I haven't reprinted it here in detail due to length but the link is here.
What is useful is that Brent has annotated the letter with his own comments and insights which are useful (while taken with a pinch of salt due to his obvious and understandable bias). What particularly struck me was his comments on the understanding of Ephesians 4 Ministries. I think that issue has been the one big downfall for SGM. I understand why they changed their use of the term "apostle" due to their desire to become more acceptable to reformed big dogs like Al Mohler and Mark Dever - but the crunch for me is this;
They still treat the "SGM Board" like they are apostles - even though the current Board may not be gifted and anointed from the risen Christ to act in that capacity.
My contact with the SGM Board member in sorting out my problems was pretty much irrelevant because he would not act or acknowledge any involvement or authority in the church I had problems with. Meeting the church pastors was MUCH more useful because they could and did (but confusingly still referred to the excommunication happening on the advice/instruction of the SGM Board member).
So I would insist and argue that SGM need to decide - what place does a secular term like "Board members" have in an allegedly Christian organisation/movement of churches? Are they apostles or aren't they? I for one agree with Brent;
I believe in apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). This five-fold ministry is the God ordained means for building mature churches and evangelizing the world. I made sure all five were included in the Statement of Faith. The evangelical world believes in pastors and teachings and theoretically in evangelists. I don’t know what SGM believes in. Their theology changes from week to week. It also remains open ended so they can fill in the blanks as they see fit according to the need of the moment.