"You cannot go on 'explaining away' for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it."- C.S. Lewis
If you happen to read Josh Harris’ blog on a regular basis, then I have a question for you. Have you ever noticed how the comments on his blog are always positive? For those who are not familiar with Josh, he serves as senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland — the flagship church of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
While many of our commenters here at The Wartburg Watch are thoughtful and affirming, we do have our share of critics whom we allow to lambaste us as long as they abide by our blogging rules (i.e. no bad language, etc). We believe so strongly in freedom of expression that we gladly welcome dissension.
I am not an avid reader of Josh Harris’ blog, but I have been making occasional visits beginning a few months ago. Around that same time the Gospel Coalition website featured a video of Francis Chan being interviewed by Mark Driscoll and Josh Harris. Dee wrote about this exchange when she discussed Chan’s ministry. It was during this time that Josh wrote a blog post entitled “What manner of men will they be?”
As I read that particular post, I remember seeing that there were 11 comments in the thread. I was curious as to what was being discussed, so I read through all the comments. Here’s what happened. A woman was challenging Josh about his relationship with another pastor who, based on her description, sounded just like Mark Driscoll. I guess she had seen the interview of Chan, Harris, and Driscoll. She explained that she believed it is unwise for Josh to associate with this particular individual. Josh defended himself to her twice (as I remember) and then remarked that he was unwilling to continue the dialogue. The next morning I checked to see if additional comments had been added, and all 11 comments were GONE! If you click on the link for the post, you will see that the space where “comments” are listed is blank. That’s because Josh has disabled comments on that particular post. I was surprised that Josh would remove these comments.
I have been checking Josh’s blog on an infrequent basis since those comments disappeared, and then last week someone posted a very interesting comment. I was curious as to whether it, too, would disappear. Just in case it vanished, I preserved it on our blog in my comment dated Thursday, December 9, 2010, at 8:42 p.m. Here it is.
"Deb says:
Unassimilated,
Speaking of blogs, the following comment appeared on Josh Harris’ blog earlier this afternoon."
“Hi Josh, Hope you are well. Sorry this comment isn't to do with the preaching notes. I didn't have your email address so it was the only way I could contact you. I have only heard of yourself and SGM recently, probably through some link attached to John Piper's site. I also have a friend who is a Youth Pastor in the Republic of Ireland who likes you.
However I have also noticed some blogs which seem to have a real problem with SGM as regards control and manipulation. Sadly it would appear that although some of the critics may express their issues in a very aggressive manner there does seem to be at least some truth in what they are saying.
I say this having experienced as a teenager and even into my twenties some spiritual abuse when the charismatic fellowship group I was a member of got attached to the Shepherding Movement which had its base in Fort Lauderdale. You may or not be familiar with it. Its main leaders included Derek Prince, Bob Mumford and Charles Simpson. There was much controversy at the time about it but it was only years later after much damage was done that they 'officially' apologised.
I am therefore concerned that SGM runs a similar authoritarian ship and not one where the leaders though strong when required are servants who don't lord it over the flock as the Master commanded. Could you give me your 'take' on this and do you see this as an issue as certainly many ex-members do.
Your brother in Christ.”
This person’s experience sounds eerily familiar because I believe (s)he has posted several comments in this thread. (Hint: look for the British flag).
It will be interesting to see whether Josh responds or simply removes the comment like I have seen him do before."
The next day — Friday, December 10, 2010, at 4:36 p.m. — I posted the following comment on our blog:
“As I predicted at 8:42 last evening Josh deleted the comment which I quoted in my comment.
Post to follow next week. No wonder you never read negative or challenging comments on Josh Harris’ blog.
Josh – caught ya this time…”
No more negative remarks have appeared on Josh's blog, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's now moderating all comments and only allowing the positive ones to be posted. Perhaps you'd like to post a comment challenging Josh and see if yours gets published.
Isn't it wonderful to be able to control your own press on the internet?
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 28:1-43 Matthew 25:31-26:13 Psalm 31:9-18 Proverbs 8:12-13
Deb,
To be fair to Josh he did send me a nice email about my concerns and regarding the deletion of my comment on his blog he wrote:
‘Thanks for your question/comment on my website. I’m happy to try and answer it but I unpublished the comment just because it didn’t pertain to the preaching notes series.’
To be honest my comment had nothing to do with his original post (Preaching notes)and I fully expected it to be deleted.
His email to me about SGM was written in a humble manner and was certainly no way defensive.
IN CHRIST
Christian,
Thanks for clarifying. From a blogger’s perspective, it certainly appears that Josh Harris dodged your questions.
I would like to have read Josh’s response to your valid concerns which I share with you.
Christian
Why did he remove the comment? It didn’t fit his agenda. Others may have been interested in the comment and his response.
There are certain rules which are respected in the blogging community. If one removes a comment, then there is supposed to be a note that a comment was removed and why.
The only time we have done so without comment is when someone masqueraded as another person and we knew that person was not who he claimed to be. However, in retrospect, we probably should have written that we had done so.
Most bloggers allow free and open comments under any post. That is the intent of blogging.
IMNHO, I believe that this is an example of controlling the flow of ideas and appears to highlight the chronic issues at SGM. This blogger is not impressed.
I don’t buy his explanation to you.
Just to let our readers know, there is such a thing as “blogging etiquette”. Dee and I have educated ourselves on blogging protocol, and we do our best to follow it.
http://blog.webdistortion.com/2009/08/12/a-simple-guide-to-blogging-etiquette/
“Comment Moderation
How you moderate your comments sets the tone for your blog. If you don’t want to approve a comment, you aren’t obliged. There’s enough negativity in the world without putting up with some ass who thinks they know better. I take great joy in pressing the delete button after someone writes a rant about how I’ve “missed this or that” in an article.
However. There’s a big caveat. Don’t under any circumstance think that you can control the conversation. A blog comment which gets muted on your blog, may turn up somewhere else in a more negative light. Sometimes you have to make the call as to whether you need to defend your position on your own site, or extinguish flames elsewhere.
Another no no is to approve someone’s comment, then later delete it. They are all the more likely to notice and take what they said elsewhere.”
Christian
One other point which is quite pertinent to this discussion. In another church, when I raised a concern about an issue, I was told that I was the only one who had ever said a word about it. That ended up being a dadgumed lie. Many people had complained.
Since my previous pastor was a fan of Mahaney’s, although the church was not SGM, it was Baptist (which will probably be on and the same one day), I would venture to guess that SGM may have used this sort of lie before.
Don’t be fooled by just one more excuse from the big, fat excuse machine.
Christian,
We enjoy your comments and we promise we won’t delete them and send you a “private” e-mail instead. We have nothing to hide.
Dee said: “Most bloggers allow free and open comments under any post. That is the intent of blogging.”
Unless they’re hard complementarians/female subordinationists. In those cases, I suspect they are afraid that dissenting opinions may make too much sense. Here are bloggers (and discussion boards) with whom I’ve had personal experience and who regularly delete well-reasoned, scripturally supported, respectful comments that support an egalitarian position:
Denny Burk
Matt Slick (CARM boards)
Tim Bayly
Bible Gateway’s translation forum
Crosswalk forums (Fritz the board administrator)
I know there are more, but those are what come to mind immediately.
Dee/Deb,
Greetings.
Have you ever read Country Magazine? Beautiful photograghy with short articles on life in the country. Where are the close-up photos of sick and dying farm animals? Where are the photos of dilapidated, abandoned barns? Where are the photos of beautiful farmland being converted into an office complex? Well, the editors chose to focus on other things.
Josh can run his blog however he sees fit. He need not consult with you or anyone else. God’s Word is the only book of etiquette Josh consults regarding his blog.
Scripture clearly and specifically addresses how we are to use our speech. These commands apply to blogs and any other form of communication you can name. Phil. 4:8 is one verse that describes the manner in which Josh manages his blog.
Deb, you said:
“it certainly appears that Josh Harris dodged your questions.”
I read Christian’s post several times. How did you come to this conclusion?
You are like the old wild west outlaws – shoot first and ask questions later. You created this post, loaded with the usual accusations and assumptions, without any conversation with Josh or the person who wrote that comment on Josh’s blog. You did no research to discover all sides of the issue.
Hello, world wide web readers, look what Josh did, and let me tell you all about that rotten-to-the-core SGM, and let’s see who is next…..
Why do you think CJ’s blog (something about Cheap Seats) doesn’t allow comments. Stick your head in the sand, and everything smells like roses.
Darlin’ anonymous,
Thank you so much for proving our point. Do the rest of you get it?
There was a controversy in the UK Christian blogging scene when Adrian Warnock, who is the semi-offical blogger for Newfrontiers, closed the comments facility on his blog because of debate over complementarianism. At the time, I believe he said that it was because he didn’t have enough time to moderate all of the comments. Since then he’s said publically at Newfrontiers meetings that it was because people were being hostile and attacking. From what I can gather from other bloggers who were involved this is not the case, but there was certainly a lot of people upset that Adrian closed down the conversation the way he did.
anonymous,
You took my comment to Christian out of context.
Here’s what I wrote:
“From a blogger’s perspective, it certainly appears that Josh Harris dodged your questions.”
Let me translate for you… Those who read Christian’s comment see its removal as Josh expunging the record of any form of criticism.
LukeG,
Welcome to The Wartburg Watch!
Thanks for this very interesting information. We are glad to know that we have readers as far away as the UK. Hope you will keep reading and responding.
Lelia,
Thanks for the comment!
Oh, and let’s not forget all the blogs that don’t even allow comments. Those usually fit into one or more of these categories:
Patriarchal
Complementarian
Hyper-Reformed (see “Calvinista” in our glossary of terms)
Some blogs that come to mind are:
The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
A View from the Cheap Seats (C.J. Mahaney)
Al Mohler
Anonymous:
You are correct that Josh Harris can run his blog any way he wants. And so can William Dembski, and so can Rapture Ready and on and on we go.
The issue is this. There are a whole host of conservative Christian websites out there that aggressively censor what is posted. This is especially true in the Evolution Creation and/or ID circles. Almost all the sites on the ‘Christian’ side will not allow anything that exposes weaknesses in their position to remain available to their readers. But what does that say when you can go to the opposite side and find at a site like talkorigins explicit links to the opposing arguments?
IOW, the church in general has a fairly black eye when it comes to ‘being ready in season and out to give a defense’ of our faith. We prefer to hide the little nasties that don’t quite add up under a rug – forcefully.
So when Josh Harris deletes posts that expose weaknesses in his position, he is saying “I don’t like this, I am not comfortable with challenges to what I believe, and I don’t have a good answer to this comment”. When he does not provide a justification for the removal of the posts, he is essentially trying to hide the fact posts were removed – which is a tacit admission he knows that his position is weak.
I welcome challenges to my faith, because I am secure in it. I don’t have all the answers, but I am secure enough to say that. I am also committed enough to the truth that if I get egg on my face because a position of mine is shown to be flawed, that I am willing to change.
A good many folks in visible leadership positions in the conservative Christian church do not take that kind of a position. And it has roughly the same effect on the thinking community worldwide as the Catholic Church’s censure of Galileo. They still see a bunch of people that deal with controversy and/or legitimate, thoughtful, challenges to their position through oppression or censure. (I am not talking about belligerence here)
And that is why it is wrong for Josh Harris (and Bill Dembski, and Ken Ham and so on and so on) to delete posts from their blogs simply because they present a challenge to their position. It sends a message to the world, Christian and otherwise, that their position is fundamentally flawed and can’t be supported with reason and calm discourse.
Zeta
Thank you for the translation. I was wrong.
A blog moderator deleting a comment could be interpretted as dodging the question. Why did I not see this? (I know- blind, head in sand, etc).
But why share your opinion that it appears he dodged the question because he he deleted the question? Why jump to the worst possible scenario?
Josh is not afraid of aggressively debating the issues. But this is not what his blog is about. And he does not have to follow your rules or anyone else’s.
Leila, A few yesrs back on Burke’s blog was comp/egal debate over Bruce Ware saying that women are made in the “indirect” image of God and a “derivative” sparked over 1000 comments. He also said that unsubmissive wives trigger abuse from their husbands.
The problem was the mutualist comments made way to much exegetical sense. (I learned from that debate that we should definitely consult linguists when it comes to interpretation and not just theological scholars who have a financial stake in the interpretation)
I also learned from that debate the lengths that the patriarchs will go to to twist scholarship even lying by editing quotes, ignoring Greek lit usage of a word, etc.
Burke eventually deleted the entire thread. Knowing the players, I am sure his bosses made him. Now, he deletes comments that cast doubt on his position using scholarship.
they are not used to this. They are used to being the unquestioned scholars. They are not used to open interaction with folks. They are either on a stage or in front of a classroom and are the experts. They are having a very hard time with blogs. My position is why bother with them? There are plenty of places that allow free exchange with people who really do want to hear both sides.
Remember, the folks we are talking about make their living being experts. They cannot afford to have been wrong.
anonymous @ 9:11 am,
Snarky, sarcastic language and cherry-picking a single scripture verse (which, oddly enough, in the preceding context, Paul calls on the Philippians to “let their gentleness be evident to all”) tend to be the tools of those whose are used to defending a poor position. And if they are used to this sort of argument working, it is because the people they are using it on are conditioned to respond to it rather than critically think.
People who genuinely have nothing to hide and feel confident in the rightness of their conduct do not act in this way. They address critics with respect and do not shy away from examining their own beliefs when called out. They do not feel the need to manipulate people or browbeat them.
Think on these things my friend 🙂
Deb,
I am addressing you and the fact that I took your comment out of context in the above post.
“Josh can run his blog however he sees fit. He need not consult with you or anyone else.
I totally agree. And some of us can know it is a waste of time to read and comment there.
“God’s Word is the only book of etiquette Josh consults regarding his blog”
No negative truths allowed. Some truths are negative.
“People who genuinely have nothing to hide and feel confident in the rightness of their conduct do not act in this way. They address critics with respect and do not shy away from examining their own beliefs when called out. They do not feel the need to manipulate people or browbeat them.”
Exactly. These men fear being challlenged.
And the problem is they rarely allow themselves to be publicly challenged. Sometimes they pretend to allow it so they claim it but it is carefully planned. They always know the questions in advance. I know because i used to help plan these venues.
Everything is about image management.
“Josh is not afraid of aggressively debating the issues. But this is not what his blog is about. And he does not have to follow your rules or anyone else’s.”
He has chosen to make his living as a PUBLIC teacher. He has written books, blogs, stands on a stage and speaks, etc. He wants the perks and influence of being a public person but not the challenges. That is very typical. They want to be protected from the challenges or they want to control the venue. they are hollow men and more and more people are figuring it out.
To all of our commenters,
What you are demonstrating by your participation in this discussion is what I consider to be true “blogging” — the free exchange of ideas.
Josh Harris simply lectures on his “website” and allows only those comments which validate him and his point of view.
There is a HUGE difference!
Lydia said:
“He has chosen to make his living as a PUBLIC teacher. He has written books, blogs, stands on a stage and speaks, etc. He wants the perks and influence of being a public person but not the challenges. That is very typical. They want to be protected from the challenges or they want to control the venue. they are hollow men and more and more people are figuring it out.”
Very well stated, Lydia! Your comment was definitely worth repeating.
Just as a test, I reposted the blog entry that Dee and Deb first posted on Josh’s site (minor modifications to make it look different, but substance remained the same) as of today, my post has not been made public on his site either.
I did this to make certain it was the message and not the messenger he had problems with.
Karlton,
We appreciate your efforts in trying to repost that comment on Josh Harris’s website.
For our readers’ clarification, the comment that has been highlighted in this post originated with Christian, the first commenter in this thread. He hails from the UK. Neither Dee nor I have ever commented over at Josh Harris’ blog.
“He has chosen to make his living as a PUBLIC teacher. He has written books, blogs, stands on a stage and speaks, etc. He wants the perks and influence of being a public person but not the challenges. That is very typical. They want to be protected from the challenges or they want to control the venue. they are hollow men and more and more people are figuring it out.”
What a sweeping generalization that condemns and grossly disrespects your own brother in Christ.
anonymous
I am getting irritated. Joshua Harris is a part of an organization that has spawned more “survivors” type blogs than I have seen for any other “mainstream” Christian group. Talk about disrespecting. I have read more than I care to about the pain of many people who have had the misfortune to attend SGM.
How do you know that Lydia’s words are “disrespecting” Josh? She may be prophetic and you may be the one ignoring Scripture. I think she has hit on some element of the truth and it appears to have irritated you.Once again, you very words prove the point of the article above.
anonymous
Why don’t you show me any sort of discussion on an SGM approved blog that is for public consumption which shows profound disagreement with Harris or Mahaney? My guess is that you would have to search long and hard and you would still come up empty handed. Until you can show me such open and honest disagreement beyond who “is the worst sinner in the world” silliness, I contend your leaders are a bunch of wusses who need to live up to their self assessment as really cool manly men.
Lydia
As far as I am concerned you have nailed it on the head. These guys do not want to hear the truth because they are the truth because they, and they alone, are following God. Any sort of negative comment brings profound dissonance into their lives. Dissonance must be dealt with. So, they throw people out of church, out of the pastorate, and proclaim that those folks were just deeply entrenched in their own sin. Of course, anonymous and his buddies have no such problem. They are the “anointed” which could be humorous if they weren’t causing pain by their arrogance.
It is time for people in these groups to wake up and smell the coffee.
OB
Much of what they say cannot be supported by calm discourse. That is why I believe that there seems to be so much turmoil within the SGM organization. The only way for such a group to maintain is to suppress criticism. This worked until the blogs came into being. Now, they cannot hide the questions and they are not prepared to answer the questions which leaves them in a bit of a pickle-do we answer the blogs and give them credibility or do we ignore them . Both spell potential problems for SGM and other like minded groups.
Jesus was frank and honest. He didn’t hide behind His disciples.Truth, albeit hard at times, prevails and cannot be hidden.
I hope anonymous listens to you. he has a tendency to escalate and I have had to warn him before. It is always strange when an atheist like Karl shows mire respect than followers of CJ and gang.
Of interest to this discussion is the first part of the conversation in the following —
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/11/05/dont-use-e-mail-to-correct-others/
“What a sweeping generalization that condemns and grossly disrespects your own brother in Christ.”
So, he is not a public teacher? He gave his books away and did not charge for them? He does not stand on a stage and teach for pay? He never puts his teaching on the internet? If not, then he is not game to have his words and actions analyzed. But he IS proper game because he seeks the public…and to be paid for it.
Funny how Paul respected the Bereans and Jesus Christ “dis” respected the Pharisees (religious leaders on stage at the time) who also could not be questioned by the peons. I will stick with Jesus.
I have no idea if Harris is my brother in Christ or not. Many claim to be such as Matt Baker, Ted Haggard, etc. So, who knows? It could be all he knows because his family came from the position of making money off Christianity. So, who knows?
Ozymandias,
Thanks for sharing the link to the GC video of C.J. Mahaney and James McDonald. The first lfew seconds are priceless!
“I would recommend you not take comments on your blog.” C.J. Mahaney
Thanks to the internet, the game has changed dramatically and the playing field has now been leveled.
anonymous,
Could you shed some light on the former SGM practice of threatening lawsuits to remove unflattering information from blogs not related to SGM?
(Via Gammon and Grange, http://www.gg-law.com/)
Are you aware that it was this SGM practice that helped to facilitate the Survivors Blog? – http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=5
Anyone in blogdom still have one of these letters? I am sure that Dee and Deb
would be happy to receive a copy.
That being said, Josh’s old site, the one that existed prior to his SGM appearance, with about a year of overlap, was much more of a free for all.
Where I may agree that Josh, as owner and moderator of his own site, is free to
moderate as he sees fit. I would have to say that the former SGM practice of legal threats is crossing a line. Particularly when at the same time they were requiring members to sign agreements that stated lawsuits are not allowed between Christians. So who is SGM to judge the salvation of those they threatened?
I have been told that SGM had approached one of the blogs asking, what do you want to shut it down?
I think I would rather be in the wild west of bloging, that in a Non-Religious, Non-Profit Corporation, with no fiscal accountability, other than themselves, that proclaims to be a Church.
http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/UCC-Charter/ViewDoc.asp?Film=B 00363&Folio=0094&Pages=0003&Date=04 01 2002&Ack=1000361986842726&Domain=Charter&ID=D06734453&Name=COVENANT LIFE CHURCH, INC.&source=1
A similar structure and lack of accountability has done wonders for the Banks and our economy.
Unassimilated,
Very interesting info. Yep, send one of those letters our way. We know just what to do with it…
BTW, the first link doesn’t work. Please try again.
Lydia
Whereas the issue the John MacArthur is referencing is a different controversy, I would think that the principal would still apply.
“Before we close this brief series, I promised to answer as many questions as possible from people who have commented here, via e-mail, through Twitter, and at Challies.com … It is past time for the issue to be dealt with publicly… it seriously overstates the involvement of John Piper and C. J. Mahaney to say they are “discipling” Mark Driscoll.
In the first place, the idea that a grown man already in public ministry and constantly in the national spotlight needs space to be “mentored” before it’s fair to subject his public actions to biblical scrutiny seems to put the whole process backward. These problems have been talked about in both public and private contexts for at least three or four years.”
Also in support of your thoughts, is how CJ has no issue with using a public figure to drive home a point at the others expense, yet as a public figure himself,
wants anonymity?!?!
Read Here
http://www.joshharris.com/2009/12/cj_mahaney_on_tiger_woods.php
If I were to rewrite CJ’s Conclusions from this article –
Conclusion
CJ cannot intimidate the blogs, former SGM members, or the General Public like he can at SGM or within the field of his influence. And there is no privacy he can claim from this perceived enemy, regardless of his resolve, his silence, or how often his name is painted on countless books, videos, and messages. It’s likely CJ only perceives people hunting him out of a vain attempt to discredit one of the few true modern day Apostles. But CJ is being hunted and hounded by a far greater foe: the consequences of his sin.
And this story should humble and sober us. It should make us ask: Are there any so-called “secret sins” in my life? Is there anything I have done that I hope nobody discovers? Is there anything right now in my life that I should confess to God and the appropriate individuals?
Well CJ, are there?
Deb,
You wrote: “…Thanks to the internet, the game has changed dramatically and the playing field has now been leveled…”
Indeed it has Deb. Not since Gutenberg’s movable type printing press has the free and open exchange of ideas been so easily facilitated. You and many other bloggers out here are similar to the Venetian booksellers of the late 16th cent. who helped to break the strangle hold of the Roman Catholic Church over the minds of Europeans, except that you guys are now helping to free those who groan under the lash of virulent Calvinism. Ladies, I salute you!
Muff
From to the Gospel Coalition link above:
“Why do certain Christians feel the need to review the pastor’s Sunday morning “performance”?”
For one, Acts 17:11: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Scripture encourages us to evaluate what we hear from the pulpit, to see if it matches us with Scripture. We’re *supposed* to critique what we’re taught!
Muff,
Thanks for your comment. We may quote you sometime because you are spot on!
anonymous:
I think there is a time for people to be challenged and held accountable. And of course, since Josh is a public speaker or teacher, anyone and everyone is free to do his thorough analysis, as Lydia rants. That doesn’t mean that Josh Harris has to be foolish enough to engage in these challenges. In fact, he gets two points in the plus column for being wise enough not to.
Maybe Josh Harris has figured out that it’s a complete waste of time to argue with unreasonable people who challenge anything and everything at a drop of hat. They reach wild conclusions with no basis for doing so. There is no satisfying them. You should learn from his self-restraint.
It’s funny how you are deemed, “anointed” and one who causes pain by your arrogance. Why? Just because you challenge THEM! It’s ironic that they have become the very people they disdain. As a side note, trust me, Lydia’s no prophet.
Dear Dee and Deb,
In my email from Joshua Harris it would certainly appear that he is genuine in trying to bring healing to those ex-members and members who have been badly heart. Importantly, he first of all recognises that there were problems and secondly he has a desire to make changes were certain teaching was unhelpfully applied. I would imagine that he would also be happy for people with grievances to contact the leadership in order that restoration and at least some healing could take place.
In His grace
Christian,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I’m glad that Josh Harris acknowledged to you that there were problems with SGM. From my perspective, there are still serious problems which are due in large part to faulty polity.
Hi Michael, I don’t dislike you at all as “Michael on a blog” but you seem to have some sort of blog grudge against me. It is a curious thing. You do not seem to handle differing opinions and debate well.
Christian, I hope you are right. Perhaps SGM could start with acknowledging some of their more serious abuses such as not calling the police when sexual abuse was found but instead telling the parents of the 3 year old they would have an opportunity to forgive before they even told them of the sexual abuse.
I am afraid if they seriously want to “fix” things, they are going to have be public about the fix.
Dee,
Hopefully if faulty polity is the main problem they will hear God’s voice through the people of God.However If it is the problem and they do not change, despite the valid protests against it, they could end up fighting against God-then it could end up messy.
Hi Michael
I understand your sentiment. I am sorry that your were hurt by the interchange. As you know, it is our policy to allow open and honest discussion on this blog, even if we don’t agree with some of the conclusions. We believe that honest communication, even if difficult, is a darn sight better thing than the concealment of honest feelings. We see too much in today’s churches which is abusive and intend to be writing a great deal about this right after the New Year.
I plead that you not exchange one form of tyranny for another. Please read extensively about SGM at the abuse sites. Look at the issues surrounding Harris and others before you say he should not allow comments on his blog. There are far too many reports on other blogs of the pain and suffering of those who have been hurt by this ministry that appears, to this writer, to be based in the Old Testament priesthood.
You are welcome and wanted here at TWW, even if you do not agree with the discussion. I wish for you a very Merry Christmas.
Christian
I’m afraid that I am pessimistic about any change in polity that will result in a significant change as opposed to window dressing. The history of the main player, the Borg Queen himself, Mahaney, bodes ill fora change. he is who he is and appears to like who he is very much.
I anticipate a name change and an alignment with the SBC.At first such a change will be celebrated. However, there was an episode on Star Trek Enterprise in which a beautiful woman was communicating with the Captain. In the end, we saw her for who she was, a giant sluglike creature. She only looked different on the outside.
It is said that we are a new creation in Christ. A major transformation will need to take place for me to believe in a new way. One of the big boys, I believe it was Dave Harvey, recently spoke to a group and said that there will be no change in the polity of the church. If you read today’s post, i will be discussing their stated polity-I have their bylaws. This does not bode well for the future.
For real change to occur, there will have to be significant change in the hearts of the men who run this group. That would be a miracle, indeed.
Merry Christmas, brother.
Christian
One point-you said “he recognizes certain teaches were unhelpfully applied.” That is SGM speak. That is trying to mute the fact that they didn’t follow Scripture and, in fact, the anointed sinned.
“Hopefully if faulty polity is the main problem they will hear God’s voice through the people of God.However If it is the problem and they do not change, despite the valid protests against it, they could end up fighting against God-then it could end up messy.”
The problems are more foundational and doctrinal than that. It is cultic in nature. They have been fighting against God because they assume the role of the Holy spirit in people’s lives.
I suppose that you could add Wade Burleson to the bloggers who don’t allow comments–though after the thousands of comments that appeared (and stayed in the comment stream), it would not be quite fair.
Peter Lumpkins and Craig D are bloggers who routinely make things go away–or never appear. SBC Today (thankfully, gone for months now) frequently would make comments go away. Tim Guthrie either never has anyone comment or (based on some of mine that disappeared) does not deal with comments well.
My personal attitude is that if you are going to only let favorable (You are the GREATEST) commentary stay around, you should “man up” and not allow comments.
However, their blog–their rules rule.
Bennett
It is their blog and their rules. However, we can certainly point out their rules and encourage them to become the manly men as implied in their beloved CBMW.
Bennett Willis,
My question is what are these bloggers afraid of?
Lydia:
I do not dislike you either, nor do I have anything that remotely resembles a grudge against you. I also think I handle different opinions very well. What I will bump up against are judgments about people because of their opinion, such as sarcastically calling someone “anointed” or arrogant, lumping them into a group of people that are not liked. That type of demeaning is much different than challenging the merits of someone’s arguments.
You and I have certainly had our rounds, which I actually have appreciated, since the challenging views you present were good for me to wrestle with. Any sense of consternation you might have perceived from me is my resistance to being lumped into a group that has connotations beyond who I am, or judgments about what’s in my mind or heart without sufficient evidence. To sum up, I appreciate your opinions and views, but not unfair judgments. There’s no grudge, here.
Dee:
I’m not sure why you think I was hurt and I’m not sure which interchange you’re referring to. Trust me, I’m fine.
I also do not accept tyranny in any form. I do not question whether or not there has been abuse among SGM. Goodness, abuse is everywhere in our churches today. I believe strongly in accountability, as well, which usually occurs in the context of loving relationships.
I have appreciated the open dialogue here, but, I also understand that there is wisdom in not engaging in arguments that will never be resolved. If Harris determines that some of these issues are not ones he wants to deal with in a public forum, I’m not going to judge his motives for it. It appears to me that some people are more interested in drawing blood than reconciling with others, issues of concern. In such cases, if that perception is true, I congratulate those who have the wisdom to disengage, including Harris.
Drawing blood? Uh oh… That’s not what I intended by writing this post.
I was trying to bring attention to a pattern I was seeing on Josh’s blog.
Aren’t ya’ll glad that we don’t delete your comments?
Deb:
“Drawing blood” was not directed at you or your comments. I did not have anyone in particular in mind when I wrote that. I was speaking of a generic attitude that we all, sometimes, have. Your points about deleting comments are valid and I agree with you about public figures “butt covering” and tending to always just want to show their good side. And yes, I’m glad you don’t delete comments, although I’d like to delete mine every once in awhile.
Michael
We will delete anyone’s comments at the request of the author. We have done so on a couple of occasions.
Dee,
I received a most unusual gift delivered by Fed Ex. It was a beautiful owl necklace; however, the sender’s name was no where to be found. Hmmm…..
Just wanted to say thanks. I plan to refer to it as “The Wartburg Owl”.
I have shared this other places but one thing Josh Harris hasn’t shared on his blogs are the problems with “kissing dating goodbye” has caused. This includes the problems with how singles related at his own church presumably caused due to “kissing dating goodbye.” Sadly had Josh Harris shared these problems number of people could learn from these problems.
Thus Josh Harris behaves like the title of your entry, only sharing the positive.
Steve240,
I’m grateful for your website: “I Kissed Dating Goodbye: Wisdom or Foolishness.” It’s an important resource, and I hope our readers will check it out.
http://ikdg.wordpress.com/
If I had a blog, I probably wouldn’t allow comments. I don’t have time to moderate them and I don’t want the headache. Comments are vital on blogs like this, where people come together to make sense of things. But that’s not the kind of blog that Harris or Mohler write. I can totaly understand their not opening their blogs to comments.
However, allowing comments but only those favorable to you, is a sure-fire way to destroy your credibility and look thin-skinned.
R,
I’m assuming Josh’s comments are now going into moderation so he can either approve or disapprove them. Now that sounds time-comsuming!
R,
On second thought, maybe Josh Harris doesn’t get that many comments.
I’m very grateful for the wisdom some are presenting to our teens about “guarding their hearts” and taking a different approach to relationships. I can also see how teens, in their attempt to apply this wisdom to their lives, make it legalistic and misapply it. Steve240’s website looks interesting and, from the small amount I’ve read, it seems fairly objective.
I’m thankful that my daughter has approached relationships far different and wiser than we did, and she has benefited from missing the pitfalls we fell into.
Dee and Deb,
You may be right in your assessment as I have only known about SGM a short time.If that is the case my heart goes out tothose in the flock who give their hearts and minds to the group, yet sadly do not experience the freedom that is in Christ.
I know what it it is like to go to a fellowship/group( Shepherding 1975-85 when I didn’t really want to be there. I was young then and the wild threats of being branded a rebel, or that I wouldn’t survive outside the group kept me going to it.
Many Christians not involved in the group would complain about its little Hitler and mother hen form of leadership.I wanted to go to them and tell them they were 100% right but to shout louder because I felt powerless to get myself out( such is the power of peer pressure etc)!One of my problems I feel was that those inside the group, by leaving would have had to admit that they had spent X number of years in the spiritual wilderness( a subtle form of pride).
I therefore encourage those who are in any oppressive group to ‘seize the day’ and leave,and not look back, trusting only in Christ. He is big enough to heal your wounds.
There’s is wideness in His mercy
Like the wideness of the sea
There is kindness in His justice
Which is more than liberty
But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.
For the love of God is broader
than the measure of man’s mind
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.
Christian,
I think you will be interested in reading our upcoming post: Nine Marks of an Abusive Church. It should be published soon.
Blessings to you.
Christian
Awesome poem. Did you write it?
dee,
unfortunately not, it is by F.W. Faber who lived during the 19th century. You may actually find it in your hymn book. THe first verse of the original is
Souls of men why will you scatter
Like a crowd of frightened sheep
foolish hearts why will you wonder
From a love so true and deep.
Tozer has also has some of his other poetry in his own collection ‘Christian Book of Mystical Verse’ which is a well worth purchase.
Peace and Grace
Anonymous,
It’s funny you mention Country Magazine. I stayed with a woman who had a gorgeous home. She was also a great cook. She and her home were featured in the magazine. They came in and did the usual fix up of her home, putting in knick knacks that weren’t there, fixing up her hair, etc. The funny thing and the part that reminds me of your comparison from the magazine to Josh Harris’ blog, is the fact that the magazine ran an article about her great cooking and took photos of her cooking in her kitchen, laughing with her friends. They even shared the recipe she made with the readers. (That actually was the point of the whole article.)
Except, they DIDN’T share her recipe or what she was making. Though they said it was her recipe and went on and on about it, they totally made up some other recipe- not hers at all. When she asked them about it, they said they do that all the time. That it was a recipe they knew they were going to use long before they entered her home. She was nothing but a shill to them.
You hit the nail on the head with your comparison of the magazine and SGM. Thank you for your adept insight.
Stunned
Stunned,
I am stunned! I have subscribed for years and actually thought this stuff was for real. Of course, I always felt inadequate. I am a good cook but my food is never “presented” in such perfect fashion. My family just tears into it and within 10 minutes the kitchen is strewn with dirty dishes. However, my family appears very happy.
I love this picture you both have given.
Dee, I’d take your family’s joy over your yummy food any day over the fake photos we find in every magazine out there! What a blessing you sound like you are to them!
Stunned,
I was comparing Country Mag to Josh’s blog.
My point was that CM chooses only “positive” photos to create a “positive” magazine. Josh chooses only “positive” comments for his blog.
Are you implying that Josh creates and posts his own fake comments?
“I was comparing Country Mag to Josh’s blog.
My point was that CM chooses only “positive” photos to create a “positive” magazine. Josh chooses only “positive” comments for his blog.
Are you implying that Josh creates and posts his own fake comments?”
I think Stunned’s comment stands on it’s own. “Images” are created and people believe them when it is not really truth.
Josh can do what he wants with his blog. But those who have left comments with serious questions he does not want to answer or have on his blog. get deleted, then we know he is managing “image”.
We always tried to engage any dissent or questioning one on one because you can manipulate ONE person easily enough with such methods as love bombing, etc. It is MUCH harder to do that in public, from a stage or blog. One who is managing their image does not dare. They always strive to control the venue.
“Are you implying that Josh creates and posts his own fake comments?”
Btw: We used to plant “postive” ringers all the time in certain venues in the mega world. My guess is that Josh has many sychophants to post only positive on his blog. But the point is, we now know for a fact, he does not allow serious questioning on his blog.
Which is why this last “meeting” was tightly controlled and produced with so many conflicting stories about who was invited and who wasn’t, etc. These guys cannot be open and transparent. If they were, the gravy train would be over.
Dee and Deb, One thing I so appreciate about this blog is that you guys are willing to go deep. Unless we go deep with the roots of what causes spiritual abuse, it is like tilting at windmills.
I have been reading over at sgmsurvivors, and I see that they are very uncomfortable with going deep with the root causes of what the survivors themselves went through. When someone tries to have a discussion about it they are accused of being divisive or having an ulterior motive. Even the moderator was uncomfortable.
But unless we ask why we believe what we believe, the exercise is futile.
There are many over there still stuck in the authoritarian mode which means they will continually find themselves in the same situations because they never dealt with their foundational beliefs about who they are in Jesus Christ. In effect, they are looking for nice authoritarians. But that negates the point that they are putting their hope in flesh and blood and not Jesus Christ.
They seem to be more concerned that these people change to be nicer than understanding there is a deep foundational problem and to change it would mean that CJ or Josh cannot be CJ or Josh.
I have not read over there in a long time and was very disappointed. I hope they can go deeper. They still sort of sound like they want to follow man as if that is the mandate for believers.
Lydia,
You are correct. It’s much like the abused woman bouncing around from one abusive man to another. The questions that any of us who ever found ourself locked in an abusive personal relationship or institution must ask are, “Why does this keep happening to me? And how do I keep it from happening again?”
At some level the victims, if they are consenting adults, chose the way that seemed emotionally easiest. That choice may have happened at a semi-conscious or sub-conscious level, but it happened.
Lydia
Thanks for your kind comment. I will comment tomorrow. Christmas stuff keeping me busy.
Have you read Josh Harris’ latest post entitled “God uses critics to help us”?
Here’s the link:
http://www.joshharris.com/2010/12/god_uses_critics_to_help_us.php
Josh featured the words of David Powlison, which are very beneficial.
There has been one comment thus far, and it’s also helpful (see below).
http://www.joshharris.com/2010/12/god_uses_critics_to_help_us.php#comment-63804
Jeremy | December 22, 2010 12:37 PM
“Criticism can be a great thing. Always listen to criticism before dismissing it. It can be good to even ask people to criticize you. Am I doing a good job at work? Am I being a good husband. Am I being a good father?”
I do wonder about the photo Josh selected for the post. Here are some YouTube videos of Waldorf and Statler (Muppets) that seem fitting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhmjnYKlVnM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atWQthWKPr4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBSF0Gi7oM0&feature=related