So he's back? (Allegedly)

Apparently this is going to get published on the SGM website tomorrow (Friday);

Announcement Regarding C.J. Mahaney from the Sovereign Grace Ministries Interim Board of Directors

In July 2011, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) installed an interim Board of Directors. Our primary task was to determine C.J. Mahaney’s fitness to serve SGM as President in light of accusations made against him by a former SGM leader, Brent Detwiler. To accomplish this, we sought to apply the teaching of 1 Timothy 5:19-21 regarding the examination of an elder. As described in our October 28 blog post, we created three panels to review Brent’s allegations and report their findings to us, after which we would determine if C.J. was to continue in his role as President.

After examining the reports of these three review panels, we find nothing in them that would disqualify C.J. from his role as President, nor do they in any way call into question his fitness for gospel ministry. Therefore the Board has decided unanimously to return C.J. to the office of President, effective immediately.

These reports confirm the experience of many people over many years under the ministry of C.J. Mahaney. C.J. is a man and a minister of fundamental integrity who has endeavored to serve SGM with faithfulness and humility since its inception. As with all ministers of the gospel, C.J. is not infallible, and this fact is not lost on him. And so we also affirm that throughout this process of evaluation, C.J. has made genuine confession to the appropriate parties and has demonstrated a desire to grow in areas of weakness. C.J. has demonstrated a commendable trust in the grace and sovereignty of God throughout this entire process.

To put our decision in context, shortly before the interim Board began its work, C.J. took a voluntary leave of absence to avoid even the appearance of influencing his evaluation. To further protect the integrity of the process, the interim Board sought the counsel and affirmation of an outside conciliation ministry, Ambassadors of Reconciliation (AOR).

With C.J. on leave and AOR involved, the review process took the following form: We commissioned three outside ministers to review Brent’s documents in light of C.J.’s confessions and render their judgment on his fitness to serve in ministry. In light of their evaluation, they found him to be completely fit to serve. We then commissioned three panels – each consisting of three SGM pastors – to evaluate C.J.’s involvement in the three central events of Brent’s allegations. The panels had complete autonomy to interview any witness and review any evidence. They conducted their reviews and prepared their reports without any outside influence, save for the oversight of an independent facilitator who was responsible to certify the process. As readers will see in the reports, the panels had broad license to issue any individual or organizational recommendations they deemed appropriate in light of their findings. They did an exceptional job with their unenviable assignment and we’re grateful to them for the many hours they invested in this process.

This has been a trying season for our family of churches and for C.J. and his family in particular. The recommendations made by the panels delineate some of the weaknesses we see in our ministry, and we expect to learn even more when the separate AOR-led Group Reconciliation process is completed this spring. Our hope and prayer is that all of us evaluate these matters humbly, apply the forgiveness that comes through the gospel appropriately, and relate to one another about these matters graciously as we work together to reform what needs reforming, reaffirm the goodness of God in our midst, and continue to plant and build local churches with our chief aim the glory of God through the gospel".

And there's another 51 pages of the report to read and consider.

Whither now - SGM?

C J Loses His Assistant

Many SGM and Mahaney fans are wondering about what C J is up to and what the future may hold for Mahaney and SGM (sadly for many the two are inseparable). Although I am not a C J or SGM fan - I am an interested observer so I was interested to read the following;

Firstly that C J Mahaney's "Assistant" - Tony Reinke - is moving back to Desiring God Ministry-land and he writes;

"Of course this means I will be leaving the Sovereign Grace Ministries office in Maryland, and Friday is my final day on staff. It has been a delightful four years serving alongside C.J. Mahaney as his editorial and research assistant. I will miss working with him in the office, traveling with him to conference engagements, and of course I will miss the multitasking meetings that may have appeared to some as a simple game of catch in the parking lot. I will greatly miss working with my friends in the Sovereign Grace office, worshipping with our friends at Covenant Life Church, and serving the many incredible pastors in Sovereign Grace who are spread across the country and the world".

Although C J appears to have given his "blessing" to this move for his assistant back to John Piper - one cannot but wonder at the implications for C J's future involvement in SGM.

And secondly - a friend who is a member at Covenant Life Church wrote;

"Greetings from your pastors!

We pray the grace, mercy and peace of Jesus for you today. We’re writing to give you a brief update on current events related to our church, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) and our new church constitution.

We’ve all been in a waiting period since the events of last summer and our Members Meeting at the end of October. In the next few months several key events will bring these issues back to the forefront along with what we trust will be a greater sense of clarity and closure.

First, sometime later this month the SGM Board will release reports from the three panels they appointed to evaluate several issues raised by Brent Detwiler’s documents. Each panel, comprised of one board member and two SGM pastors selected by the Board, was tasked to answer a single question. One panel evaluated Larry Tomczak’s departure from SGM (then known as PDI); another, C.J. Mahaney’s role in Brent Detwiler’s dismissal as senior pastor of the SGM church in Mooresville, N.C.; and the third, how C.J.’s participation in fellowship in 2003 and 2004, including the giving and receiving of correction, aligned with Scripture.
The SGM board received the reports in December and will be sharing them publicly along with their decision about C.J.’s role as president. When this information is released in the next few weeks we will be reading and processing it along with the rest of the public. Therefore, we don’t plan to respond immediately, as we will need time to review, reflect, pray and discuss the reports. We don’t want to rush a response.

Second, Ambassadors of Reconciliation (AoR) is preparing a report that is due in March. This peacemaking ministry, at the request of the SGM Board, has conducted numerous interviews with current and former members and pastors of SGM churches (including our church) to help SGM evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. We agree that this kind of objective, outside evaluation is a very good thing, and we commend Dave Harvey and the Board for pursuing it.
Although both sets of reports will be written for SGM, we believe Covenant Life can benefit from them as well. The posture we want to take as your pastors is one of humility as we read the reports and see how they may apply to our church.

Finally, we are making good progress on our new church constitution. We had hoped to publish a rough draft by February 1, but a combination of Christmas break, pastors being on mission trips and some issues being more complicated than we expected, have delayed us a bit. We are aiming to release the rough draft to the church this spring to get your feedback. In the meantime we’re working toward consensus on a few questions as pastors, getting the feedback of some members, and asking key leaders in the broader body of Christ to review the document. When we share it—still in draft form—we’ll take time in public meetings to answer questions and process feedback so that we can move toward ratifying the constitution later in the year.

It is a great honor for us to serve as your pastors. We love and respect you so much. “Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way.” (2 Thessalonians 3:16)
In grace,

The pastors of Covenant Life".

I guess that means - we continue to watch and wait.

SGM Board Members Excommunicating Comments

Many of us, I think, rather hope that the word "excommunication" is just a bit of hyperbole. They may have heard (like me) the word used on some of the anti-SGM blogs and thought it won't really happen. Well it did. Crossway church (home of SGM Board member Mickey Connolly) held a public members meeting and very publicly excommunicated Brent Detweiler.

I'm staggered. And I would be very scared if I was an SGM member.

Here's the comments (with some of Brent's commentary in brackets);

“Now here is the last thing that we want to talk about. What are we going to do? John Murray says “the injunction component of an error of such character, they are to mark the proponents so as to avoid them and they are to turn away from them.” From our biblical study, which we have presented to you tonight, and our prayerful perspective, we believe, sadly, that Brent clearly fits the definition of a man who is causing divisions and because of his refusal to cease has the potential to cause even further division and therefore must be marked as divisive. We are certainly not called to debate and dialogue endlessly with such a person [Endlessly? They won’t even allow one meeting with objective evaluators. Like C.J., they have slammed the door on any kind of adjudication hearing. Under the threat of being divisive, they are preventing anyone from hearing my concerns, all of which they have repeatedly rejected. They are the sole arbitrators of truth.]

“So what I am asking you to do as a church is to avoid him as long as he engages in this behavior: gossip, slander, scoffing, mocking and a refusal to meet with those involved to work things out [I have shared concerns for 5½ years. I just talked to Mickey in person on August 24. He was immovable and maintained his sinless perfection. I am very willing to meet with the pastors but others must be present. They won’t allow this arrangement.]. These things are clearly contrary to the sound teaching of Scripture. Having nothing more to do with him, or avoiding him, would include not discussing these things with him personally, reading any of his materials on blogs or Facebook. That means you have to defriend him to avoid the temptation, do that, or following the story on anti-Sovereign Grace Ministries blogs. By the way, I recognize that many [How many? I doubt anywhere close to a majority. Hype?] of you are already doing this or haven’t done this at all. So I want to be clear! Not discussing this with him personally. Not reading any of his materials on blogs or Facebook or following the story on the anti-Sovereign Grace Ministries blogs. [This sounds like the kind of censorship that occurs in China, Iran and North Korea. Mickey is commanding abject ignorance.]

“If you are exposed to rumors or slander [Of course, there is no chance you might be exposed to the truth in the form of facts, evidence and witnesses.] please come and talk to me or one of the other pastors personally, please. [So they can straighten you out.] We want to talk to you, we want to hear you. If you have a charge that you’d like to bring against me or any of the other elders here then do it in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:19-21 [People have brought charges but they have been dismissed.] Do not spread those charges to others or publish them on public documents. [In other words, if you think Mickey acted in a heavy handed way during this public meeting you may not tell anyone. And take note, if you share anything negative about the pastors with anyone, in any fashion, you too are in danger of being “marked.” For over a decade, I shared my “charges” in private regarding C.J. He responded in abusive ways. I exhausted every possible remedy before I went public. The same thing is happening at CW.]

“So here is the key question, really, of all of this. It is a question that some of you have asked. If I don’t read this stuff how can I be informed? [You can’t because Mickey is not going to be open and honest with you or allow for public questions or criticisms.] How do I know that you aren’t telling me not to read these things because of what the blog says. So Mickey, isn’t this just a ploy to avoid having your sins uncovered. [He doesn’t answer this question. By shutting down all dissent and accountability, Mickey is effectively covering up his sins and those of C.J. and the SGM Board. Mickey’s stated approach does not allow for an organization like Ambassadors of Reconciliation to come and adjudicate my serious concerns for him. Neither does his understanding of eldership allow for the appointment of men from the church to hear and weigh my charges.] Well, let me say something please here. First, you have to answer this. Is what Brent is publishing and saying; gossip, slander, and scoffing? Does it fit that category? [No, it doesn’t fit these categories. Half the time, I am quoting C.J. or others. They indict themselves. I’ve repeatedly addressed this issue at BrentDetwiler.com. That is one reason why Mickey doesn’t want you to read my writings.] And if it is how do you biblically justify dividing? [You mean exposing serious pride, error, hypocrisy, favoritism, deceit, manipulation, lording, etc.] How do you justify reading gossip, slander and scoffing? [You mean documented accounts and primary sources.] And I would also tell you is being informed a higher value than being biblically right. [Here’s Mickey’s theology: biblically right = total ignorance.]

“Secondly, I want you to know that I understand the question and in some ways there is only one answer [get ready] I can give you and it is this. You need to decide whether you trust your pastors. You need to decide, I can’t decide that for you. I can’t tell you what to do here. I can tell you what the Bible says. I can tell what the Bible commands. I can tell you what commentators say. I can’t tell you what to do here. You need to decide whether you are going to trust your pastors. I’ve never asked you to trust me blindly. Never. You have to examine my life and examine the life of these other pastors. The way we’ve lived, the way we’ve served you, the way we’ve taught you, the way we’ve cared for you. You have to examine our lives and have to answer that question. You have to decide do you want to trust us. [Mickey believes he is worthy of unqualified trust because of his exemplary life, service, teaching and pastoral care. No one deserves this kind of trust except Jesus Christ. Mickey’s extremely high opinion of himself translates into a demand for unconditional followership. That’s what happens when you claim perfection. You universally trust yourself and so should everyone else.]

“Do you trust that if charges ever were brought that the other pastors would impartially hear those charges and act according to 1 Timothy 5. [Absolutely not. They’ve defended Mickey’s sinlessness at every point.] Do you trust your pastors! That is really the key question that we are facing here tonight. And I want to let you know something. We can’t function without your trust. If I ever lose the trust of this church I will resign that very day. I can’t function without your trust. I can’t function without your trust [At no point in Mickey’s message does he qualify his request for trust. It is absolute. Complete. Unconditional. This is more than an oversight. Under these circumstances, he should be telling the church he is a sinful man, made mistakes, needs to change and understands why it is hard to trust him. Instead, he demands total trust and obedience which he assumes he warrants. There is no self-suspicion.]

“That is the great horror of gossip and slander and divisiveness. It fosters suspicion. It fosters mistrust. Mistrust and suspicious divide. [The exposing of major problems in SGM is a service to the entire movement. Division comes from its leaders who are unwilling to humble themselves, make public confessions, right wrongs, or identify individual and corporate sins. Instead they call good, evil; and evil, good. The charges against C.J. and SGM are serous and widespread and come from hundreds/thousands of people.] We cannot function without your trust. I am not going to publicly defend myself. I am not going to publish documents to present my case to a wider audience. As I’ve said, if you hear rumors, I want you to come and ask me about those rumors. But I am not going to publish documents, I am not going to present my case to a wider audience. [Honestly, it would be a losing cause if Mickey did and I think he knows it. This may sound humble but it is another way to avoid accountability. Not only will Mickey avoid a “wider audience,” he is going to avoid any audience. Only the pastors will know and decide anything from within the fortress that have erected.] I will not defend myself at Brent’s or anyone else’s expense by revealing private conversations and I will not put anyone else in a bad light and put myself in a good light. [This one makes me laugh since the whole evening was about putting me in a bad light and him in a good light.]

“I’ve appealed to Brent privately [so have I with Mickey] and will continue to do so but I will not tear down Brent to defend myself. [Of course not, let’s not tear Brent down. That would be terrible. Just mark him as divisive, make a bogus case against him in his absence, refuse any kind of adjudication, and tell all his friends at CrossWay to cut off their relationship with him.] I realize this puts me at a disadvantage which is another reason I so need your trust. This isn’t just about me, it is about us. Joe said this week this is a potentially polarizing moment for this church. I think it is also a potentially uniting moment for this church.

“I have a sincere desire that all of you stay [brace yourself for the worse part]. I can’t tell you how much it hurts this old pastor’s heart to have even one person leave this church. I never have been able to take that easily and I hope I never will. I have a sincere desire that you all stay and that this would not divide us. I am not naïve. I am not naïve. If you can’t stay here in good conscience. If you can’t trust your pastors, you need to leave. You need to go. [So if you have questions about your pastors’ character or actions, pack your bags. Mickey doesn’t like problems or conflicts. So just leave.] Please don’t hear what I am not saying. I am not saying, “Get out!” or “You’re kicked out!” [Really? Thanks for the clarification. Guess, I missed something.] I am not saying that at all. What I am saying very simply is this. If you cannot trust your pastors, if you cannot obey your pastors and what we are asking you to do biblically then you need to find another church because we cannot function without your trust. [In other words, if you don’t cut off your relationship with me, if continue to read my blog, if you don’t defriend me on Facebook and stop reading my comments, you MUST leave CrossWay and find another church. There is absolutely no alternative. So if you stay, you must stick you head in the sand and unconditionally trust, obey and honor the pastors as though they were Jesus.] You can’t follow pastors you don’t trust. [This is not biblical trust. This is mindless submission.] You can’t honor pastors that you are willing to have slandered. [Everything is slander. Defend to the death.] And that you’re willing to go and seek out slander about. [That means, don’t look for objective answers.] You can’t do that. [Yes, you must go out and discover and discern the truth when your pastors are not open and honest, are not accountable, won’t allow for an objective evaluation, claim to be perfect, misapply Scripture, abuse critics, and rule over you like demagogues.]

"Slander" and it's Punishment

One of the more chilling statements made in C J Mahaney's "Coming Home" speech at the recent SGM conference was this promise;

I think the days ahead are going to require more discernment as it relates to the identification of slander and the influence of slander in our churches. I think the days ahead are going to require courage on the part of pastors and when necessary publicly identify those who are divisive

Like their enthusiastic use of the word "excommunication", I think we MUST persist in calling such leaders to account for their use of the word "slander". These words are significant because they give power to the leaders to discipline the SGM members and "publicly identify" (name and shame" anyone who may express disagreement with the leaders! This is simply wrong!

What does the word "slander" mean? Here are a few dictionary definitions;

" ... is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed".

Key words; "implied to be factual". And "usually a requirement that this claim be false".

"In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, not specific enough to verify and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images".

Publicly stated. And false. And often; "Not specific enough to verify". The Brent Detweiler documents have been MORE than specific. In the case of Brent Detweiler vs C J Mahaney - he has repeatedly pleaded with the SGM Board to PROVE that his claims are false. They haven't done so. Furthermore if there was ANY suggestion that Brent's claims were false - do the SGM Board not have enough finances behind them to pursue a "cease and desist" claim through the courts - which there is also no hint of them doing so?

Brent posted some email exchanges with the leadership of Crossway. Apparently they are STILL resolute on "excommunicating him" - as per instructions by C J Mahaney. He mailed them and pleaded with them to reconsider. But in true SGM resolve - Mickey Connolly (for more on him - see his interview with C J Mahaney and his fawning over Mahaney's "humble" example) emailed back and said;

"Brent,

We have heard and considered your appeal but continue to believe we stand on firm biblical ground to proceed".

This so reminded me of the absolute no budging attitude of the SGM leaders in my case. It scared me silly how utterly inflexible they are. Where is the attitude that Paul the apostle COMMANDS in Galatians;

"He who is sin - such a one should be restored gently".

Gentle? No attitude can be further from what I see in some of SGM. And what I find even more hypocritical is that Mickey Connolly was the selected SGM Board Member to introduce the Ambassadors of Reconciliation seminar at the conference.

What occurs to me is this - what do non-Christians think of this behaviour? What non-Christians in their right minds are going to what to join a church under leadership like Mickey Connolly or C J Mahaney - knowing that any hint of divisiveness and they could be excommunicated and have their lives ruined at the whim of a pastor? Amusingly enough who describe themselves as a church "enjoying His grace". What grace?!

I find it even more incredible I believed the SGM Board member in the UK who assured me that the "legalistic authoritarian" men had left SGM with Brent Detweiler and I believed the flagship church in the UK was truly one of grace and compassion and openness.

I still believe passionately in His Church - because He said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not stand against it! But I am struggling to keep believing in the future of SGM.

Transcript Of C.J. Mahaney’s Remarks At The Sovereign Grace Ministries 2011 Pastors Conference

Many know that my attention (while not at work) has been taken up with observing SGM and it's leadership challenges since July. Why? Because I endured 2 years in membership there and because my family still do. So this particular Pastors Conference is of special interest.

Here is the transcript of C J Mahaney's remarks to the gathered pastors. Make of it what you will. My friend Kris organised the transcript and included her comments;

(John Loftness speaking:

I am here right now to give some context before CJ comes to give an update from his leave of absence. More than four months ago CJ volunteered to take this leave. The board decided to expand the board of three men by having all of the regional leaders in SG – I am one of those leaders – and so suddenly in a day I was transformed into a board member. I’ve known CJ for 33 years.

Since leaving CLC and moving to Solid Rock four years ago our friendship has only deepened though we don’t see each other as much as we once did. I give you that background because of our history because the board asked me to serve as a liaison with CJ so he could get appropriate updates of our work and developments that might affect him. The board also thought it was wise and helpful if CJ could receive pastoral care from someone who knew him well and was familiar with all that was going on in Sovereign Grace. [Kris says: I realize that this is supposed to be a bit of an introduction to the notion that CJ will explain why he is no longer attending a Sovereign Grace church but has instead made himself part of Mark Dever's Capitol Hill Baptist Church. But the idea that CJ left Covenant Life Church because he needed to receive care from "someone who knew him well ans was familiar with all that was going on in Sovereign Grace" cannot possibly be used as support for CJ's going to CHBC. After all, who would know more about SGM and be more familiar with CJ - Mark Dever, or the men who have been trained by and worked along side of CJ for decades?] I consider it a great privilege to stand with my friend during this most trying time. We’ve met often, we’ve talked extensively about his soul his leadership and how to evaluate Sovereign Grace. So what you are about to hear reflects the content of many many conversations over the last four months.

CJ speaking:

Over the last four months so many of you have communicated your support to Carolyn and I and we are so very grateful.

I have been looking forward to this moment when I could address you. I have spent much time over the last four months studying Second Corinthians. Paul is uniquely personal in Second Corinthians, uniquely heart revealing and heart appealing. He says to the Corinthians, “My heart is wide open to you.” He expresses this care in this unique way it is the only time he does this…soon after this statement Paul says this to them, “make room in your heart for us.” You bear no resemblance to the Corinthians…But I think there is relevance in his communication. [Kris says: Why? If CJ's audience bears no resemblance to the Corinthians, then CJ must want to make the implication that he himself bears resemblance to the Apostle Paul?] I want to …my heart and I want to appeal to you to make room in your heart for me.

Here is the state of my heart. I am sad, I am hopeful, and I am eager to return to the privilege to serve you. Those would be three categories. I am sad. I reflect on what you have experienced during this season, the time you have invested because of all that has taken place, the challenges you have encountered over the past four months, how this has adversely affected your church. I locate myself in the midst of that and find my way to where I bear responsibility for that, I am so sad. My heart aches and breaks because I want to serve you. I don’t want to create work for you. So I pray that my sorrow and sadness is evident to you. I want to open my heart to you. I feel like it has been four months of mourning for the people I love the most.

But I am also hopeful because God is sovereign and He is wise and He is good and He has good purposes for Sovereign Grace and His good purposes cannot and will not be frustrated ultimately.

Deficiencies can be and will be addressed. Never has there been an interim board that we should be more grateful for or appreciative of. These men and their wives have given countless hours of sacrifice. We have been served heroically by these men and their wives. I am so grateful for Dave assuming this leadership role which he did not desire, did not volunteer for, and all the men participating on this interim board because they love the Savior and they love us so let them be the object of our appropriate gratitude for the countless ways they have served us during this season. I have hope because these are humble men, men of integrity, looking to lead us wisely as we walk forward. So I am very sad and I am also very hopeful. That is a little of my heart.

I want to appeal to you to make room in your heart for me. Many of you – this appeal isn’t necessary. From the beginning you have indicated that there has been no adjustment in your heart toward us. The room that was there prior is still there. And some of you seem to have added room in your heart. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding. So many of you, this appeal isn’t necessary. Given the size of Sovereign Grace, given the diversity of questions, it is quite possible, it is understandable that for some there might be less room in your heart today for me. There may be little room , or maybe no room and if so, I understand. My appeal would simply be that I hope and I pray that what I say and in the future will allow you to make some room in your heart for me.

[Kris says: What does it actually mean, to "make room in your heart" for someone? Does it mean "continue to care about" the person? If so, I can't imagine why CJ would honestly believe he needed to ask the men (SGM pastors) in his audience to work at continuing to care about him. Obviously they all still care, or they would not be sitting there listening to his remarks.

It seems to me that CJ is asking these guys for something a lot more complicated than vaguely "making room in their hearts" for him. It seems to me that CJ is actually asking these guys instead to be sympathetic to CJ's own interpretation of the events and revelations of the past several months. He phrases it in the emotionally manipulative lingo of "Make room in your heart for me," and he implies the clear comparison of himself to the Apostle Paul. But he's asking for far more from his audience than merely continuing to care about him...or have him in their hearts. He's asking for them to take on his point of view about SGM's (and his) problems.]

Here is some of what I have learned during this season of reflection. I hope this provides some clarity where there has been confusion. I am not trying to persuade you. I am just providing you with my perspective for your consideration. [Kris says: The two previous sentences are patently untrue. CJ is clearly trying to persuade his audience to think in a certain way. Otherwise there would be utterly no reason for him to be standing up there in front of them, wasting his breath.]

I will address you from two categories: personal reflections and reflections on Sovereign Grace and my leadership of Sovereign Grace.

The leave of absence began in July. It was voluntary, it wasn’t imposed on me, it wasn’t disciplinary. It was a decision I made for a few different reasons. In light of the public distribution of Brent’s docs…here is what I wanted to do. I wanted to protect the office of the president of SGM. I wanted to protect the integrity of SGM, protect you and your church, I wanted to protect the integrity of the adjudication that was about to go forward. [Kris says: Does CJ continue to have a desire to "protect the adjudication"? Because if he does, why is he standing on the stage and speaking before the adjudicators - the Ambassadors of Reconciliation, presumably - have finished adjudicating?] I wanted to take time to evaluate my heart and my ministry in relation to the leadership to Sovereign Grace. After the Leave of Absence was announced I was informed by numerous leaders outside of Sovereign Grace that this decision was decidedly unwise, that it would be perceived as an admission of guilt or some form of discipline, though neither would be true. And in retrospect I do think this was an unwise decision on my part with unintended consequences and the board agrees with me on this. This leave of absence rendered me unable to communicate my perspective or defend me from all manner of false accusations. [Kris says: This is another absolutely untrue statement. CJ continues to have his SGM-financed ghostwriter at his disposal. He continues to have bandwidth on SGM's own website for his blog. He has continued to speak publicly, both at SGM churches and non-SGM venues like Capitol Hill Baptist. One's ability to defend oneself from "all manner of false accusations" has never necessitated being the head of a denomination.] But the leave did provide me with opportunity for reflection and unhurried evaluation and I am grateful. I have had so much interaction with individuals and received so much helpful and wise council inside and outside Sovereign Grace. I have learned much, I know God better, I love Him more, trust Him more, by His grace I am a wiser leader. So I am grateful for this unwise decision.

Next my transition to CHBC. After the public statement about the leave, I decided with the support of the board to attend CHBC during my leave of absence. I am very aware this decision has left you with a number of questions and I understand why.

Prior to the leave we had decided that Mark Dever would pay a strategic role in providing me with care and counsel …so his involvement was decided prior to the decision to attend CHBC. After my public confession and statement, it quickly became evident that for me to remain in CLC in this season would be untenable for a few reasons: there was hostility from a number in the church toward me after the release of Brent’s documents and I had disagreements with the approach that was adopted by the CLC pastors concerning these documents and in relation to my confession an approach that they thought best served the church. [Kris says: So basically what CJ is admitting here is that he was not actually submitted to the authority of any of his pastors at CLC. His primary concern was not actually to obey his pastors and make them happy. He decided he did not need to "be a joy to pastor."]

So I didn’t see how I could remain in the church because I didn’t want to be a distraction, a disruption in the church, and I certainly didn’t want to be divisive to the church, because I love this church, I helped found this church, I gave 27 years of my life to this church. I wouldn’t want to do anything to harm this church. So I thought it would serve the church, serve the pastors that I wouldn’t be drawn in by the church to anything controversial by having to reveal any of my differences or concerns. I was desirous of serving the church. [Kris says: Actually, it sounds a lot more like CJ was desirous of serving himself and his own comfort. It sounds a lot more like CJ wanted to avoid hard questions and potentially uncomfortable conversations with other members. If his real desire was to "serve the church," he could easily have done so by simply saying nothing if people tried to engage him.]

I realize this doesn’t fit the expected practice relative to a church that preceded this decision …I know that, and I understand the questions but this was a situation where I believed and still do believe that the Word agrees that remaining in CLC would not have served this church or have served the pastors of this church. [Kris says: CJ just pulled the Bible card here. He says "...the Word agrees..." I would be very interested in knowing just where the Bible says anything that would have supported CJ's leaving CLC. CJ's decision to quit submitting to his own pastors and his own local church flies in the face of everything he has ever taught about the overarching importance of the local church, and of the need for members to constantly be going around asking themselves if they are obeying and submitting to their pastors and making their pastors' job a joy. Certainly if CJ is going to imply that the Bible supports his decision, he ought, as a responsible "theologian" and elder, to rightly divide the Word and show his audience where he gets this idea.] I did consider becoming part of Solid Rock Church but I didn’t want to be a distraction to that church either, didn’t want to draw that church unnecessarily into this controversy. I am at this time a walking controversy and I did not want to distract another church, to disrupt any church or to be divisive in a local church.

Finally I made this decision as a husband. My wife has an unusually strong constitution but I needed to protect her from the assaults that we were both the objects of. [Kris says: "Assaults"? Isn't that a pretty melodramatic word for CJ to use to describe what he and Carolyn might have theoretically experienced if they'd remained at their SGM local church? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I've always had the impression that people were a bit in awe of Carolyn anyway and have always treated her with the utmost respect. Would she really have been vulnerable to "assaults" if they would have quietly continued to attend CLC?] I am a husband before I am a president. When it was announced that I would be attending CHBC it was suggested that i was fleeing accountability and my response is as follows. I was not under any formal church discipline. Actually I was pursuing accountability. I was taking a leave of absence that I thought was a statement of accountability. I continue to participate in my small group with Bob and Jeff and Gary and continue to receive their care and council, encouragement, correction. I was running into, not away from, two separate panels and I was placing myself under the care and council of Mark Dever for the purpose of adding even more accountability. Mark is a true friend. We have a history of relationship. He is an excellent pastor and the man does not flatter.

One final reason – I needed help, I needed pastoral care I needed the benefits of worship and preaching where I wouldn’t be distracted, where I wasn’t viewed suspiciously, where I didn’t have to be concerned about anyone approaching me before the meeting or after with questions or accusations. I needed to sit and listen to sermons that could speak to my needy soul. Mark is a dear friend to Sovereign Grace and I will never forget their kindness to us.

I don’t consider myself an exception at all. I do think these were exceptional circumstances.

[Kris says: If CJ doesn't consider himself an exception, then he is really out of touch with what has been the reality for pretty much all other SGM pastors who have times of stepping away from the ministry, or being outright de-gifted. When other SGM pastors have been de-gifted (fired), they were then commanded to remain in SGM churches after they were forced to step down. They were not given the luxury of getting to seek the "benefits of worship and preaching." They were forced to stay put and face people who knew all about their situations, Sunday after Sunday.]

Next, reflection on personal sins. At the beginning of the week of absence I have acknowledged – like all of you I have examined my heart – would be a practice for me – self examination in some form has been a practice for me my entire Christian life. Perhaps for some it appears this self examination, particularly as it relates to Brent’s docs, began in July with the leave of absence. But actually this began just after I received Brent’s first docs which would be more than a year prior to July. [Kris says: As someone else pointed out, it's interesting how CJ and other SGM leaders continue to refer to the materials Brent shared as "Brent's Documents." While it is true that Brent did write significant amounts of commentary himself, what has always reflected most poorly upon CJ and the enablers surrounding him were their very own email communications which were quoted in the documents. As far as I know, nobody - not CJ or anyone else - has ever disputed the authorship of the many emails Brent shared. Nor has CJ or anyone else disputed the basic facts revealed in those emails. Calling the damning information "Brent's Documents" is a clever way of distancing himself from the truth, which is that CJ's own words in his own emails paint a very poor picture of him as a manipulative and controlling egomaniac.] When he sent the first docs I immediately sent it to those I serve with. I began to consider the contents of his documents and invited the observations and evaluations of those I serve with and through this process I was able to identify with the help of friends and the eyes of others, my wife at my side providing her insight as well, and I was able to identify more clearly certain incidences of sin, habits of sin, most of which I had previously acknowledged years before but I was engaging them again. By God’s grace I was engaging them in a more perceptive way and I hope more thoroughly.

So over a period of a year I crafted and sent to Brent two written confessions as a means of humbling myself and in hopes of being reconciled with him. I want to make clear that my written confessions to Brent were sincere, I was convicted of those sins. I did grieve and still do over the effects of my sin and I communicated that to Brent as well as to other men that were affected by my sin. I still want to communicate that to anyone and everyone that has been affected by my sin. It is a part of what informs my sadness. [Kris says: I wish that CJ would have taken a couple of minutes here to spell out in a few sentences just what, precisely, he's talking about. What were his sins, if he's so familiar with them now? I think some simple yet specific statements about what he actually considers to be his wrongdoings would go a long way toward helping those who continue to perceive CJ as not really having come to a place of repentance for anything relating to Brent's complaints against him.]

However, it does appear that some assumed or concluded that I agree with Brent’s narrative, his accusations and interpretations and judgments of my motives, and this simply wouldn’t be true and it never has been true. Brent’s docs construct a narrative that I disagree with. That narrative portrays my sins as scandalous, calculated and deceptive, and uncommonly intentionally hypocritical, and pervasively so, and this is false. Yes, sadly I am a sinner and throughout my Christian life I have never viewed myself otherwise, and I think I have acknowledged this however inadequately throughout my Christian life but I don’t believe my sins are uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying. I have never believed that since the day the first doc arrived.

[Kris says: So coercing Larry Tomczak - his co-founder - to remain silent about half of the real reasons Larry was parting ways with PDI was not uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying? In order to secure that silence, threatening Larry Tomczak with exposing Larry's then-teenaged son's sins, which had been confessed to CJ in what was understood to be a private setting, was not uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying?

Setting up and ruling over a system wherein many men have been disqualified from ministry and fired from their pastoral positions for far more "common" sins (such as "pride" and the "fear of man") while spending more than a decade refusing to make oneself even remotely accountable - that wasn't "uncommonly intentionally hypocritical"?

I guess CJ has some singularly unusual ideas about what constitutes "uncommon" sin. Perhaps that would help to explain the pattern within SGM churches of responding so oddly to situations where child sex abuse had occurred. Perhaps that would help to explain why SGM pastors have appeared to take on the part of the perpetrator and further victimize the victims. Perhaps it's because there's an organization-wide faulty understanding of what makes a particular action an "uncommon" sin that demands appropriately harsh consequences?]

So I was grateful for the findings and rulings of the first panel in this regard and their agreement with that assessment. I look forward to the review panel, the second panel’s findings and rulings regarding this matter as well. I wish those panels started today.

I think I made a significant error in how I related to Brent’s docs. I viewed his docs as a means of personal sanctification and I related to him as if this is a matter of personal offense. [Kris says: I'm starting to wonder just how closely CJ read Brent's documents. It was very clear throughout everything Brent shared that Brent was very concerned about ongoing patterns in CJ's life that were not just about offending Brent on a personal level! Off the top of my head, I can't even think of a specific conflict or disagreement recounted by Brent that would have been "personal," with no ramifications for CJ's role in the ministry.] All of one of my friends and counselors urged me to view his docs this way. [Kris says: CJ apparently has friends and counselors who don't give good advice.] So I pursued personal reconciliation, I appealed repeatedly for mediation, I held out hope that Brent and I could be reconciled, and sadly to date that has proved to be a false hope.

I should have realized that Brent was making accusations and making charges, he was calling into question my fitness for ministry. This was First Timothy 5, not Matthew 5. [Kris says: Perhaps this is an error in the transcript, but if not, I think CJ meant to say, "not Matthew 18."] So this whole matter should have been turned over to the SGM board early on for formal adjudication. But this was a new experience for me, and this was a new experience for us and one we weren’t prepared for. [Kris says: If receiving correction is a "new experience" for CJ and the SGM board, that fact is highly telling and actually supports all the charges in Brent's documents.]

I think it might also be helpful to say something about the confession statement to Covenant Life and to you via a letter. Those confessions were sincere. I do, like you, take my sins seriously. I see them in light of the holiness of God. I need a Savior and I am so grateful that the Father has provided a Savior for my innumerable sins. But after making this confession I have received much helpful critique from a number of leaders about my confession and I have concluded that I did not serve you well with this confession. My confession has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and exploited. My confession should have been more precise. It was my desire through my confession to humble myself, to take responsibility for my sin, to set an example, to protect SG. [Kris says: It would have been helpful here for CJ to explain further what it was about his confession that he's not somehow retracting. Also, maybe it's just me, but I think the line, "I did not serve you well with this confession" is utterly bogus. Nobody at CLC or within the larger SGM organization was harmed (or "not served well") by those letters. The only person who might have experienced unpleasant fallout from them was CJ himself. What CJ really meant to say is that those letters did not serve himself well.]

Instead, my communication in some ways create speculation that left me vulnerable to interpretation, that left me vulnerable to exploitation. I left the wrong impression of my sin. In that confession I was trying to convey that I take my sins seriously but I regret that my language conveyed that my sins were unusually serious. I do not think that I have never thought that. I didn’t distinguish my sins from Brent’s accusations, judgments, narrative and I should have.

One member of the first panel said this to me – quote: “I respect, CJ, how seriously you take the respectable sins but you left the impression that you did something scandalous. But nothing you confessed reached the level of public scandal requiring a public confession. Your sins are routine and common.” [Kris says: Again with the "routine and common" thing. I am really concerned if panel members cannot discern that strong-arming a cofounder, through what amounts to blackmail, into falsely portraying himself as leaving the organization because of his personal sins, rather than because of a major disagreement with a dramatic doctrinal shift, is somehow "routine and common."] That is not to minimize my sin. But it did help me to see the wrong impressions I left and I regret that.

Another member of the panel said this: “I think you made a genuine effort to be humble. You overstate the level of offense and you confuse those outside of Sovereign Grace.” I happen to think that is an accurate critique. I didn’t just confuse those outside Sovereign Grace, I confused those inside Sovereign Grace as well. I over-stated. I think I did that as well the year before at this Pastors’ Conference. My apology in relation to the polity process. A number of you came in afterwards and said in effect, you overstated that. I think you were right. I think this panel has an accurate assessment.

[Kris says: Maybe I've missed something, but I've never yet seen or heard anything out of CJ Mahaney that would even come close to taking a shred of true responsibility for the decades of authoritarian leadership, harsh disciplinary practices, faulty teachings, and an overwhelming concern for protecting SGM's image that resulted in bad policies for reporting abuse to law enforcement officials. I'm not sure which statements CJ is talking about here.]

Finally, in relation to my confession, I wish I had defended myself. I think I briefly, at the outset, possibly at the conclusion, referenced my disagreements with Brent’s narratives and accusations. But I wrongly concluded that it wouldn’t be humble of me to defend myself. I am now convinced that this really reveals an ignorance of, a misunderstanding, a wrong application of humility. I had no category for an appropriate defense against criticisms and accusations, especially public ones. I think not having a category didn’t serve me.

So as I have reflected over the last 4 months, I think this has been a 6 year process, in relation to the doctrine of sin I think there are a few areas where we have been affected by a misapplication of the doctrine of sin. [Kris says: So, it's all about "misapplication"? It's not because CJ's teachings and writings were faulty to begin with? Typically, misapplication has to do with mistakes made by the listeners, rather than the teacher. It's interesting how CJ is really only acknowledging the flaws of others (those who "misapplied" his teachings) rather than problems with what he taught.] First area is fellowship. This has been a strength in Sovereign Grace. I pray it remains a strength. At times the doctrine of sin has had too much of a prominent place in our practice of fellowship. Very careful here, so no misunderstanding. The practice and experience of fellowship is much much much broader than the application of the doctrine of sin. And our practice of fellowship must not be reduced to identifying sin or rehearsing sin or endlessly exploring the potential idols of our heart. Our practice of fellowship should primarily be a means of preaching and applying the gospel to each other. It should be a means of identifying evidences of grace in each other. The category of what it should be could be expanded.

[Kris says: Golly...sure sounds like CJ, or more likely, one of his lackeys, has been reading here. ]

But it is all too easy for our practice of fellowship to become a preoccupation with sin, primarily about sin rather than a fresh proclamation and application of the gospel to our lives. I regret these misunderstandings and misapplications where they have occurred. I wish I would have anticipated them. [Kris says: Wow. Just wow. During the one instance in this whole talk where CJ gets relatively specific about a problem, the most he can do is apologize or express regret for the deficiencies and mistakes of those who followed his teachings - because they "misunderstood" and "misapplied" what he said.] I think it was about 6 years ago I began to perceive these deficiencies. I’ve looked back through notes where I was – OK – I was attempting to address it but, OK, it was just a point in a message. I asked David Powlison to come to our Pastors’ Conference and preach a message on introspection. So that was all by design. That was simply the single message, had the privilege to teach the pastor care class at pastors’ college last 3 years and this has certainly been a section, but I should have done more. [Kris says: If anyone was under the impression that CJ was taking responsibility for one of SGM's flaws - that of being too obsessed with pointing out the sins of others and considering that to be "fellowship" - here we have further proof that CJ is actually trying to vindicate himself, to prove just how he is NOT responsible for this particular problem. Not only has he now stated a couple of times that the problems arose through his listeners' "misapplication" and "misunderstandings" of what he taught - he now also makes a case for how he actually did recognize the problem "about 6 years ago" and made attempts to address the problem.

All he really says here is that he's sorry his listeners misunderstood and misapplied what was taught, and he did try to fix their problems by having Powlison come in and talk.]

And the second area in this regard is the area of correction. At times the doctrine of sin has been unhelpfully applied in relation to others instead of towards ourselves. So individuals have been corrected and pressed to acknowledge sins that others perceived, sins of the heart and when there isn’t immediate agreement with that correction and assessment then the category of pride can be introduced. The person appears to be unteachable then that is in sin, particularly if everyone else in the group is in agreement with each other about your sin. There is a wonderful quote, I think over the years it has been misunderstood and misapplied. This is from J.I. Packer’s work on the Puritans, Quest for Godliness, “Our best works are shot through with sin and contain something that needs to be forgiven.” The purpose of this quote is to humble us and to provoke us to guard our hearts. I don’t think this is a mandate for us to suspect the hearts of others or to pursue the sins of others or to correct others. I regret not perceiving this misunderstanding and misapplication. I regret not more effectively guarding misapplication. There is more I wish I would have done.

[Kris says: While all of this is definitely true, and it's great that CJ is actually finally acknowledging what has become an unhealthy pattern of behavior among SGM's leaders, does anyone else join me in feeling a bit cynical that he's finally saying all this stuff only now - now, when it is to his own benefit to point out the pattern and declare it wrong? Where was CJ when hundreds of other SGMers were suffering similar fates?]

The second would be pastoral evaluation. This is another area that I think my leadership has been inadequate. More could have been done, more should have been done, more will be done. Sovereign Grace needs to provide our pastors with guidance, the content of a process where objective evaluation of pastors so that pastoral evaluations are theologically informed, objectively done, uniformly done, not arbitrary, not suddenly announced. A pastor shouldn’t be blindsided by an evaluation. And this is particularly critical when there are concerns about the pastor’s character or gifting. The content of this evaluation should be theologically informed, predetermined as well as the timing of this evaluation. I’m aware I’m aware I’m very aware that there are pastors that feel that they have been inappropriately evaluated, even mistreated by Sovereign Grace. Listen, I don’t believe this is systemic from my experience and I have pursued a number of these situations. Here’s what I have decided. Each situation is very different. Very different. [Kris says: It’s interesting that CJ doesn’t believe the various de-giftings represent systemic problems within SGM…and that he’s saying each situation is very different. When it comes to the de-giftings of various pastors (as well, come to think of it, as the way many members have been shown the door), I think anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge could list multiple similarities that would form a distinct disturbing pattern. I would love to have heard an explanation for just how these situations are all "very different." I would be surprised if the differences outweigh the similarities.

But even so, I can't imagine that focusing on the differences, rather than the clear similarities, would be helpful or productive in terms of SGM's addressing its issues. However, trying to individualize and privatize situations where wrongdoing of leadership took place is a good way to enable denying and minimizing problems. SGM has used this tactic many times over the years, in terms of trying to make organization-wide abusive practices all about "Matthew 18" rather than acknowledging wrongdoing and addressing and fixing it out in the open.] We certainly do want to give attention to it. We are giving attention to it. In some ways I spent almost 2 years trying to give attention to it. And we are thankful for AoR and they are serving us even this morning.

One more thing before I finish. Once we have a pastor in place in Sovereign Grace we want to do all we can to keep that pastor in place. We do not want our pastors fearing that in some way that we are looking for a reason to disqualify them. We want to do all we can if at all possible for our pastors to have lengthy, fruitful service.

[Kris says: OK, I'm going to beat the same dead horse I've beaten in comments over the past couple of weeks. This particular piece of CJ's speech is intriguing to me because I think it contains a tacit admission that SGM-the-national-corporation functions in a governing capacity within local churches, a capacity that is nowhere acknowledged officially.

Basically, right here we have an admission from CJ himself that SGM Corporate is in charge of hiring and firing decisions. That’s a far cry from the self-description that is posted on the SGM website, where SGM’s mission/purpose is described thus:

We are a family of churches passionate about advancing the Great Commission through church planting. In support of that mission we facilitate partnerships among pastors, operate a Pastors College, host events, and publish books, music, and other resources.

I wonder why SGM Corporate isn’t more forthcoming about its role in controlling which pastors work where, and how long these pastors remain in their positions. How is this governing/controlling role for SGM Corporate reconciled with the notion that each SGM church is “independent” and self-contained?

I know I have hammered at this for weeks, repeating myself again and again, but I think this is an important topic that needs clarification, particularly for the poor sap churches that are considering being adopted by SGM. I don’t understand how SGM can claim that local churches are independent – and how, pre-adoption, churches can think that they will retain their independence but just get some vague level of support from SGM Corporate – when the reality is that SGM Corporate is the governing entity for hiring and firing decisions.

For instance, it is quite likely that CJ’s son-in-law Steve Whitacre will be sent to take over and be the senior pastor of New Covenant Church in Arnold, MD. New Covenant Church is in the final stages of being taken over by SGM as a “church re-plant.” NCC put out some notes awhile back about a members’ meeting they held on July 4. Those notes contained a Q&A section, where common questions were answered. One question was, “So, SGM is picking our pastor?” The answer was, “No, they are making suggestions.” But that seems like a half-truth at best, for what would happen if the NCC folks were to object to Steve Whitacre as their new senior pastor? What would happen to the adoption process for their church?

I don’t understand why SGM Corporate isn’t more forthcoming about its governing role…and I don’t understand what a church like NCC would possibly be gaining by deceiving themselves and telling themselves that they have some sort of voice in these decisions…when pretty much, it’s already been decided.

This is especially head-spinning for me. Why do SGM churches continue to assert their independence when hiring and firing decisions are made for them by SGM Corporate? Why do they continue to believe the lie that they are independent, when they cannot even have full freedom to select their own pastor?

And why does SGM Corporate not disclose its governing role but instead portrays itself as some sort of hands-off support group?]

Finally, polity. you are aware of this involved in the process, it will continue. It is not something that should be done quickly , different ways. … 2 years this process. It has been the tireless work of Jeff and Dave, thanks for your patience and participation. I think we are making progress. It is going to take much longer to make the kind of progress we need to make. We should not be surprised about that. I had a leader say to me just the other day “the fact that you guys don’t have all of your polity clarified and formalized is not a sin. You are a very young movement. ” So that is encouraging, gave me hope.

[Kris says: While it's great that SGM is retooling its polity, it is not a very good sign that these changes are apparently being engineered behind the scenes, by the pastors themselves, with little (or no?) input from ordinary SGM members. One of SGM's hugest problems has been its culture of secrecy and control, where the thinking and decision-making are done behind closed doors by pastors and then announced to or foisted on people, sometimes even without even informing them directly. If SGM is serious about change and has a good handle on its problems, any changes to polity would be done out in the open, with plenty of feedback from tithe-paying members.]

One aspect of polity that I do regret not having in place and that would be the appropriate handling of grievances in conflict resolution. We have not had grievance procedures in place for pastors or church members so no doubt there are instances where former pastors or church members would have been greatly served by these procedures. I am sorry that. I am sorry for the effects of that. The board is addressing that. Obviously receiving the value of AoR concerning that become a consistent part of Sovereign Grace church and Sovereign Grace procedures as well. It needs to, we want to, it will become .. so that’s not exhaustive. It won’t surprise you that I have lots more to say. I am not going to say it today. I have lots more to say. I have never been this quiet for this long in my entire life. I was going to say it is killing me, but it is sanctifying.

Finally, it would not be good leadership on my part for me to leave you preoccupied with areas of deficiency. It would not be good godly leadership. Do we have problems. Yes we do. But listen. Problems we are facing., confronting, experiencing. These things do not define us, and they do not define our churches. Sovereign Grace is a gospel preaching movement. And by God’s grace Sovereign Grace will continue to be a gospel preaching movement. One thing I would like to say and stress. We must not let our critics define us, or redefine us. I think the days ahead are going to require all the content of Dave’s excellent message.

I think the days ahead are going to require more discernment as it relates to the identification of slander and the influence of slander in our churches. I think the days ahead are going to require courage on the part of pastors and when necessary publicly identify those who are divisive. I think the days ahead are not only going to require, I think they are going to require courage. I think in some ways in SG we have more humility than courage. And we are going to need more courage. Humble courage. It doesn’t mean we don’t learn from critique, we do. But there is a difference between learning from critique and allowing critics to define you. We are [not?] capitulating to slander in the name of humility.

[Kris says: I think every SGM member ought to be asking their pastors what this section of CJ's talk means. SGM has historically redefined "slander" to mean the sharing of any information or thoughts that might not reflect positively upon leaders or the organization itself. Is that how "slander" is going to continue to be defined?

And what does it mean to be "divisive"? Why would "divisive" people need to be "publicly identified"? What would such public identification entail? Are people now going to be outed for asking questions or expressing disapproval of or disagreement with what SGM Corporate and CJ do at the top? Why would pastors need "courage" in order to deal with "divisive" people, unless this pubic outing of the divisive folks is going to involve some sort of messy and unpleasant confrontation?

More importantly, how would such a witch hunt for the "divisive" jive with CJ's own words in this very message, the words about how people misapplied CJ's teachings about fellowship and have focused too much on confronting others about their sins? Isn't it a total contradiction, to on the one hand condemn the hunt for sin in others while on the other hand end this message with a call to arms for pastors to exhibit "courage" and go and "publicly identify" those they think are being "divisive"? Wouldn't such a process involve a whole lot of the same sin-sniffing CJ claims to now condemn?]

So we are going to continue to evaluate ourselves. But it would not please God if we minimize the evidences of grace in our midst, that have been present and pronounced for so many years. This is not spin. This is not hype. This is not some form of SG self promotion. This is simply and humbly and accurately an acknowledgment of the mercy of God in and to SGM.

Divisive worse than Porn? Foolish Teaching by Jared Mellinger

A follow-up to my previous post on the readiness and eagerness by SGM top-dogs to use "excommunication" as a very real threat to those who don't toe the party line. I was alarmed and distressed to read about a rather strong sermon that Jared Mellinger (senior pastor of Covenant Fellowship Church - Dave Harvey's "base" and SGM's 2nd big flagship) preached yesterday on divisiveness.

I've been keeping my eye on Jared Mellinger ever since my dear friends Julie and Aaron Morris suffered under this guy's leadership. I follow him on Twitter and have observed some tweets from him leading up to the sermon on Sunday - so I guess it was no surprise. The essence of his statement was this (and here's the link just in case you need the source document);

"It was said that it may be more destructive to go to an un-gracious website where half-truth and opinions are put forth, than to go to a porn site".

This seems to me to be an incredibly stupid as well as unwise thing to say - and something that is fired by Mr Mellinger's eagerness to keep Dave Harvey and returning President and Chairman C J Mahaney - sweet, rather than something that is driven and guided by the Word of God.

The aim? Let's not deceive ourselves - Jared Mellinger is clearly keen to keep his church members from looking at SGM Survivors, SGM Refuge and Brent Detweiler dot com. However maybe he would do well to learn from the experience of the past. I remember when our elders at our home church were trying to put us off going to any churches involved in the Toronto Blessing and spoke very strongly against it. The effect? Generally we were all quite interested in what was so bad about Toronto and many members went - or at least watched videos about it.

I think Jared would do well to learn from Josh Harris's godly example. The websites critiquing SGM are out there and are not going away. Rather than putting your church leadership under scare tactics by saying something like this - he should do well to admit they are there. Face up honestly to what is true - and speak honestly about what perhaps is exaggerated. Maybe that will make his members relax and trust in his leadership - rather than feel under MORE condemnation and guilt;

1. Those members who have read the sites now are (by his teaching) worse than those struggling with porn.

2. Those members who genuinely struggle with porn now feel they aren't quite as bad as those who read those sites.

Both of which are ridiculous statements. ALL sin is sin in the eyes of God - and ALL sin was dealt with at the Cross of Christ (that SGM purport to trumpet so much).

Dave Harvey (Acting President of SGM) Responds to Questions

It's really great to see Dave Harvey addressing questions and concerns for the SGM family. Here's the video;

Answering Your Questions.

Even if we don't agree with his approach or answers - credit must be given for the new approach in honesty and openness.

Edited:

I had a good question since posting this from an Anonymous reader. What don't I agree with? Dave made a comment about apostles -

"That is one reason why we have refrained from using the term "apostle" for those who serve as Sovereign Grace Ministries regional representatives to our churches - see, as our understanding of polity has matured, we have become cautious of conveying any type of authority to SGM leaders that no one has today - an authority that is reserved for the first generation apostles. See - authority is never in a man, it's in the Word of God".

I think it's disappointing Harvey seems again to have adopted the pragmatic approach of tailoring theology to match experience. They've become scared of potential abuses by using the term "apostles" so they have abandoned the term and the post. By refusing to use the term - SGM deprive themselves of the benefit of true biblical apostles as say - Terry Virgo would define it.

Authority may be in the Word of God - but surely the Word of God makes space for giving biblical authority to men?

The Report is out on SGM!

The long-awaited report from "Ambassadors of Reconciliation" is out for the SGM Board of Directors. For those who this saga only concerns C J Mahaney's return to public ministry - they will be disappointed. The AoR have left this decision and delegated back to the SGM Board - Dave Harvey - the acting President - accepted this. As I understand it, a panel of a few SGM pastors and one Board member will be called to deal with Mahaney.

I've read the report carefully and find it actually quite encouraging - for two reasons.

One of the key problems with SGM for me has been their reluctance to "pursue reconciliation" with those many who have left or been kicked out of their ranks. The attitude of SGM seems to be "if you've left us - it's your fault". Here's the examples that come to my mind;

1. Larry Tomczak has spent a good part of a decade seeking reconciliation with C J. It was C J who said; "Let's do it!".

2. Brent himself has been reaching out to C J - as I read it, there was no move on C J's part until the documents began coming.

3. The two families from Fairfax Church who suffered awful child abuse had no course but to resort to posting their stories on "SGM Survivors" - granted the church leaders had their "Family Meeting" expressing regret and reaching out recently.

4. My own story was only closed and reconciliation brought thanks to Steve W (my friend from SGM Survivors) moves via Pat Ennis and Bob Kauflin. I had no contact from the UK SGM leaders until I personally emailed Pete Griesley (a now SGM Board member) on the back of Steve's mails.

That is why I am encouraged that the AoR team advise;

"Before engaging the help of other Christians ... we remind the SGM Board members of their biblical responsibilities to INITIATE action for reconciliation ... It does not matter whether we believe we have been sinned against ... or if the other person has something against us - we are to make EVERY effort to make peace.

Note also our responsibility to go and be reconciled is not excused simply because another indicates he does not want to meet".

Interesting - after I wrote to the SGM Board after my "excommunication" detailing my horror at the way I had been treated, I was sent a short note by Dave Harvey devolving all responsibility to Peter Griesley. Peter himself sent me a terse email noting they felt I was "wrong" but they would meet me "if I wished". At the time I was not willing or able to meet any SGM leaders after I had experienced my first (and only I hope) excommunication and informed him so. In Pat Ennis's opinion - that refusal to meet devolved them of all responsibility in my case.

I must note - Peter Griesley has since very graciously apologised for his email which I deeply appreciated.

But I am glad that AoR have noted this as a recommendation. I really hope SGM act on it - I think gestures of reconciliation from the leaders would have healed many past splits far sooner.

They go on regarding reconciliation - this is a REALLY good statement;

"Scripture does not excuse us because we are fearful our words might be twisted. Scripture does not excuse us if we think the other person may not listen. Scripture does not excuse us if the other party has widely shared his complaints against us. Scripture does not excuse us if the whole world has read about the complaints against us in public media ... thus our first counsel to the Board of Directors is to make every effort to "go and be reconciled".

It's good - not just for SGM - but for any Christian who finds themselves split from other fellow Christians. Now I suspect that the "anti-SGM"-ites will seize on "every effort" and be waiting for pounce for giving up in the case of Brent Detweiler. The AoR report doesn't allow that;

"Although we heard from the Board and observed in the documents (Brent's) that C J has made numerous offers to meet with Brent that were not accepted, we were not convinced that every effort to reconcile has been made by the Board".

Even once "every effort" has been exhausted - then the AoR report allows for calling in "others". So - C J Mahaney ... is he or isn't he?

Essentially AoR won't make the decision for SGM (cop-out maybe - some may feel!). But I can understand why they take this step. SGM by-laws state that only Board members may remove a board member (which C J is both President and Chairman). They do suggest a due process to consider this (which Dave Harvey states SGM will accept) which is;

A blind draw to select some SGM pastors and one Board member to decide on C J's eligibility.

Haven't encountered that technique before! But it seems a fair approach. Brent and C J will both be permitted and invited to come and present their cases and steps taken from there. It does seem a bit "one-sided" in terms of Brent appearing before an "SGM" panel - knowing the weight that C J holds over most of SGM. But there will be an "independent facilitator" present (nominated by AoR) who will bring a degree of neutrality which I think is important.

One final point which is VERY important;

"One disappointment for us was the lack of proclaiming God's grace to one another that seems apparent in this dispute".

I am glad this was stated. I read Brent's documents a couple of times and to be honest was left with a rather sour taste in my mouth. These sort of men - C J, Brent - are my heroes. I sometimes day dream about what it would be like spending time with them - being able to email them and so on. The email after email (with the cursory; "Hope you are enjoying God's grace") between the men involved seemed to me to question why we need the devil as an accuser - with all these accusations and counter-accusations.

"When confessions were made (whether orally or in writing) we observed no evidence of proclaiming God's forgiveness to the one who confessed. The Scriptures teach otherwise".

They cite 2 Samuel 12 where Nathan convicts but proclaims forgiveness, Psalm 32:5, Proverbs 28:13, Luke 7:48 (he who is forgiven much loves much) and 1 John 1:9. There is an important discussion to be had (I think) about the "indwelling sin" emphasis but this surely is an essential element that AoR should bring. If you are going to meet in accountability groups and the sorts of things SGM do - at the very least, proclaim forgiveness!

It is done!

I really hope and pray this report brings healing, reconciliation to these dear people and they can learn, grow and get on with planting churches across this much needed desperately dry world. Especially more in the UK!

The Buck Stops Here

A few SGM-related thoughts.

In the NHS the highest paid individuals are the Chief Executive, the Board and the consultants. Why? Because they have to carry the responsibility for the well-being of patients. It's often said that the CEO is the one most likely to lose their job in the NHS.

So I don't have a great amount of pity for C J Mahaney. I suspect he is the highest-paid individual in SGM (and that pay hasn't stopped during his 'leave of absence' - unlike Brent Detweiler who faced bankruptcy when his SGM-Board salary was stopped abruptly). He has massive royalties I am sure from his books - including of course, the tome teaching on "Humility" - irony. He is/was the President and he is responsible for the salary he takes. Don't like the heat C J? Take that youth pastor job you kept saying you wanted so badly.

The pity and heartache I have is for in particular Josh Harris but also for the people in SGM. The pressure that Josh Harris must have been under when this blew - and still is - as the man trained up by C J (and reportedly tipped as C J's successor for head of SGM when he retires at 60 - I wonder if that's still the case). Josh took a very bold stance many people felt - honestly admitting his sermon after this on "The Father's Discipline" - stating that God was "spanking SGM". Huge amounts of people in SGM feel he's right - aside from the SGM Board and C J himself clearly.

So in a transcript I was sent from the last Covenant Life Members Meeting I was staggered - to say the least - to read that the reason that C J is going to his friend Mark Dever's church during this leave, is because of the statements that Josh made apparently putting C J in a difficult position. Poor C J! And even better - C J gets to have an "independent mediator" when this is all over - to patch things up with Josh and the CLC pastors who have so upset him. What?! Did the vast amounts of people (myself included) who got kicked out of our SGM churches get to go to the churches of our friends while we were being excommunicated? Did we get paid-for mediators to patch things up? No! We had to take the first step ourselves and go and meet these pastors to achieve the reconciliation we felt God wanted of us.

I must be honest.

C J seems to me to be angry and upset that he has been confronted by the monster authoritarian system he has created. Even his fans (Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan et al) admit there are "issues" in SGM polity - which Josh Harris is seeking bravely to address. C J admits honestly he is "proud" but yet seems to stop short of the issues that it has caused. The heartache and pain for his church. As I understand it - he is still a member of Covenant Life Church and thus under the elders (including Harris). However the increasing number of members of CLC commenting on the various blogs make it clear - CJ isn't regularly seen at CLC and doesn't participate in church life.

I think we must be honest - and leave aside the discussions of Matthew 18, Brent Detweiler and the documents. Because it is a grey area.

The key issue here for me is the hurting people in SGM looking to their leaders for care. The Board seem ridiculously desperate to protect and validate C J as soon as they can manage without public outrage. The so-called "independent panel" hired and paid seem made up of C J fans. The question has got to be - where is the glory to God in this? What does the world think?More importantly what does God think?

C J - you can't cope with the expectation and pressure? Get out of the firing line. Retire. Resign. Give it to Josh Harris who can admit he's got it wrong and is trying. I think anyone can accept honesty and transparency. What we don't like and don't tolerate is someone who takes a fat salary and should take responsibility whining "like a teenager" (Dave Harvey's term for CJ). It's like my consultant surgeon blaming me for mucking up my treatment and care.

As Harry Truman said - "The buck stops here!". Claim leadership of a denomination? You must take the fall when it goes wrong. You don't get "free passes" in the real world! Bad luck C J - you wanted to be head boss? You got it! And the answer isn't to be found by hiding in the church of your mate.

Brent Detweiler joins the Blogging World!

Brent Detweiler always historically was one of the SGM apostles who hovered just below my radar until the last Celebration UK. I was aware of his name - but Scott and I went to just one day of the final Celebration UK and heard C J Mahaney speak in the morning. This was typical "C J" on "resolving conflicts" (ironic) - but the highlight was one we weren't expecting - Brent Detweiler spoke on the power and Person of the Holy Spirit in the evening. He spoke powerfully and with great impartation (one of the marks of a true apostle in my book) and this was followed by amazing ministry from prophetic and healing ministries.

I didn't really monitor Brent's ministry (although I knew he was very important to my friend Jesse Phillips) until I noted he had left/been removed from the SGM Leadership team/Board of Directors/Apostolic Team (*delete as appropriate). I was saddened - I realised by then that Brent Detweiler was the last truly charismatic/Pentecostal leader on the team (Brent's documents attest to the truth of that).

But of course when the recent month's drama broke - we all realised how crucial Brent Detweiler is in this whole process. I don't really know what a part Brent has played in the contributing of this present state in SGM. I'm sure he's not without blame in legalism. But are any of us? What I do believe is that he actually cares about C J Mahaney - and is prepared to lose his public reputation and any hope of his position in SGM by acting on his convictions. So for that - he has my respect and my interest.

And he's started a blog here: Brent Detweiler dot com.

His first blog is focused around the initial findings of the "preliminary panel". His conclusions?

"Here's the stunner! I totally agree with their conclusion! Based on C.J.'s publicly "confessed sins" he is not disqualified. Why? Because he acknowledged next to nothing and nothing specific except for his treatment of Dave and me eight to nine years ago! So based upon his public confessions, the three man panel is correct - C.J. is "still fit to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a pastor to others." Thanks Kevin, Ray and Carl for making that clear to all of us".

Confessions at Sovereign Grace Fairfax

I have been aware of a church in the USA called Sovereign Grace Fairfax where one of C J's son-in-laws is on staff there. It is a church that has come under heavy criticism from the Survivors and Refuge blog quite fairly I think. Some extremely sad stories of sexual abuse of children have occured at the church - this is something that I react against very strongly. I've made my life's work protecting and defending children as a nurse and I HATE the thought of any child in pain or grief. So to read these stories where child abuse happened in the church and find pastors not defending the children - it's hard to read.

I was interested that the church held a "Family Meeting" this week and was considerably impressed with their transparency, honesty and openness on their flaws. Again I think it's important to give credit where credit is due. Here's some comments on what the senior pastor Mark said;

"The blog post from SGM that contained resolutions - I found that blog post to be unacceptable in tone and content. It seemed defensive, it seemed heavy-handed and for me it raised serious questions about the integrity and the legitimacy of the evaluation process that has been entered into with C J. It failed to invite dialogue and critique. The post that followed a couple of days later entitled; "Listening" was better - but overall I was disappointed and surprised by that blog post. Personal observation number 2 - there is a need for a through review of the leadership practice inside Sovereign Grace Ministries. Key questions are undefined or unclear. What does it mean to be a member church? Does SGM have any authority over it's churches or is it simply a para-church organisation? Are their deficiencies in conflict resolution that C J references in his blog post? How can communication between the SGM Board and pastors and member churches be improved?

These are not small items. A new coat of paint won't do.

Observation number 3. Let's slow down and take a deep breath. We are not talking about adultery. The matters before SGM are quite serious but on another level they are not that unusual. This is not in anyway to make light of anyone who has been sinned against. Personally I love C J - I love SGM. I hope that partnership continues for decades to come - let's be patient and let's pray.

Four personal questions. 1. What role does the SGM board have in addressing sins in C J's life? Were Dave, Jeff and Josh enabling him or questioning him? 2. How seriously does the SGM board see what we see? We need some more queues and understanding. The blog posts have not helped me see it's worse that we think. 3. What will the process of assessing look like for SGM? Will it involve ex-pastors who have been hurt or disenfranchised? What will the process look like? 4. How is SGM reaching out to ex-pastors and leaders who have been hurt and disenfranchised by the deficiencies that C J has described?

We are at a time when SGM has been critiqued for the way pastors have led. There are several blogs that have focused on these issues. Two stories in particular have appeared on those blogs that address situations in this church. What follows is a confession in response to what is called Noel's story and Wallace's story. Romans says "Weep with those who weep" - by now many of you are aware of two stories on Survivors and Refuge - both were members of this church and both have sad stories to tell. Noel (a pen name) tells of the sad sexual abuse of her young daughter in 1998. Wallace tells the same. In both cases the young men were perpetrators who were members of this church. These incidents are exceedingly painful for these families. No compassionate person can learn of these sins without grief, sorrow and heartache of the violation of these young children.

But it gets worse - when these incidents came to light these children were victims who were sinned against. Moments like this require extraordinary amounts of tender care. This is a time to bind up the broken hearted and weep with those who weep - and that's what your pastors did right? With deep regret I confess - we didn't. Noel and Wallace are justified in critiquing the pastoral care they received.

Sadly in seeking to care for them - we became part of their trial. We unwisely used a Peacemaker model for conflict resolution - this resulted in the victims families being corrected when they should have been cared for. I am so sad I did that. Our aversion to therapeutic thinking kept us from people and resources that would have helped these families and helped us to help these families. We didn't give hurting people room to help these people.

We have been accused of not getting it. Guilty as charged. I am so sorry (*breaks down in tears*)".

We are all human. And I know I can testify that the one word; "Sorry" - goes a massive way to heal a multitude of sins. I know not all will be satisfied with these comments but I really am encouraged by the honesty and openness characterizing the church leaders - may God use this to keep moving SGM towards healing.

True Apostles are True Fathers!

A current Sovereign Grace pastor asked a pertinent question on "SGM Survivors" today;

"From your vantage point what are the primary weaknesses within SGM? Do you see any strengths?".

Sadly as per the tone of the blog a lot of the focus is on the weaknesses of SGM. But a criticism has had me thinking a lot - a lot of the "SGM survivors" (ex-SGMers to you and me) are extremely critical of the polity of SGM - or in other words the way that the denomination is run. It used to be run by C J Mahaney and the "Apostolic Team". It is now run by Dave Harvey (interim President) and the "Board of Directors".

I think the reason I am slightly more cautious of dismissing SGM's polity is because it is so similar to the style of church leadership I am used to in Newfrontiers or other apostolic movements.

Does abuse command no use - or rather consideration of right and proper use?

Firstly it is important to understand that Brent Detweiler has unveiled that SGM do not believe in the apostolic ministry anymore (seemingly). From his papers, he wrote in response to an official announcement by SGM (p114 of "Concluding Remarks");

"I wrote my wife and son the following e-mail.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:19 PM
To: Jenny Detwiler; Jonathan Detwiler
Subject: What Happen to the A Team

Check out ―"What happened to the apostolic team?" - It is not a truthful answer. The apostolic team was comprised of men we believed were called as apostles,not just pastors, in keeping with the teaching of Eph 4:11, etc.

The Statement of Faith makes this clear. It reads, ―The ascended Christ has given gift ministries to the church (including apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers)
for the equipping of Christ‘s body that it might mature and grow. Through the
gift ministries all members of the Church are to be nurtured and equipped forthe work
of ministry.

Sovereign Grace no longer believes in present day apostles and I presume prophets. The five fold ministry is out. The three fold ministry is in. What concerned me the most was the effect such an explanation would have upondiscerning readers who have been a part of the movement for more than five years. Itwould undermine your credibility. Except for you; Dave, Steve and I all gave up ourpastorates in order to fulfill our calling as apostles. We were not a team of pastors. We were a team of apostles. We were an apostolic team. Not a pastoral team.

Since then Sovereign Grace‘s understanding of apostles continues to fluctuate. I‘m still
not sure if you believe in apostles and prophets per Ephesians 4:11, etc. If you don‘t,
the Statement of Faith must be changed. But this much I know, when I stepped downfrom the apostolic team in November 2007, none of us thought of ourselves as apastoral team.Sovereign Grace Ministries can change its ecclesiology and polity, but it should notmisrepresent the past. Instead be honest. Just say we believed in apostles then, we
don‘t believe in them anymore. In the past we called it a team of apostles, now we call
it a team of pastors. In Reformed and evangelical circles it is unacceptable to refer to oneself as an apostle or prophet. Those gift ministries have ended according to their theology. But let‘s not try to save face in those circles by spinning our understanding of the apostolic team in the past.Now a days, you refer to yourself as the President and to Dave, Jeff and Joshua as Directors.

In my opinion, Sovereign Grace Ministries has become a para-churchorganization because it no longer has a clear biblical justification for its existence. The five-fold ministry has folded".

Now it is largely irrelevant whether SGM have discarded their belief in the full Ephesians 4 Ministries or not - they (led by Mahaney and Harvey) have the right to change their doctrinal views on the baptism of the Holy Spirit as on Ephesians 4 Ministries. The point however is that the criticisms of SGM's polity HAVE come from their previous belief in the apostolic ministry. They believed that C J Mahaney, Dave Harvey and Brent Detweiler were apostles - hence equipped to lead and father SGM.

I actually believe that the problem is not their belief in the apostolic ministry but that C J Mahaney is NOT an apostle (what churches has he been personally responsible for fathering and planting? What signs and wonders has he been used in ministering?). I've said this before. I believe that rather he is a prophet/teacher. He is an extremely gifted and able teacher who is unilateral in what he preaches. He preaches the Cross - period. And that needs preaching! But it does not need preaching to the exclusion of other aspects of the Gospel such as the resurrection, glorification, ascension and so on. From what I hear Larry Tomczak WAS the apostolically gifted leader in what was PDI - hence the shame the two men split.

Again - rather than dismissing the validity of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers - we should assess and look at the valid and real. I am finding David Devenish's new book so helpful in this respect; "Fathering Leaders - Motivating Mission". Apostles must be fathers - otherwise they are nothing worse than autocratic leaders who care more about speaking on conference platforms than they do sitting and weeping with church pastors. Dave wrote;

"One danger ... is that apostolic ministry can become unwittingly hierarchic in terms of organisation. Apostolic ministry rightly raises sons to continue the ministry and go to places where the apostle is no longer able to go, whether through lack of time or because he has been called on to other ministry. But an apostle should never become simply 'the head of an organisation' simply supervising others with apostolic calling.

Apostolic ministry is always to a large extent, a hands-on ministry. It is not like some secular models of management, where the further we progress in the corporate hierarchy, the more distant we become from the coalface of production. Paul never worked like that.

The call to apostles is both to be engaged personally, hands on in world mission and also to "father" many others who will have the same passion for the gospel to go to the nations of the world".