a higher authority, ultimately.
Quick question for you folks out there. First I am not trying to hi-jack a thread but the other night I was reading up on the Shepherding Movement which Sovereign Grace embraced. In some of the articles I was reading they made reference to the spiritual abusive nature of the movement and how some people became suicidal due to heavy handed shepherding techniques.
My question to those of you from Sovereing Grace is this:
Do Sovereing Grace Churches have higher rates of suicide than non-SGM chruches? Were there problems in CLC or SGM Fairfax with people committing suicide that came about as a result of heavy handed shepherding in Sovereign Grace? Were suicides in SGM Youth Groups, chruches, etc… covered up?
Can you fine individuals chime in on this issue?
Thanks!
Seasoned with Grace – thank you for the gracious and gentle way you challenge the readers of this blog.
I think if I had not been part of SGM for 20 years, I would probably wonder the same thing that you ask. I do know, that SGM had pastors stand up and share how they had horribly botched the handling of abuse cases at one of their pastors conferences and that many, if not most SGM pastors were at least somewhat aware of the abuse stories.
Not to minimize, in any capacity, the pain and suffering of the victims, but truthfully, the way SGM handled abuse cases is symptomatic of a far greater problem: telling the truth and transparency. It has been a frustrating exercise to ask leaders questions, giving them the opportunity to explain things, only t learn that their responses were not entirely true. Sadly, you have to be alert enough to ask pointed clarifying questions so that you don’t get a partial truth and even then, SGM leaders have found ways to justify their less than forthright responses. They actually believe they do this in the best interest of the members, sadly.
So, you could be right, but the character of the leaders involved has been compromised and therefore they no longer deserve our trust.
Jenn Grover 93 – I had understood that there were church meetings where pastors apologized profusely and, seemingly, genuinely. So you are questioning the sincerity of those apologies? That there’s not a chance they were speaking from the heart? That’s just public meetings – are you convinced that they never apologized sincerely and completely to the families of the children that were abused? I’ve been around SGM for over 30 years (actually went to TAG back in the day with my grandmother!) – and I know some of the men named on that list. I understand that you question the leadership of SGM. But are you completely confident that you are justified in condemning/judging all the men named in the suit? No hesitation at all?
I totally get that this is all somewhat knit together, especially for the Survivors, and understand that this is just one more evidence of the betrayal that you all feel. But again, it seems to me that a lawsuit that could strip ALL these men of their life’s work, their reputations, and I gather even their personal resources perhaps should require a different standard of assessment/analysis. And, since I gather that you personally are not one of those named in the lawsuit…can you be sure you know all that transpired between each named pastor and each victim/family? Thank you for your kind response, I am grateful to engage with civility and respect!
Seasoned said,
Um, what part of the story is even left unrevealed? SGM itself is not denying the veracity of many of the allegations. Instead, their defense is that as a religious organization, they were within their rights to dispense the kind of counsel they dispensed.
CLC is just sending out a group to plant a church in Mt. Airy, MD which is just 20 miles north of Gaithersburg. Of course, this will be in direct competition with the Frederick MD church (also planted by CLC), who as of this writing, is still in SGM. Frederick MD is about 15 miles west of Mt. Airy. Germantown or Clarksburg would be much closer to CLC. Another church in Germantown is pastored by Erik Tamaru who was sent out to plant an SGM church in Europe probably sometime in the late eighties or early nineties and then nothing was heard from him. He is the brother of Karin Layman and the Tamaru’s were part of the inner circle for a period of time, if memory serves.
Yes Jean,
You are right on! I hope CJ and SGM are force into shutting down. One last thing Jean three weeks ago my pastor here in Minneapolis said he had no idea why all the churches are quitting SGM. Talk about spin! And he is dist leader of SGM midwest.
Something else to keep in mind, “SeasonedWithGrace,” is that this lawsuit simply would not be happening if SGM’s leaders had apologized and changed (shown true repentance) back when they were first confronted by victims seeking justice. If you see the full picture – of how and when many of the pastors FINALLY acknowledged the problems and spoke of change – you would understand how silly these recent last-minute efforts at apologizing and the talk of “change” seem to some of us.
Since you say you were abused by a priest, I would assume you’d understand this better than most here. It took the Catholic church decades to stop covering up abuse and commit to changing the patterns that led to abusive priests’ being shuffled around from parish to parish to victimize more and more kids. How long will it take to rebuild trust now? How much should parents believe when Father O’Donald wants to take their 12-year-old son camping? What would YOU do? Would you believe the church has dealt sufficiently with the problems?
I don’t think you would be content to take them at their word. I think you’d probably – and rightfully so – employ a certain level of skepticism.
When “repentance” comes only after these guys realize that there’s no other option, it’s crazy to take it at face value.
DD, do you have any insight why the Minneapolis church is not planting the new church which GD was supposed to be the pastor? He was a friend of mine while he was at the PC.
If they are planning a church in Clarksburg, it seems like a preemptive strike if Frederick decides not to go SGM. Park in the middle and split two churches at once. Strip off the undecided members and leave the church bleeding as they’ve done so many times before.
Such a hateful thing to do to men they once labored with.
Bleeding people. This is the legacy they have left here at CLC. This is always what they will be remembered for.
Mt. Airy is 20 minutes east of Frederick. Many of the church plant people settled in Point of Rocks which is 20 minutes west of Frederick. Most of the people in Mt. Airy were still driving down to CLC. They really aren’t in competition with Frederick.