We’re still here
July 16, 2016 in Sovereign Grace Ministries
Many have asked….
Kris and I are still here, albeit not as engaged with the SGM (or whatever it calls itself today) mess. If we choose to do away with this little section of the innernet, I plan on archiving all posts and comments in a tidy (huge?) collection and will make it available.
Until that time comes, feel free to keep talking.
Guy
© 2016 – 2017, Kris. All rights reserved.
I actually misread it – the first read led me to believe they were going to CovFel. They are just relocating them. As a matter of fact, relocating 2 pastors and wives. When was the last time something like this happened hen there wasn’t a scandal? As a matter of fact, I think it’s entirely possible that Prater was brought back to Philly, originally, to help cover up the issues in DH’s personal life.
One thing you can almost be sure of. Congregants are probably not getting the truth and the leaders are spinning it to themselves as either protecting an elder or serving the congregation.
(In my opinion) the announcement sounds suspicious because (a) it was not full of exclamations regarding how wonderful God’s plans are when “transitions” are welcome (or, correspondingly, bittersweet exclamations of how much those who are moving will be missed); and (b) the church where they will move has announced nothing. But maybe it’s as simple as the PR is not as good as it used to be…
Out There – You nailed it. When was the last time a church got 2 new pastors that it did not involve some type of scandal in SGM?
There is no mention of Andrew Kalvelage in the announcement. He is the lead pastor at Covenant Community Church.
https://www.facebook.com/andrewandchristina.kalvelage?fref=ts
I assume Ian McConnell will be replacing him. Something must be wrong. Ian would not make this move otherwise. If it were for “the sake of the mission,” they would have said so in the announcement.
Someone should tape the “questions and extended discussion” on Sept. 11.
Pastoral Transition Announcement
by Greg Dietrich | Aug 28, 2016
https://ne.gracecityphilly.com/pastoral-transition-announcement/
At a Family Meeting on August 28, 2016, the pastoral team of Grace City Church of the Northeast announced how God has led to send Ian & Rachel McConnell along with Greg & Michelle Dietrich to serve the Sovereign Grace congregation of Covenant Community Church in West Philadelphia. They will be sent from GCC of the Northeast on October 9, 2016.
Greg presently serves as the Pastor for Administration and Operations. Ian has served as the Pastor for Preaching and Vision for the past 11 years and upon his transition, Rob Chisholm will become the new Lead Pastor. Rob has served as Pastor for Music and Spiritual Formation at Grace City Church of the Northeast since 2007.
A follow-up Family Meeting for questions and extended discussion has been scheduled for Sunday, September 11 at 6 pm. If you have questions you would like answered; please feel free to send them to info@gracecityphilly.com.
They have a ‘pastor for music and spiritual formation.’ What the heck, pray tell, is spiritual formation?
Nickname…another name for religious indoctrination?
quizzler
Thanks for sharing the link about Esther’s story. It is good to see that there was some type of repentance by the leadership but am doubtful of how much confession they really did (like to the whole church). For leaders to insist that a wife stay in an abusive situation or be threatened with church discipline shows just how much of a vacuum a lot of these SGM Leaders were in and I am sure many still are.
West Philly pastor is going to Marlton, NJ church. Newer pastor at Marlton moving to West Philly church. I’ve been told that west philly pastor was “not gifted” to be a senior pastor and will now go sit under Warren Boetcher in Marlton.
Problem is that the guy leaving Marlton is well liked and wasn’t trained in the SGM world. Members are upset.
Who cares!
Was the “not gifted” pastor an original pastor at West Philly? Was he previously SGM or were they adopted? Is this one of those shankings where they remove an original pastor and replace him with a company man?
Good question.
Just Saying said, “Is this one of those shankings where they remove an original pastor and replace him with a company man?”
That’s what “not gifted” means in SGM / SGC language.
The West Philly pastor is the original, and he is a PC grad. He was sent from CovFel. They were a long time finding a suitable place for the West Philly church and I think it has not been long since it started, maybe 2/3 years.
The link at Jenn Grover’s first post on Aug 30 says that 2 pastors from the NorthEast church will be ‘transitioning’ to The West Philly church. No mention is made there of the West Philly pastor nor the Marlton Church. We can only wonder, guess, and speculate as we usually do.
Somewhere, is the pastor moving, Jason Reyes?
Nope… Staying.
Thanks, Somewhere.
Mahaney and Piper – Together Again!
A brief blog article highlighting the lack of concern Piper has for victims of sexual abuse in the Sovereign Grace denomination.
Watch the youtube video at the end of the post. A powerful testimony by a woman who was abuse by a pastor.
https://thouarttheman.org/2016/09/10/4665/
There has been a big debate going on in Reformed theology land for weeks now, about the Piper/Grudem/manyothermen position on relationships within the Trinity and how the son and Father relate.
Too complicated to go into in detail, but the gist of it is that one side thinks marriage represents the father and son and a subordinate son (Piper, Grudem, Ware, Burk, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). The other side (Pruitt for example, Trueman’s buddy who helped protest the T4G speaker roster with Mahaney last spring, and said CJ should NOT have been a speaker) says that they are messing with the orthodox understanding of God and one will, one nature, one essence in three persons. (You know, like a husband and wife don’t have one will and one nature so its a bad analogy.)
Both sides agree on male leadership in the home and church. So it isn’t about that, but more about God and how we understand the trinity, and is the trinity a model for marriage or not.
I read enough to see that this fight will never end. I personally think Pruitt and his buddies are in the right. Before this happened I assumed Grudem was right and never gave it another thought. But, marriage is clearly presented in scripture as Christ and the church, not the Father and son, and when you read about what the church fathers said about the trinity, this Grudem view is highly questionable. It is not necessary anyway, and we need to make Christ and the church the model for husband and wives as Paul taught.
I say all this to put this link in context. Todd Pruitt posted another theology rebuttal to one of the Big Dog crowd, and the response was so mob like he took it down.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/another-follow-up-on-my-post-concerning-denny-burks-article#.V9S0WYYrLNO
“I learned a lesson today. It was a lesson I was warned of: Be very careful about taking on men with powerful friends. After being bombarded well into the night by angry emails accusing me of everything but the Kennedy assassination I decided that the satisfaction of critiquing a problematic article was not worth it.
Now, none of Denny’s correspondence with me was inappropriate in any way. I wish however that I could say the same thing about his defenders.
If any of the men from various organizations who expressed to me their concerns about Denny’s article want to give it a try, my blessings. But some of you will wind up in some truly hot water if you do.
I grieve over the state of modern reformed(ish) evangelicalism. Quite frankly it looks more and more like a racket to me. Power has been concentrated in the hands of a very few and they all happen to be friends. Mess with one of their family and it’s only a matter of time before Clemenza is sent out searching for you.
Anyway, at least I got to fit in a Godfather reference.”
My opinion is that he first got on the wrong side of the racket back when he protested Mahaney at T4G. (May God bless him, reward him, and bring the riches of Christ into his life for taking sides with the sex abuse victims).
Things have gotten worse folks. A guy with the stature and understanding of Pruitt calling the Big Dog crowd a racket is serious.
5YearsinPDI
Thanks for sharing this about how Pruitt was basically attacked for daring to question one the theology of some top leaders in the their group. How sad. It sounds like a lot of people don’t want to think for themselves in that circle and are willing to attack any who question the circle’s various popes they have.
You would see something similar within SGM/CLC if you disagreed with their part line and didn’t toe the line as they say.
Steve, in case I wasn’t clear, this is very related to SGM. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood includes Mahaney on the Council ( http://cbmw.org/about/council-members/) and Purswell on the board. The T4G guys ( Duncan, Mohler, etc) are all part. The mailing address is in Mecca, er, Louisville.
I don’t have a problem as far as my admittedly limited knowledge goes with the CBMW vision and mission. I hold to the old fashioned position that women are not to be church elders nor pastors, and husbands are the head of the home. How that works out would be real different for me and SGM (as my hubby would comment, SGM told him to disciple his wife like I was his child; he finds that ridiculous and is grateful for our equality of discussion and walking with the Lord), but I agree with the CBMW basic premise, I am not an egalitarian feminist. As I recall there have been charges that CBMW indirectly or directly support abusive husbands but I don’t know for sure. Certainly SGM did.
The new President is Denny Burk, and apparently Pruitt took issue with what he wrote about the trinity. CBMW says this in their statement:
“Ephesians 5 calls husbands and wives to relate to one another as a picture of Christ and the church. The picture involves the humble, sacrificial leadership of the husband and the joyful, intelligent submission to that leadership by the wife.”
That’s fine. But some of the CBMW have been on a roll that the marriage picture is God the Father and God the son, with the father like a husband and the wife like the son. Uh oh. Not trinitarian.
We all, men and women, are to humble ourselves like Jesus in Phillippians 2. Not just wives to husbands. The actions of Jesus are a model for all, husbands and wives both. Wives submitting is a biblical teaching, but it reflects the church to Christ, not the son to the father. God is one essence, one nature, one will, one being in three persons with varied workings but the same one God. God is not like a husband and wife.
So now we have the old fashioned Reformed guys like Pruitt and Trueman standing up to the more neoCalvinist crowd that you just can’t do this to the trinity and God. They are using serious words like error and heresy. This was settled at the council of Nicea and the Nicene creed. This is big. This is huge.
I don’t know which guys are in the “racket” Pruitt refers to. Not Burk according to him. We could only speculate who wrote to him. Were any of them SGM, or big name celebrity guys? It was angry accusing letters, not thoughtful theological discussion.
God is really trying to shake up this group. They shut their ears to the sex abuse scandal in SGM, and now there are charges of error and heresy about a serious matter, and they just get angry and close ranks to protect their own. It is “us and them”, not truth and error. Surely not all of them, how would I know, so I can’t make any associations. We don’t see public apologies on this, not yet, or even admitting there is valid concern. Nope, just attack the dissent apparently. One hopes for a public statement soon….but I hoped in vain for a genuine apology about SGM and the bungled inept sex abuse pastoral failures.
I find it all interesting, and do think the Lord is trying hard to shake up a major problem out there.
5YearsinPDI said:
Thanks for the clarification. The saddest part IMO is that this was as you say “angry accusing letters, not thoughtful theological discussion.” How sad.
Isn’t that the way though when you know you can’t defend what you say or at least when there might be enough scripture to question what you are saying rather than debate and discuss you accuse.
Groups like this depend on most of the people not questioning what those “above” them in the food chain do IMO. If nothing else they don’t want someone questioning a top leader. Much of that could bring down an entire organization.
Carl has a good post about it today, and you can read into it why CJ and SGM were defended so much by these people, being the true christian hope against liberalism is their identity, and they cannot have their movement critiqued, even if the critiques are right.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/all-about-identity?utm_content=buffer341ac&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.V9aYflsrKUl
Wow pres, great article, thanks.
I really identified with this: “The problem is deeper. It is one of identity. So it is not just those with money or platform to lose who become angry with the critics. It is everyone to whom these groups give a sense of belonging.”
I used to feel years ago that I “belonged” to the Gospel Coalition, they were my people. Reformed doctrine with a broad platform including Baptists and non cessationists, and without the stricter sabbath rules you find in some R groups.
I thought at first they just didn’t see the shepherding errors with SGM. But as time went by and the stories broke, and then the Driscoll saga, I had to reluctantly face that something was really wrong. It was hard for me, given the high quality of past teaching I’ve heard from Piper, Duncan, Carson, Grudem, etc. Watching CCEF enable some of the SGM guys was depressing for sure. And I lost more than looking up to celebs, I lost the group I belonged to in my heart.
Its worth it in the long run. And again, I am grateful to the many posters here who helped me face some hard truths. The bible is alive and rich for me, my fellowship is genuine, my prayer life a treasure, my husband is so close. But it wasn’t easy getting out of the blindness.
“The language of gospel piety always drips very easily in public from the lips of those who know that the iron fists of the Machine are quietly crushing critical windpipes off camera.”- from the article mentioned above.
Amen and truth.
5 Years, I’ve mentioned on here several times how much I have seen you change and grow and how impressed I am with your willingness to be open about that chance and essentially say, “Hey, I got a bunch of things wrong.” So I won’t go on too much about it now but I don’t think I have ever told you how your example (and legit humility about talking about it) has given me faith and hope for several others, both those who come here and people I know in the real world, that God can lift the veil from their eyes and show them more of God and HIS truth, even when they are SURE they are right. Thank you for that, Friend.
Above, 5 Years said, “And I lost more than looking up to celebs, I lost the group I belonged to in my heart.”
Oh, how I rejoice that you lost your identity in that group! I know it was hard and painful and breaking and I don’t rejoice in how hard it was but I rejoice because I think God wanted your identity to not be with the “good guys” in the white hats who seemingly had all their theology together and did things right but I think He wanted your identity (and my identity and every other person’s identities) with the broken, the lost, the hurting, the sheep led astray, those who aren’t sure of much else other than this perfect God maybe loves them and maybe, just maybe, He even loved us imperfect people enough to send His own son to die and that is enough to know. And that the greatest commandment is to LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul and the second greatest is like it, to love your neighbor as your self.
After identifying with that and those people, why close our ranks any further? Why not love and identify with those who may be confused or wandering or broken and busted on the side of the road or alone in the desert? That is who He identified himself with, the prostitutes and the sinners. Why should we ever strive to be “better” than His example? He loved so that we could love, too.
Pruitt is known for making wild and even bizarre accusations. For example, in his interaction with readers on The Wartburg Watch back in April. He is easily offended and extremely sensitive to correction. That was obvious to all. Later, he went on FB and Tweeter and slandered TWW and exalted himself. I plan to write about it.
I suspect he took down his post concerning Denny Burke because the correction he received was accurate and legitimate and therefore put him in a bad light but properly so.
I highly doubt his comment, “After being bombarded well into the night by angry emails accusing me of everything but the Kennedy assassination I decided that the satisfaction of critiquing a problematic article was not worth it.”
First, I think Pruitt is likely making this up or greatly exaggerating. I’d like to see these “angry emails accusing me of everything but the Kennedy assassination.” I doubt they exist. This is typical of Pruitt in my experience. He makes these kind of statements but doesn’t give any proof or when asked doesn’t provide proof.
Second, you don’t take down a post because of “angry emails.” You take down a post because you have been proven wrong and you don’t want additional people to see what you erroneously wrote – that is, if you’re proud.
stunned- thank so much for the kind words! When we get to heaven I suppose we will all realize how much we were wrong about a lot of things. We see through a glass darkly.
You are right about who we identify with, or want to identify with. I can remember sometimes 20 years ago wishing, longing, that my husband was in PDI leadership so we could fellowship with all those superior leaders. Put money in the plate every week to build the greatest churches in 2000 years. Now I just want to help out normal struggling people with a 20 dollar bill if I have it, or some kind words and a little time. Maybe part of it is just getting older…but I do think a certain cult spell operated and we got our eyes off the ones Jesus would have been ministering to. You expressed it so well, thanks.
Brent, with all due respect, I think you are jumping to conclusions without facts, and calling Pruitt a liar is a serious accusation. Sensitive is one thing, but making up his comments is another. You owe the man some charity. I’ve read some of his posts for years; he is intelligent and seems kind and caring. I never the read the one that got taken down, but you’ve no business making such accusations about his motives or claiming he lied.
Anyway, you miss the point, which is not about his character. The point is that orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is God, one with the father (and the Holy Spirit) with one nature, one will, one purpose, one essence. Obviously the subject of the trinity is complex and intricate and one could spend months reading theology about God and the three persons and how they relate and what each one does and how they are one, one God, in three.
What has developed (actually my hubby said it started back at least 5 years ago, but the blog blow up is more recent) is that some very fine theologians and older men noticed that Grudem’s ST and the literature from the CBMW presents God in a distorted way. They present a God that appears to have two wills and two natures and two of a lot of things, by how they correlate a husband and wife with the father and Son.
Maybe they didn’t mean to, and I am sure some of it may be semantics, and when you use the word “person” or “nature” you might not mean the exact same thing as the next blog; words have to be defined. But you would think they would at the very least admit to some lack of clarity in presenting the trinity. You would think that they would humbly admit that the criticisms have at least some merit. You would think they would admit that the NT presentation of marriage is a Christ and the church metaphor, not a Father- Son metaphor, and maybe they should stick to scripture. But no, they close ranks to protect their own.
I haven’t read TWW in a long time. I found that the contempt and disdain for anybody who is a young earth creationist, thinks women elders are unscriptural, or thinks homosexuality is sin, tended to be more than I could stomach. Not sure where they are at these days. It wasn’t just various posters either, I vaguely remember a few cracks from the mods. If his interaction with readers there is anything like what I saw a few years ago, my sympathies lie with him….but to be fair I don’t know anything about it. I am sure you will inform us all when you write it up :)
Pruitt was so vocal that Mahaney should not speak at T4G that I wish you would give the guy a break. It isn’t easy to take on T4G. Anyway, gotta get to work. Hope your wife is OK and cancer free.
By the way, to clarify something from the past, I got into a debate here with a poster about Jesus being God in the flesh. The incarnation is eternal, and Jesus is forever in His resurrected body in created space and time. One day we will be with Him in our glorified bodies. (CS Lewis has some nice writings about the uniqueness of Christianity versus other religions where after death everything is only spirit. But I digress.) To deny Jesus as God in the flesh now and forever, not just for 33 years on earth, is antichrist teaching.
I mistakenly called this correct understanding of Jesus as God in the flesh forever, the eternal subordination of the son (ESS). Maybe I should have called it the eternal incarnation.
Anyway, I thought that was how the term was used, but the big debate now has the orthodox ones renouncing and criticizing “Eternal subordination of the son” because of the way it is being presented by CBMW to describe a wife submitting to her husband out of her separate will and separate nature equating to Jesus relating to the father.
I doubt one reader in ten thousand here remembers or cares what I posted a while ago. But on the off chance that the person who I argued with about ESS sees this, I wanted to clarify. Jesus is God in the flesh forever….but the father and Son do not relate to each other like a husband and wife. So I was wrong to say ESS was right based on the current blow up about what ESS is, which may or may not include the eternal incarnation but perhaps does not.
Did you fall asleep yet? :)
Still awake, 5 Years!
Jesus talked about having faith as a child. I know this isn’t an exact correlation, but for me, that’s often how i think of him; from a child’s perspective. And this is what I once found in a child’s book regarding the trinity. (Or was it something my mom told me?)
I think of God being like H2O. H2O can take three forms but it’s still H2O. It can be liquid, steam or ice.
Keeping it simple,
Stunned
I would also echo what 5 years said about this, I did read Pruitt’s post, and it was nothing that he has not said in many other posts, essentially proving, with quotes, that Denny Burke had/was also teaching ESS. Denny Burke has recently been elevated to head of CBMW, after the previous head resigned (supposedly unrelated to MOS showing he believed in ESS). CBMW and Grudem in particular have gone after anyone maligning them, and have claimed they never taught ESS except once, but then it was shown how several articles teaching it have been scrubbed from their site. This whole issue has gone back and forth, and really has now drawn sides with the mostly presbyterians, including MOS, Liam Goligher and Mark Jones, with the support of essentially all of the Patristic scholars on one side, and CBMW and Grudem on the other side. CBMW now essentially says they do not fully support ESS, but they refuse to refute it, and are just scrubbing anything that taught about it in the past (at least that is my take on this interaction). I saw that you, Brent, clearly are leaning on the CBMW side, and calling for the other side to repent, but the fact is, every patristic scholar I have seen have said that what the CBMW folks are teaching is against the Nicene creed, and specifically Athanasian council. Normally teachings against those creeds and councils are how we define heresy,and Honestly I think if anything they have not gone far enough in calling the others beliefs heretical.
Todd is stand up in general, I don’t think he should have taken it down, but I will say that TWW interchange was interesting and sad. I give him props for even posting there, and hope what he said came through, but it was sort of sad the way the interaction turned.
5yearsinPDI.
You said, “Brent, with all due respect, I think you are jumping to conclusions without facts, and calling Pruitt a liar is a serious accusation. Sensitive is one thing, but making up his comments is another. You owe the man some charity. I’ve read some of his posts for years; he is intelligent and seems kind and caring. I never the read the one that got taken down, but you’ve no business making such accusations about his motives or claiming he lied.”
I didn’t call him a liar and I didn’t claim he lied but I think it is likely he did and/or greatly exaggerated his accusations.
I said, “I highly doubt his comment, “After being bombarded well into the night by angry emails accusing me of everything but the Kennedy assassination I decided that the satisfaction of critiquing a problematic article was not worth it.” First, I think Pruitt is likely making this up or greatly exaggerating.”
I’ve come to know Pruitt and I’ve come to know he will lie and he also make things up. That is evident in TWW exchange and what followed.
He may be lying because
5yrsinPDI said, “Anyway, you miss the point, which is not about his character. The point is that orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is God, one with the father (and the Holy Spirit) with one nature, one will, one purpose, one essence.”
I beg to differ. It is about character and theology. Not one or the other. Pruitt has distorted some of the teaching of men like Grudem, Ware and Burke. For instance, everyone in CBMW believes what you have written above. You imply otherwise. That is due to Pruitt, et al. The only point above upon which there is debate concerns the will of God in relation to the will of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each person of the Trinity is distinct. Each has a will. And yet, the three wills subsist as one will within the Godhead. How to explain that is very difficult. Just like it is very hard to explain how three distinct persons simultaneously exist as one God (Trinitarianism: one God, three Persons) but not in tripartite (Tritheism: three Gods, three Persons) and without becoming modalists (Unitarianism: one God, one Person). In both cases, we who are finite can not fully explicate the infinite. We are left with glorious mystery because an infinite God cannot be comprehensively known by us.
You say, “They present a God that appears to have two wills and two natures and two of a lot of things, by how they correlate a husband and wife with the father and Son.” Some complimentarians believe there is a biblical correlation between a husband and wife with the Father and Son based on 1 Cor 11:3, etc. None of them believe there are two natures in the Godhead. That is heretical. They believe, as does every orthodox believer, that there were two natures in the incarnate Christ. His divine nature and his human nature in hypostatic union. No one believes there are two natures in the Godhead. CBMW believes Jesus Christ is homoousios (of the same nature or essence) with the Father. Pruitt, Carl Trueman, Aimee Byrd, Liam Golligher, have misrepresented them and charged them with teaching ontological subordination (Jesus is less than the Father in being, nature or essence) when in fact they have never taught or believed in ontological subordination. Some complementarians believe and have taught functional subordination (Jesus is eternally submissive to the Father by virtue of being the Son) but that is all. Whether his subordination or submission is eternal or only temporal (during his days on earth) is a matter of debate. I think it is eternal because Jesus did not become the Son in the Incarnation. He has always been the Son and therefore happily submitted to his Father. That aside, there is no question Jesus his subject to the Father in priority (i.e., in the divine order but not nature or glory) now and for eternity future. Read 1 Cor 15:23-28. He is a submissive Son while also being co-eternal and co-glorious with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
As a non-theologian dim-witted pew sitter, I have followed this debate on the Trinity with interest. There is much I don’t understand but I found these two items quite helpful.
First is Carl Trueman being interviewed by Janet Mefferd
https://soundcloud.com/janetmefferdtoday/7-13-16-janet-mefferd-today
Next is a youtube video of a dialogue between Dr. Kevin Giles (egalitarian) & Dr. Fred Sanders (complementarian).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_mYvbgcKE
Todd- thanks. Will look forward to a listen.
Brent….you said:
“everyone in CBMW believes what you have written above. You imply otherwise. That is due to Pruitt, et al.”
“Pruitt, Carl Trueman, Aimee Byrd, Liam Golligher, have misrepresented them”
For the sake of discussion, let us assume you are right. Let us assume their( CBMW) beliefs are completely orthodox.
People who are teaching laymen and pastoring non theologian dimwits (Todd, I would argue with your self deprecation but I am too busy posting to BD) need to be very careful with their communications and definitions and how they parse words and define them. The people who are being criticized are putting out materials for new believers, laymen, and regular pew sitters with no theological training.
Don’t get me wrong- I love Grudem’s ST and he has done a great service in making basic doctrine available to laymen. I will use Grudem as an example here, although many more are involved in the critique.
Grudem has had to go to great lengths to explain what he means to avoid miscommunication. One example is using the word “prophecy” and the gift of prophecy today. Given all the viewpoints, from saying it ceased, to the New Apostolic Reformation and their false prophets claiming to go up to the third heaven and come back with new revelation and prophecy, he can’t just use the word without precise clarification. Grudem’s section on the gifts has quite a bit of explaining, to distance himself from charismatic garbage.
The word apostle had to be defined- apparently SGM found it easier to toss it and call them regional leaders , but I don’t think they ever equated them to James and John and Paul (sure hope not).
Prayer sometimes has to be defined. I know people for whom a prayer meeting is declaring things into being, “speaking the name” as an incantation over things, pleading the blood and binding the devil. They can spend an hour without ever humbly asking God to do anything at all. What they mean by prayer is not what I would mean.
How often did you say something to your kids or wife, and they took it differently than how you meant it? This has happened to me soooo many times. I have to always take responsibility for not communicating better, instead of blaming the ones who misunderstood.
My husband works at a job that demands precise technological communication and sometimes a guy under him misunderstands, no matter how detailed and clear he thought he was. He can’t jump on the guy, he has to realize that there was room for misunderstanding and go over it again with more accurate and more precise directions. This is how mature and responsible people act when they are misunderstood.
Here we have several men with intensive theological training saying that the way the ESS crowd comes off is problematic, maybe even heretical. Instead of trying to take a long hard look at what is being communicated about God to the average person, and attempting to fix the problem, what is happening? Nasty retorts and according to “Presbyterian” above, scrubbing the past. Hillary and Bleachbit…is that really acceptable in the church? Can’t they just say they were poor communicators instead of scrubbing something? Can’t they say they did not communicate well and left room for misinterpretation? Can’t they be mature and say that what they meant and how they came off was maybe not clear for the people in the pews?
No, they can’t. So I suspect Truman, Pruitt, Golligher, etc are hitting a nail on the head.
So does it even really matter much? Trueman says this:
http://theaquilareport.com/in-the-end-it-all-comes-down-to-this/
“Tragically, it has become clear that some of the most influential evangelical theologians today do not describe God correctly. It has also become clear that they have no intention of correcting their errors. As a by-product, some of these errors have been used to enable domestic abuse.”
I believe him. He has many contacts. If this is a big deal in the biblical patriarchy movement and women are being abused by men using ESS to justify evil behavior, then it is a serious issue.
I listened to Carl Trueman on the Janet Mefferd Show and he continues to misrepresent the views of Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Bruce Ware and others. These men have not revised the doctrine of the Trinity as he asserts. Their position should not in anyway be compared to the heretical Arianism of the 4th century as Trueman does.
These men are not ontological subordinationists like Arius (i.e. Jesus is a lesser God than the Father) in any way, shape or form. They have always condemned this position. Rather, they are functional subordinationists (i.e. Jesus has a subordinate role to the Father as the Son that is eternal). That is something completely different and it is a position that has been held throughout the history of the church to the present. For instance by Dr. R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer (see below). As Sproul says, from all eternity the Son is subordinate to the Father. As Packer says, the Son is always complying.
Trueman may disagree with Grudem, Ware, Sproul, Packer, etc. but I think his position is the unsound one. Nevertheless, I would never imply that Trueman is a heretic for denying the eternal submission of the Son. He on the other hand, has no problem labeling the teaching of these men heretical and thereby effectively calls them heretics.
Trueman can disagree with them. That is fine. What isn’t fine, is for Trueman, Todd Pruitt, and Liam Goligher to purposely misrepresent their teaching and compare it to that of Arius, charge they are revising the Trinity, or claim it is anti-Nicene. The Nicene Creed (325, revised 381) condemned ontological subordinationism. It did not address functional subordinationism.
Grudem, Ware, in fact all complimentarians (i.e. those who believe there are complimentary differences between men and women), like all evangelicals, uphold the teaching of Nicene on the homoousios (i.e. of the same essence or nature) of the Son. I believe Trueman, Pruitt, Goligher need to ask forgiveness of Ware and Grudem for theological slander
“In orthodox Christianity, we say that the Son is equal to the Father in power, in glory, and in being. This discussion rests heavily on John 1:1, where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This verse indicates that the Father and the Word (the Son) are different and are one. In one sense, the Son and the Father are identical. In another sense, they are distinguished. From all eternity the Father sends the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. The Son doesn’t send the Father; the Father sends the Son. So even though the Father and the Son are equal in power, glory, and being, nevertheless there is an economic subordination of the Son to the Father.” (R.C. Sproul, “What’s the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity?”, Tabletalk, August 15, 2014)
“The basic assertion of this doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex. The three personal “subsistences” (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being “I” in relation to two who are “you” and each partaking of the full divine essence (the “stuff” of deity if we may dare to call it that) along with the other two. They are not three roles played by one person (that is modalism), nor are they three gods in a cluster (that it tritheism); the one God (“he”) is also, and equally, “they,” and “they” are always together and always cooperating, with the Father initiating, the Son complying, and the Spirit executing the will of both, which is his will also. This is the truth about God that was revealed through the words and works of Jesus and that undergirds the reality of salvation as the New Testament sets it forth.” (J.I. Packer, Concise Theology, p. 42)
If you want to read a personal and technical response by Dr. Bruce Ware go to this link.
An Open Letter to Liam Goligher, Carl Trueman, and Todd Pruitt on Trinitarian Equality and Distinctions
Bruce A. Ware
Rupert and Lucille Coleman Professor of Christian Theology
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/08/an-open-letter-to-liam-goligher-carl-trueman-and-todd-pruitt-ontrinitarian-equality-and-distinctions-guest-post-by-bruce-ware/
Brent- you may be entirely correct. CBMW may be orthodox. Yes, this is complex. In a rush and did not read your link yet.
But I think you miss the point. If what is being said is subject to misinterpretation by both laymen and seminary professors, don’t you think at the very least there needs to be more careful communication? In Cor 5 Paul said that when I wrote XXXX I didn’t mean YYYY I meant ZZZZ. Paul had to clarify. It happens.
Why don’t we see clarifcation? Simple, IMO. Because of a bad analogy they won’t admit to.
In the OT the metaphor of marriage is God and His people. There is all sorts of language of being betrothed to a husband, being married, Israel committing adultery. Men and women together related to Jehovah God as bridegroom.
Paul shifts this a bit. We see marriage as like Christ and His church- still God as the husband, men and women together submitting to Christ. But husbands are set an example to be like Christ who laid down his life for His bride.
Marriage is not given as a picture of God the father as a husband relating to Jesus Christ the wife. It just isn’t. You can’t do that to God.
If, as Trueman claims, this analogy is being used to support domestic abuse, then we have a problem. It is one area where I might differ with Trueman and his buddies in that I think the abuse and suffering wives would happen anyway. I’ve seen ESS quotes from Doug Wilson….but take away those quotes and there is still a problem with DW. So how much is it a serious problem for marriages, and how much is it just a theological debate? I don’t know.
But if you and CBMW can’t see any validity to the concerns being expressed, then I think you just don’t want to face that maybe there is a problem somewhere- in communication and/or exegesis of bible analogies, if not actual beliefs.
Brent- read your link. And read what he was responding to:
(http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/1517/lets-all-be-nicene?utm_content=buffer51008&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.V9m6PoYrLNP)
Ware had said: “It is the Father, then who is supreme in the Godhead – in the triune relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and supreme over all of the very creation over which the Son reigns as its Lord.” – p. 50
“The Father is supreme over all, and in particular, he is supreme within the Godhead as the highest in authority and the one deserving of ultimate praise.” – p. 51″
“For, though the Father is supreme, though he has in the trinitarian order the place of highest authority, the place of highest honor, yet he chooses to do his work in many cases through the Son and through the Spirit rather than unilaterally.” – p. 55″
Nice of the Father to choose to work through the other two…..( roll eyes). The fact is the divine will to save is one will from before creation began.
Ok, so in the link you gave, Ware said he did not mean the Father has a supreme nature. He means the three persons have different roles in their divine activity and the Father has a supreme role. OK, so already he had to clarify. He didn’t mean a supreme nature/essence. Can you see what I mean about how they come off and how it has to be clarified? If you say the father has a nature superior to the son, you are a heretic. Now he says he didn’t mean nature.
Your article has “As God, they possess the identically same divine nature, and hence are equally fully divine, possessing identical divine attributes, and are of equal infinite worth and glory.” Can you see how different that sounds from when he earlier said “It is the Father, then who is supreme in the Godhead – in the triune relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…”
Can you see how confusing this is? I get confused and I read theology. These men are teaching the average pew sitter. You tell a husband he is like God the supreme father, and what does that mean? Is husband headship in marriage “supreme?” Does the wife just do whatever he tells her all the time- never differs, never speaks up, does not have her own will or own mind? I notice at your link Ware does not address this marriage analogy.
I am sort of tired of it, I mean, Ware appears to see he needs to clarify, so good for him. He is not reiterating that marriage is like God and Jesus, instead of like Jesus and the church. Good for him again. He sounds like he can at least see how his writing was problematic. I’d like to see more of this from the rest of them, but then again, I don’t care anymore.
I’ve been reading Frame’s ST and other Reformed guys and distancing myself from TGC group and their writings. Was it Trueman who said that the celebrity Big Dogs saw themselves as the great bastion against liberalism? Maybe Pruitt?. Anyway, I am tired of the great ones who alone are right and have the purest truth. So many little guys out there with insight, love, and sound doctrine who are not part of the gang. Glad to be out. Thanks for posting.
I love metaphors, they are really, really useful, but they only capture a partial picture of whatever it is you are trying to describe. They should not be used to equate anything.
For example, if I took the metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ to the fullest degree, that would make the Church the daughter-in-law of the Father…and then my brain is fried at that point…
I agree with 5 Years…somehow comparing the Father-Son relationship to a husband-wife relationship is not just mixing metaphors, it’s nuts…what does that even mean? Does anyone hear what that sounds like?
This is part of the whole problem…basic common sense is missing.
PDI 5
Since you are the one to bring it up, I think it is only fair for me to ask the following question. Would you please tell me what you think that I believe about homosexuality? I defined my beliefs carefully on a TWW post and I am curious to see how you represent my beliefs. Not what readers say but what I say. From my understanding, my beliefs are consistent with many conservative theologians.
As for female elders and YEC, I did not say your positions are unscriptural. I just happen to deeply disagree with you. Readers are allowed to express their viewpoints freely at TWW. That does not mean that I agree or disagree with them.
Dee-
I have no idea. I have not looked at your site in a long time. I don’t remember anything you personally said about the subject from your fans. Some of the folks were quite unbiblical about homosexuality. If you say it wasn’t you I believe you.
One of you mods made some occasional nasty cracks about young earth creationism, but I’m going back years. Same for disdaining remarks about people who think the bible forbids women elders.
That’s OK…..I realized I don’t belong on your blog, and I read and post elsewhere. I only mentioned it because Brent said that Pruitt “in his interaction with readers on The Wartburg Watch back in April. He is easily offended and extremely sensitive to correction.”
I hadn’t followed whatever it was, but just wanted to say here that I did find your site offensive and can see that any Reformed conservative would probably get jumped on… maybe Pruitt is too thin skinned and Brent is correct, I’ve no idea. I got badly jumped on at WW. As I recall I posted occasionally under another handle from my 5 years one….but like I said I am going way back.
I understand things better now- guys like Driscoll and Wilson and of course SGM have done so much damage that a complementarian like me is going to cause a knee jerk reaction with the word. I get it, but I find it to be sad, maybe because my marriage is so happy and hub is so loving and I think the biblical teaching on male leadership is so helpful in a good marriage.
Anyway, as I said before, Pruitt took on Together for the Gospel having Mahaney on the roster, and I think it must have cost him. There are powerful evil spirits at work over some of the mess. I’ve tasted the edges of getting close to sociopathy in my life (relatives) to know how powerful the evil is that wants to crush you, and to sense the dark spirit forces. I can’t imagine what has come at more prominent people who resisted the SGM darkness. I’ve read enough stories here by people who were minor threats to SGM evils to know how bad it can be. I admire Pruitt for the public stand he took. I am sure many of the celebrity gang turned on him over it. He deserves our prayers and appreciation.
This is one post where Pruitt appeals to T4G not to have Mahaney speak.
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/an-appeal-to-the-organizers-of-together-for-the-gospel#.V9tjpoYrLNM
Here is one snip:
“Of course, at this point to remove Mahaney from the T4G platform at this late date would do nothing to satisfy most of the critics. It would almost certainly be seen as “too little, too late.” It may well be seen as nothing more than a cynical ploy to reduce criticism of the conference. But that does not mean that such an action should not be taken. It would require a humble statement asking forgiveness for not acting sooner. It would mean taking in no uncertain terms a posture of solidarity with the victims of the abuse in SGM churches.
It should never have reached this point.”
Is being thin skinned and sensitive a bad thing? Maybe being thin skinned and sensitive is what makes some leaders sensitive to the abuse victims, while others come off like cold, hard, uncaring, arrogant, creeps. I think I prefer thin skinned and sensitive. Maybe having some feelings of empathy is better than ice water in your veins when you hear about little kids being molested.
Dee, you and Deb were extremely kind and patient with Pruitt on TWW. I plan to write about his conduct in the future.
I appreciate Pruitt saying Mahaney should not speak at T4G and the organizers (Dever, Duncan, Mohler) should ask forgiveness for asking him to do so. Pruitt, however, made this appeal based upon a morally neutral position on Mahaney’s guilt or innocence. That doesn’t work.
See below.
Todd Pruitt from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Calls for C.J. Mahaney’s Removal from Together for the Gospel (April 10, 2016)
http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/brentdetwilercom/todd-pruitt-from-the-alliance-of-confessing-evangelicals-cal.html
Kevin DeYoung’s Lack of Integrity Obvious in Reproof of Todd Pruitt & Defense of C.J. Mahaney as Above Reproach Like Jesus & Paul (May 1, 2016)
http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/brentdetwilercom/kevin-deyoungs-lack-of-integrity-obvious-in-reproof-of-todd.html
Brent- Mahaney said this:
“in the face of an ongoing civil lawsuit, I simply cannot speak publicly to the specifics of these events. Even with those constraints, however, let me be clear about this: I have never conspired to protect a child predator, and I also deny all the claims made against me in the civil suit.”
CJ has never been convicted by a jury, and is legally innocent until proven guilty. AoR esentially exonerated him of scandalous failings. I think Pruitt knows the truth, but when speaking from his position, one has to submit to the legal realities as they exist. CJ claims he is innocent. Pruitt did link to three ghastly articles about SGM and that’s doing a lot.
A lot of folks are still waiting for your apology about your own conduct. 30 years a great apostle and not a word of how wrong the entire SGM shepherding authoritarian system was, with its leaders on pedestals, including your own part. I think you out to work on your own logs before you go after Pruitt. Just my opinion.
5yearsinPDI,
C.J. is “legally” not guilty only because it did not go to court but as Boz T. has pointed out that is not the same as ethically not guilty. The evidence against him is overwhelming. He and CLC had a policy of not reporting child sex abusers to law enforcement. The District Attorney’s office said so. Josh said so. Corby said so. Robin said so. The victims said so.
Pruitt not only took a neutral position on C.J. regarding the conspiracy to cover up child sexual abuse; he took a neutral position in general regarding all the issues related to C.J. which have been proven, demonstrated, and illustrated hundreds of times. Furthermore, Pruitt lied about his knowledge of this evidence against C.J. on TWW in order to justify his neutrality. I confronted him for his lying.
You are covering ground we have covered many times. And you continue to misrepresent me. I have acknowledged wrong on this site and on my blog. You know that. But I am not guilty of the vast array of slanderous charges you have made against me. These too have been addressed and your errors repeatedly exposed in the past. For example, that I promoted and sold the Ezzo materiel on parenting when in fact I did just the opposite.
5yearsinPDI, you have been so badly mistaken so many times I can’t keep count. That is not only true with me but in relation to so many other people and issues. For example, saying I called Pruitt a liar above. Or your representation of Ware, Grudem, and CBMW above. Or your representation of TWW and Dee above. You make things up and constantly distort the facts. You are not a reliable source or guide.
Or for example, “and not a word of how wrong the entire SGM shepherding authoritarian system was.” My goodness, have you not read a word I’ve written. I formally began addressing spiritual abuse and the exaltation of leaders starting in December 2000. This led to a major confrontation of C.J. in 2004. In 2007, I resigned from the Board as a matter of conscience. In 2009, I left SGM for the same. In 2010, I began producing major documents. In 2011, I stated my blog and written nearly 300 posts. Over the last 16 years I’ve sacrificed everything in order to address the idolatry, hypocrisy, corruption, lording, and lying in SGM. And you say, “not a word.”
As I’ve pointed out in the past and illustrated extensively, your abusive and slanderous writing on this blog has often equaled or exceeded that found in the SGM “authoritarian system.” All my interaction with you has proven fruitless. You continue to attack, slander and misrepresent.
I will be gone the next week. I don’t plan to read here. Have at it. Have fun.
When I return I plan to start posting again on BrentDetwiler.com. There are so many major stories I’ve been working on for a long time but I have not been able to complete due to the medically challenging circumstances Jenny and I have faced the past two years.
Brent, as 5 years has said, the problem is the CBMW crowd has said they do not believe in onotological subordination, only functional subordination, and that they agree with the Nicene creed, but then they also say things that contradict that, and continue to espouse ESS. Many (all?) patristic scholars have said that what the CBMW crowd says is not consistent with Nicene and Athanasian Hersey, and is some of what was fought over in the early church. (5 years quotes are just some of the many). they are now saying that they don’t beleive in ESS, and have not taught it except for once, but have in reality scrubbed it from their website, as has been shown by many
(for the full breakdown of everything related to this, see http://www.booksataglance.com/blog/2016-trinity-debate-bibliography-okay-teach-complementarianism-based-eternal-subordination/ )
What you are also missing is that these people are the same one’s who keep CJ in power, becuase membership on CBMW seems to trump any theology or practice concerns, and speaking ill of someone in CBMW is grounds for the pitchforks to be raised and everyone to go after you. This is what happened to any who opposed CJ (who is an council member and purswell is a board member) and this is what has happened with the MOS crowd pointing out the bad theology over there. Even when they have recanted/repudiated some of it (without admitting they ever taught in error of course) the people are more upset that anyone dare say ill of them.
And for Todd lying – just because you sent him a bunch of documents (that he may have or may not have read) that proves in your mind what you are saying about CJ (and for the record I generally agree with what you are saying) does not mean he is receiving just as much documents/calls/emails from others saying the opposite, or that he has fully examined all the evidence or has any desire to. And he probably believes in general what you have said, but it has not been ruled that way by either the law or the denomination, or the outside consultant, and it is really not necessarily his issue to get into the minutia on deciding (and I agree that all of those never proved he was innocent and had problems). I thought the way he spoke of it was wise – he said that regardless of the validity, CJ should not speak. He didn’t try to become the judge and jury for a situation that he was not put in a place to be the judge and jury or had fully examined to his standards, he still said he should not speak and he didn’t need to know all of those things to say so. I don’t see how any of that is not above board. And calling him a liar seems completely uncalled for.
I think some of these “hair splitting” debates are important, but this is just not where most Christians are in their knowledge or their walks. 90% of the Christians I know are in desperate need of discipleship and personal holiness. The ESS debate does not resonate when you need milk!
Brent…. This is getting to be so over the top that it undermines your credibility, along with others that participate in online drama! I am glad you broke rank and exposed these bozos…. I always figured that CJ rose to rock star status simply because he had the innovative idea to blend reformed teaching with charismatic leanings. I actually think it was a good marketing idea (and lines up with scripture). CJ created the ultimate idol factory and a “job creation” machine for friends and family. But Brent, in spite of all the garbage going on under our noses… I think we bought it because we wanted to believe it. Looking back…. I need to admit that I was foolish. I appreciate what you did, but you come across with an heir of superiority that I wish you could see. No doubt, in spite of SGMs dysfunction, some people have been saved and positively impacted. God is always pleased to use the needle of truth in a haystack of error. When it comes to scholarly teaching, is a lightweight at best. Unless someone needs to hear the basics over and over and over again…. I cannot imagine what was ever so compelling about his teaching. But…. Many did!
I meant to say “CJ is a lightweight at best”. Sorry!!
Nice post Sw/worry
Brent…..where do I start. You are an example of what I mean by people needing to clarify and communicate when they feel misunderstood.
You said: “For example, saying I called Pruitt a liar above.”
You are upset because I claimed you called Pruitt a liar?
You did say this:
“I highly doubt his comment,…….. First, I think Pruitt is likely making this up or greatly exaggerating…… Furthermore, Pruitt lied about his knowledge of this evidence against C.J. on TWW in order to justify his neutrality. I confronted him for his lying.”
Uh…..you doubt what he says, thinks he likely made it up, and say he lied, and now you are upset with me because I said you called him a liar?
I will be gracious- somebody told me you had surgery and maybe you are on pain killers, so I’ll write it off as narcotics. You are normally not this illogical.
Presbyterian made such a good comment I can only applaud it and hope you reread it.
Secondly…I am not giving this one extra minute with google searches going back years, but I am not making up anything I said about WW including the occasional snide and contemptuous comment from the mods, not necessarily to me. I know what happened and I’ve had interactions with others who saw the same things I saw. Like I said, it was years ago. They are welcome to think Adam nursed at the hairy breast of his primate mother as mankind evolved, and they are welcome to go back to God’s alleged perfect plan before the fall where supposedly women could be church elders, if I understand their position rightly. (I suppose it follows that they all go to church naked, and are not ashamed?) I don’t doubt they have helped many victims of Driscoll and whoever else they expose, and hope to see them in heaven. Anyway, I am not lying.
I said you sold Ezzo material? Me? I doubt that, but if so, I must have meant PDI in general in the 90s when I took my Ezzo class and you were an apostle and I assumed you all promoted it. If you spoke up against Ezzo back then, I am glad to hear it. (Last time I was at the store I left my shopping cart by the curb so I hope I don’t go to hell….)
Lastly, regarding your apostolic leadership in SGM for three decades or so. It was recycled shepherding and discipleship, Ft Lauderdale 5, whatever you call it. Of it, Bob Mumford’s repentance was plastered on the front page of a Christian magazine with the words:
“’Discipleship was wrong. I repent. Please forgive me”.
Obviously you and Larry and CJ never got the message, and the authoritarian pyramidal structure with its potential and actual abuses continued.
You just wrote: “Or for example, “and not a word of how wrong the entire SGM shepherding authoritarian system was.” My goodness, have you not read a word I’ve written. I formally began addressing spiritual abuse and the exaltation of leaders starting in December 2000. This led to a major confrontation of C.J. in 2004. In 2007, I resigned from the Board as a matter of conscience. In 2009, I left SGM for the same. In 2010, I began producing major documents. In 2011, I stated my blog and written nearly 300 posts. Over the last 16 years I’ve sacrificed everything in order to address the idolatry, hypocrisy, corruption, lording, and lying in SGM. And you say, “not a word.”
Brent, maybe I miscommunicated. I know you wrote about how bad CJ was, and how bad many other men were. I know you tried to expose corruption in many SGM leaders. But I haven’t read everything you ever wrote- where did you apologize for what Brent Detwiler helped create and sustain for decades? Where did you say that the SGM model for apostles and pastoring and leaders was in some respects a very flawed model?
I know you have addressed how CJ would not play by the rules……but have you ever admitted that some of the rules were wrong, and you yourself were wrong in helping to establish those rules? Did you ever admit to anything you did wrong? I don’t see it. All I see is CJ and the rest being wrong, but never you. Maybe I missed it, I’ve read what you write here but probably not everything you write.
So, let me try again: I asked above- A lot of folks are still waiting for your apology about your own conduct. 30 years a great apostle and not a word of how wrong the entire SGM shepherding authoritarian system was, with its leaders on pedestals, including your own part.
Brent, can you apologize for yourself and like Mumford, say that YOU were wrong? A founding apostle…..did you contribute to the problem? If I missed your apology I would love to see a link, thanks.
I’ve had to do this hundreds of time myself, with my kids, relatives, and Christians from the past. You’ll be so glad you admitted how wrong you were once you do it. Very freeing.
Brent — presbyterian said above… “And he [Pruitt] probably believes in general what you have said, but it has not been ruled that way by either the law or the denomination, or the outside consultant, and it is really not necessarily his issue to get into the minutia on deciding (and I agree that all of those never proved he was innocent and had problems). I thought the way he spoke of it was wise – he said that regardless of the validity, CJ should not speak. He didn’t try to become the judge and jury for a situation that he was not put in a place to be the judge and jury or had fully examined to his standards, he still said he should not speak and he didn’t need to know all of those things to say so. I don’t see how any of that is not above board. And calling him a liar seems completely uncalled for.”
My thoughts exactly. I couldn’t have stated it better, and am too lazy to have tried. And Brent did call Pruitt a liar, (as 5yrs said).
5years….You go girl. I bet your fingers are smoking from trying to type as fast as your thoughts and words were coming to mind. I’ve been there/done that. Thanks for your helpful input.
Thanks Oswald. It gives me no pleasure to write any of it.
Brent said above:
“formally began addressing spiritual abuse and the exaltation of leaders starting in December 2000. This led to a major confrontation of C.J. in 2004.”
Here is Brent in September 2004 to exalt CJ. It as the weekend that CJ handed over senior pastorate to Harris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9rdo7eZCKE
So Brent claims he was addressing spiritual abuse and the exaltation of leaders in 2000, yet he gives this speech in 2004- the same year he had a major confrontation with CJ ??????????????
I actually believe him. I actually believe that behind the scenes he was confronting CJ. Yet he completely compromises his own integrity by giving this speech to CLC. Why?
I can guess why. The same reason my husband and I compromised our own integrity and smiled our way through the last two years in PDI even when the light bulbs went off. Fear. Inferiority complexes (well, us, but probably not Brent). Denial. Not wanting to lose friends. Not knowing where else to go to church. Not wanting to incur the frown of pastors. The same reason I ratted on a particular small group leader’s wife just to get “in” with a pastors wife…and hated myself for so long afterwards, but still kept wishing I could be friends with this woman I had to betrayed confidences to, just to feel “in”. God has forgiven me, but I was under the spell. Watch this video. Brent is so far under the spell. I hope I can be forgiven for this language, but it fits- his head is so far up CJs rear end in this video you wonder he didn’t suffocate. And yet he posts here that he was confronting CJ? Can you see the disconnect, the utter failure of integrity in front of CLC?
Hey, I did it, I bet a lot of us did it, obviously not to Brent’s degree, but we did it. We wanted the leaders to smile upon us. We have to say now that we were wrong, we are sorry, and there was something wrong inside us that got us entrenched in the cult.
Hey, if Brent has ever apologized for this video please send me a link. I will never dredge up this crap again if he has publicly apologized for this.
New post I just published:
“Jonathan Leeman: Parsing Words and Deleting Comments”
Included is the audio of Mahaney giving $10,000 of SGM members donations to Mark Dever.
http://thouarttheman.org/2016/09/24/jonathan-leeman-parsing-words-deleting-comments/?preview_id=4771&preview_nonce=22a3d15fae&_thumbnail_id=3286&preview=true