To our readers,

Dee and I began researching the connections between SGM and the SBC in the fall of 2008. Then in March 2009 we had become so alarmed about what is going on in Christendom that we started The Wartburg Watch.

Russell Moore’s “AFTER PATRIARCHY, WHAT? WHY EGALITARIANS ARE WINNING THE GENDER DEBATE” paper that he presented at a 2005 Evangelical Theological Society gathering was one of the first RED FLAGS for me.

Here’s the excerpt from Moore’s paper that established a connection between SGM and the SBC:

“It is noteworthy that the vitality in evangelical complementarianism right now is among those who are willing to speak directly to the implications and meaning of male headship—and who are not embarrassed to use terms such as “male headship.” This vitality is found in specific ecclesial communities— among sectors within the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, the charismatic Calvinists of C. J. Mahaney’s “sovereign grace” network, and the clusters of dispensationalist Bible churches, as well as within coalition projects that practice an “ecumenism with teeth,” such as Touchstone magazine. These groups are talking about male leadership in strikingly counter-cultural and very specific ways, addressing issues such as childrearing, courtship, contraception, and family planning—not always with uniformity but always with directness.” JETS 49/3 (September 2006) 569–76

To read Moore’s paper, follow this link to his blog called “Moore to the Point”: http://www.russellmoore.com/2005/11/22/reimagining-patriarchy/

Just in case anyone here doesn’t know who Russell Moore is, he is Al Mohler’s right-hand man at Southern Seminary.

Moore will be addressing the men of Covenant Life Church this October.

http://www.covlife.org/blog/russell_moore_mens_event

Dee,

Where is the rapist now? Is this still a legal matter where the rapist could be charged? Can the church be charged for covering up the rape? Do you know if the parents want to now sue?

Thanks

Bravo, Dee and Deb. Having you two write an article about some of my thoughts is like having Cate Blanchett, my favorite actor, play me in a movie.

Pardon me if anything I say below seems redundant as it’s been addressed by Dee already fellow readers, but these are my initial thoughts about today’s article. Please also pardon any mechanical errors as my editor is not at hand at this hour.

Regarding Dr. Mohler – What struck me most about the quote above is that it seems to suggest that he believes only one form of church polity is aligned with a correct interpretation of the New Testament: a top-down authoritarian structure in which pastors are not held accountable to their congregants. Interestingly this form of polity is presently epitomized by the scandal-plagued Sovereign Grace Ministries denomination which Dr. Mohler appeared to be defending in his remarks above.

I find it strange that a Congregationalist such as Dr. Mohler would hold such a traditionally Episcopal (as in believing in a system of authoritarian bishoprics/leaders rather than having anything to do with the Episcopal Church in America) belief about how churches should be governed. In addition, Dr. Mohler’s remarks appear to conflict with the views of his dear friend and fellow scholar, Dr. Wayne Grudem.

Dr. Grudem has written many books but I believe Systematic Theology is the one in which he indicates that many forms of church polity, including forms that allow for the democratic election of deacons, elders, and other church leaders, are aligned with New Testament teachings.

And as I recall from listening to one of his daily broadcasts, Dr. Mohler himself has criticized the system traditionally utilized by the Roman Catholic Church in which a priestly class rules over the laymen under its authority without a system of checks and balances to keep it free from corruption.

I never thought I would say this but I believe that C.J. Mahaney and I agree about one thing. While I’m not sure that Dr. Mohler is the smartest person in the world I genuinely consider him one of the top 50 public intellectuals in the on the planet. His intellect astounds me and until I read the comments above, I was impressed by what I believed to be his intellectual honesty as well.

The great tragedy to me is that Dr. Mohler may not really be a Congregationalist at heart. He was simply born into a family that precluded joining the Roman Catholic Church that’s authoritarian structure is his true love.

Thus instead of being Cardinal Mohler, a top candidate to become the first American Pope in history, he is merely Pastor Mohler, a frustrated man trying to force Protestant denominations to abandon the Reformation’s greatest legacy: You can read and interpret the Bible yourself without a priestly guide by your side telling you what to think.

And I leave that with you for your consideration, dear readers.

Janna,

Lots of people think of Mohler as this great intellect but after years of reading his stuff and following his talks, I have to disagree. He is a very clever political strategist and culture warrior. but there are inconsistencies and some twisting of concepts that I find curious. I won’t go into them here but they do exist. He has elevated secondary doctrines to a salvic level. This is more cultural and political then theological.

There is a ton of subtle heresy coming out of SBTS. We can start with ESS which is the worst.

Bruce Ware teaches that women are made in the indirect image of God, a derivative, he calls us. Ware also said in one of his books, it is a waste of time to pray to Jesus because he cannot do anything.

Russ Moore calls for more patriarchy because comps are wimps. And Christians should not be cremated.

Just snippets of some of the stuff coming from there.

It goes on and on. Everything but the basic Gospel is coming out of SBTS. Some of it down right ridiculous. but the young people believe it.

I think they are a perfect fit for SGM. And that is a cause of great concern.

I think the intellectual promotion of Mohler is somewhat marketing propaganda because he has been able to market his writings to WSJ and other venues. He is on Larry King, etc. He tends to take on cultural topics from a Christian world view. (I do not agree with theconcept of a Christian world view. It is man made)

But the bottomline is that he is more culture warrior and political strategist.

>

In Osteen’s sermons, bad times can be reimagined as opportunities. Someone left you? Lost your job? Thank God! You didn’t need that person. A better job awaits. “God wants to double your blessings as he did for Job,” he says.

This all makes his critics livid. The Rev. Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president and powerhouse traditionalist, whacks him for “platitudes with attitudes.” The Rev. Mark Driscoll, who packs a Seattle megachurch for doctrine-laden sermons, says Osteen reduces the pursuit of God to “lollipops and skipping while singing hymns.”

Mohler? Driscoll? “I don’t know who those people are,” Osteen says, looking genuinely mystified.

http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20110422/LIVING/104240322/Joel-Osteen-My-gift-encouragement-?odyssey=nav|head

Who said Mohler followed a congregational polity? Covenant Theology and the Calvinista re-invention of it, morphing it into the modern articulation of their neocalvinism, follows what I was taught was a Presbyterian form of church government. Or is Mohler calling for a more episcopal polity?

I believe that the Calvinistas have awarded themselves the duty of purifying the Church, starting with the SBC. The SBC (in which men like Mohler willfully chose to participate) is congregational. But they want to bring the “only Biblically true” form of government to all the poor, ignorant souls in the congregational SBC so that they can usher in the Millennial Reign and/or the Second Coming of Christ through focused human effort. A big part of their job involves taking over the SBC from those nasty dispensational, congregational Christians who are to be pitied because they just don’t know any better. It’s all for the good of the people and the good of Jesus.

In other words, rather than leave the SBC, recognizing that they are at odds with the BF&M (pre 2000), they are working as agents of change within their SBC in order to remake it in what they want it to be. Part of that involves a top-down, authoriarian style of church government and chain of command. First the SBC, then all Christendom, then the world, all so that the lion and lamb can snuggle. And guess who gets to be in control of God’s efforts to accomplish this noble task of the purification of all human institutions on the earth? It’s kinda like becoming the king.

Is anyone participating here familiar enough with the 1689 London Baptist Confession document to comment on what it has to say on this matter? Or as a Calvinista, are men like Mohler just making it up as they go, choosing what suits them at the time? It’s just been my experience that Reformed Baptists defer to 1689 LBC document as God-breathed. Are they writing their own new Baptist Confession, perhaps called the Louisville Baptist Confession of the New Millienium? Or would Mohler’s name have to go on it?

Note: I stated “People were still required to submit to those central leaders.” If you’re unfamiliar with shepherding and what that looks like, it means that you have some cell group leader who is your overseer, and you are encouraged to have a mentor (who is often your cell group or care group leader). They report to someone else who is a step up in the hierarchy (along with the personal details of what’s going on in your life). And then, there are elite rulers at the top. It seems rather innocent until you get to be a part of the process. It is a control mechanism. Ever wonder why some elder comes up to you and “speaks into your life” or “speaks prophetically” to you or happens to have a remarkably poignant thing to say to you? It’s because this info is reported informally up through the ranks, through want appears to be an informal system that makes sure that pastors are looking over their flock. It’s a control mechanism. It’s called accountability, but it’s little more than control.

Anyone wonder why Molher says this and what this really means?

“It’s very hard to criticize it on biblical terms, as you’ll see on most of those Web sites. It basically comes down to the criticism, ‘I don’t like that.’”

Mohler’s using obfuscation and minimization here, along with some good old fashioned “loaded language.”

All these blogs do is describe the behavior of the Pharisees in modern language. Without some study of the culture and time of the writing of the NT, we do not understand what “straining gnats” means. Evangelicals do not have temples with gold and are not required to swear on the Temple as was practiced under Judaism and was given to the people as a modern example for them. We must translate what that means over into our culture.

Manipulation and control can be described in many ways, and this is what Jesus described when he confronted the Pharisees. We saw the same kinds of things in the Church at Galatia. Paul confronted Peter about these kinds of problems. But in our culture, they don’t directly translate.

So this is a “smoke and mirrors” comment by Mohler. He’s telling people that unless they hear King James Version terminology, they should reject what they hear. (Funny how he’s allowed to use modern terms, however.) We don’t describe manipulation and control in the same way that the Greek language records it or in the way that the culture of that day articulated it. We don’t translate it the same way and in the same language that Tyndale and Wycliffe did. It would be inappropriate for us to use those terms. Maybe I should start talking like the direct Greek translation?

I say to you the Dee this day, I enjoy the blog of you — the blog of you all — of you and of the Deb.

Maybe they can offer classes about how to speak Biblically?

Most of what is discussed on these blogs can be categorized under either David Henke’s model of spiritual abuse or under Robert Lifton’s thought reform model. No one is saying anything as general as, “I don’t like that.” They’re qualifying the details concerning the Pharisaical treatment they’ve received. I go the extra step of classifying it as cultic by evaluating the behaviors in terms of an objective set of behaviors according to these stated criteria.

Is that not what systematic theology does? I look at behaviors and plug them into the overall pattern of manipulation. (Fallen human nature makes manipulation pretty predictable.) Theologians look at Scripture and plug it into a doctrinal framework. Mohler uses the framework of Covenant Theology and plugs his understanding of Scripture and the doctrine that he derives from that into his version of Covenant Theology. When he takes issue with a doctrinal matter, is he making a nebulous statement of “I don’t like that?” No. And neither are the people on the blogs.

The non-apology apology deserves to be walked all over, as do the non-apologizing apologizers! What a crock of strategic cover up and make us look good rhetorical devices!

In some states, churches are exempt from the requirement that many have to report abuse when they become aware of it. In most states, teachers, nurses, doctors, school administrators, daycare workers, police officers, and other state-licensed professionals are required to report and protected when they do, unless the report is intentionally false. It is a crime for them to not report and they can lose their license for not reporting. BTW, abuse occurs to the elderly and infirm as well as to children, including sexual abuse of the elderly in nursing homes!!! (Almost as disgusting as sexual abuse of a pre-pubescent child.)

Aside from the possibly permanent psychological, emotional, social and spiritual trauma, with small children, there is also the physical trauma, which can permanently affect them, including the ability to reproduce (vaginal injury) and if by sodomy, to permanently affect their ability to control bowel movements. Such children must be seen by a physician trained in identifying the consequences of sexual abuse for evaluation. On occasion, the child can be examined under anesthesia to prevent further trauma.

Delaying reporting is a form of coverup, as is inserting oneself between the family and the legal authorities and not aggressively pursuing the interest of the abused child. It should subject the pastors to criminal and civil liability, and to being defrocked.

Response to Cindy K. re: Peacemakers

I read your post from 5:17 am today and was surprised by your comments about Peacemakers supporting shepherding. I belong to a PCA church that has used Peacemaker resources for years, and I’ve never seen any support for the abusive practices associated with the shepherding movement. I visited their site this morning and browsed around for anything that would seem to support shepherding, but came up empty. What I did find were two on-line articles about how churches can build safeguards against abusive leadership.

Accountability: The Mark of a Wise and Protected Leader http://www.peacemaker.net/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=aqKFLTOBIpH&b=1084263&ct=1245871&notoc=1

Approachability: The Passport to Real Ministry and Leadership http://www.peacemaker.net/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=aqKFLTOBIpH&b=1084263&ct=6869375&notoc=1

There was also an article teaching how churches should handle incidents of sexual abuse, A Better Way to Handle Abuse, which I found to be solidly biblical and only wish more churches followed.
http://www.peacemaker.net/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=aqKFLTOBIpH&b=1043497&ct=1245453

I have no doubt that people can twist and misuse principles Peacemakers teaches—just just as they can twist and abuse Scripture itself—to support abusive leadership practices. But from what I read on their website, it seems to me that PM consistently speaks against and seeks to prevent such practices.

Hello, Eagle.

I understand.

Don’t be anything. Be Eagle. Take a break from the weighty burden of philosphical, theological matters.

Go to Yosemite and do some strenuous hiking (like Half Dome) in breathtaking bigger-than-life surroundings. Swim in clear bracing water. It will hit the reset button deeply. Will do a lot toward detoxing. I think I can promise you these things.

NLR, Elastigirl, Eagle

When I ask about the nature of God, many people tell me what they were taught as children: God is love. And it is true and it is the primary characteristic of God. He came to earth and died a horrible death as God incarnate — in a human body — because of his love for us.

Some people, called strong Calvinists or Reformed, teach that love is not the primary or defining characteristic of God. Rather that sovereignty is his defining characteristic. And it is a strange form of sovereignty, because, to them, God has no control over his sovereignty, so that what he wants to happen always happens and all that happens does so because he wanted it to happen. Seems a bit like a Midas type God. But every other sovereign restrains their use of their sovereignty, because those who do not are despots who are not loved by their subjects.

So I believe that God has the power, the sovereignty, to do what he would choose to do, but that God has restrained his own sovereignty to allow humans, beginning with Adam and Eve, to choose to love and obey him or not. And because of our human nature, we tend not to be very obedient, so that sin is in the world. And sin causes problems for people.

As to nature and natural calamities, God created a universe with physical laws so that it is possible for people to live and thrive. He allows the physical laws he created to work, which results in natural calamities. Some of those natural calamities are worsened by man’s feeble attempts to limit them, showing our inability to improve upon God’s handiwork.

“…CJ Mahaney counts Al Mohler amongst his closet of friends. He even called Al Mohler the “smartest man in the world…”

What utter and complete nonsense! Everybody knows (especially Bobby & Mr. Klaatu) that professor Barnhardt is the smartest man in the world.

dee: “I was involved in Catholic charismatic circles in upstate NY back in the 70s-Father John Bertolucci (?sp).”

You mean Fr. Guido Sarducci?

RE numo on Tue, Aug 02 2011 at 01:53 am:

Don’t worry about being labeled a “liberal”, you are in good company. Muff is about as liberal as they come, and accordin’ to some, he ain’t even “saved”.

Don’t ever let anybody try and marginalize you by making the word “liberal” into a perjorative or something that can be pinned onto you in order to subtract credibility. You have many intelligent things to say, it’s only the shrill shouters who are threatened.

@ Eagle: what elastagirl said! Believe me… I feel for you, where you are, as I was in a very similar place not too many years ago. It takes time to detox and regain one’s bearings after being in an abusive situation, whether it’s church, work or a close relationship.

You don’t have to be anything – except yourself (as elastagirl said).

I can tell you that for a long time I felt like I was wandering around in a forest, looking for God. I could sense his presence, I knew he was nearby and wouldn’t let any harm come to me. But I couldn’t quite pinpoint where he was… although, with all of the old “safety nets” (that proved to be full of holes) removed, I just didn’t quite know how to connect with him.

At the same time, I felt like I was OK… that it didn’t matter that I was 100 yards (or 50, or even 5) away from him but couldn’t quite “see” him. He was still there, both with me and *for* me. And it didn’t seem to matter to him that I was at was, seemingly, a distance. It was OK, and so was I. Safe – with no need to rush around, trying to find him. He was/is there, and I’d be able to find him, because he wasn’t going to go away. Ever.

I don’t know if my “mental picture” will be helpful to you (or anyone else), but I’m willing to bet that others feel similarly. (I also sometimes felt like I was walking through a long abandoned railway tunnel and could not see the light at the end – though I knew it had to be there, and that I would be able to see it eventually… as long as I kept walking. Again, no need for haste, no rush. The outside – and the daylight – was/is there, even though I could not see them in the middle of the tunnel, where all was dark and it felt like that darkness would never dissipate.)

Ultimately (though maybe I ought to use a different word, as i’m still very much “in process”), things got to a point where, for the very 1st time in my life, I believed that God loved me – that his love has nothing to do with following rules or with trying to measure up in ways that are quite SGM-like. (I had decades of that, due to being in churches that all had discipleship movement roots.)

but you know… all of this has taken time. (In my case, 8 years and counting.) No doubt that is true for you as well – but that’s OK, too.

In the meantime, please don’t worry about labels, or trying to figure out what you believe or don’t believe. (I can get caught in that trap if I let myself go there.) It sounds like some distance – and perspective – will help tremendously, but those things are gained step by step – by just living.

I hope this makes sense – and you know, it’s fine to be good to yourself, to allow yourself some breathing room. (Like others have said, I bet a trip to a national park or some other place you would really like to go would be great… someplace where you can relax.)

all the best,
numo

@ Dee: hey, I don’t know that I really am all that “liberal” per se, in terms of my beliefs. (Though I’m sure the IFB – or even Al Mohler – might think I’m destined for hell. ;))

I was so rigid in my beliefs for so long – fearing that even the slightest deviation from a set way of thinking would result in some catastrophe – that … well. I couldn’t breath. I was afraid.

Now, not so much. Which is, imo, no small miracle! 🙂

Dee–

Thank you. Yes, I guess I could do a post, huh? Sure.

“an,” not “a.”

I’ll blame my typos on just having got back from the dentist and still having a numb nose due to the novocaine! 😉

This is the God I want to know again: (some excerpts from Isaiah 57)

Comfort for the Contrite

“Build up, build up, prepare the road! Remove the obstacles out of the way of my people.” For this is what the high and lofty One says—he who lives forever, whose name is holy:

“I live in a high and holy place, but also with her who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly
and to revive the heart of the contrite. 16 I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me— the breath of man that I have created.

17I was enraged by her sinful greed; I punished her, and hid my face in anger, yet she kept on in her willful ways. 18 I have seen her ways, but I will heal her; I will guide her and restore comfort to her, creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel.

Peace, peace, to those far and near,” says the Lord. “And I will heal them.” Should it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?

Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.

9Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry, and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.

11The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. For you will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail.

12Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; today you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

Numo–

Thank you, and I certainly understand. Many of my “friends” at my old church were also older white women. They too, had a hard time and are still having it because they refuse to leave. Many of them have just given up hope that they will ever be married. But take that and put on top of that hurt and disappointment, and add to the fact that your race also compounded the issue–because not only was I part of the “older” women (I’m 33 BTW), I was also black. So not only didn’t I have a good chance, but considering my race and that it wasn’t on the menu, I definitely had no chance at all. This issue had been acknowledged by pastors and elders, but they didn’t know what to do about it. The ideas and things I knew needed to be done, weren’t going to be done. Because it would involve changing much of how things worked. So I was also dealing with racism on top of that. Along with other African and African-American and Asian friends of mine. Although from my POV, the Asian women didn’t have as tough of a problem as the black women did. One of the guys who was kinda cool with me said yeah, um, conservative, middle class white men don’t generally marry or consider black women. Sorry. But it’s a fact. I stared at him and said I wish you were lying, but look at the situation here.

I was told that if I chose to stay, I had to consider the fact that I might not ever get married, and that I would have to think about being a missionary, so to speak, in a foreign land. It’s funny, because that’s exactly how I felt and my friends too– like foreigners in the gate that nobody cared to even really get to know on a real personal level. Many superficial relationships. Much of meeting people where they were, but they had no idea that your culture was not like theirs. I couldn’t believe I was dealing with this with Christians. It floored me.

@ NLR: all of that is just so, so wrong, I don’t even know where to begin.

I wish I could fix it. I would love to go to these people and say “How dare you treat anyone as ‘less than’?!!!” (etc.).

But that’s not gonna happen, and equally, I’m in the same boat re. my old church (the one that booted me). I know women like you – black Americans – who are in very, very similar situations.

It’s so very contrary to everything Jesus said, did – and taught.

I truly wish i could take away some of the pain. If there *is* something I need to do, or see (even at this distance), please tell me.

OK?

@ NLR again: I do feel like people of color (both immigrants and people who grew up here) are expected to more or less check their culture – a large part of who they are – at the door in churches like the ones you and I have been in.

So, so wrong on so many levels – instead of seeing the diversity of cultures (and viewpoints that result) as a gift, people are forced to conform to a mold that doesn’t fit the “majority” (white people), let alone those who are not from that part of the demographic.

i don’t know if Im choosing good words or not-so-good words in my comments. Again, if I am saying/doing something insensitive, please tell me! I want to learn, and to grow.

And that cannot really happen if I’m segregated, cut off from you and from all the other folks – of all skin colors and shades – who make up the body of Christ.

(An aside, but not really: this place often feels more like church to me than any actual congregation I’ve been a part of!)

Chuck D,

What I’ve described above concerning the poor differentiation between forgiveness and reconciliation demonstrates quite strongly how shepherding works. People are taught that they have no real personal rights in shepherding and only get what they get because this is what God ordains. If you are beaten by your husband, as a wife, you are to accept this and work to be a better wife.

In the agreements that a person must sign to participate in the Peacemaker Ministries (PM) process, if the dispute is between a congregant and pastor, the agreement signed requires the congregant to submit to the pastor. This favors the pastor who automatically gets the benefit of the doubt, and the balance of power is inequitable. This puts a greater burden on the congregant.

PM highly recommends to churches that they have congregants sign a covenant, and they call them covenants. If the church doesn’t have one, they can get one from PM. This was a practice of shepherding.

I’m sure that there are plenty of people that had pleasant experiences with PM and resolved conflicts well. I happen to know several people who were miserably dissatified with the process.

Ken Sande also states in his book that if you decide that someone you are negotiating with is not really a Christian by your standards, you can wave 1 Corinthians 6 and sue them anyway. This is a very popular thing to do in Shepherding and in the homeschooling oriented patriarchy churches (Presby and Reformed Baptist). You find some cause to declare your critics to be non-Christians, and then you take them to court if you cannot effectively draw them into some kind of mediation (like PM) or an ecclesial court system.

Can someone tell me how men can peer into the heart of another and declare them non-Christians and non-Believers? Did Paul say this? Ken Sande says it in his book! How convenient.

So that’s fine if PM has lots of good articles on their website. They can talk to they are blue in the face and put up well written articles ever hour until the end of time. That’s fine if they have satisfied clients. Such does not negate these basic principles of the PM paradigm. I know very dissatisfied clients, and by using the PM process, they lost all of their rights. Another gentleman I’ve talked with many times said that when he decided to abandon the PM process because it did favor leadership, the statute of limitations concerning his conflict had expired.

These are the principles of shepherding, and if someone suggested that I go with them to PM for mediation or conflict resolution, I would turn and run. I think that for many of these matters, people are better served to take their chances in Caesar’s court. But then, I know people who were literally ruined by the PM process and PM style mediation.

@ Cindy K: I’ve got an old copy of Sande’s 1st book in storage. The last time I opened it was (I think) fall 2001.

I was shocked by a number of things… and one of them was that he seemed to imply (though never state directly) that pastors are *never* wrong and that if a church member has a disagreement with a pastor, it’s on their head.

ir seemed to me that he doesn’t allow any questioning of so-called “authority.”

i found (still find) this all very disturbing, re. what my SGM-member friends were taught – then *and* now.

i don’t have access to my copy of the book, and am wondering if you – or anyone else – can confirm my impressions? (or, conversely, show me that he *does* admit that “pastors” can be at fault, etc.)

thanks in advance for your help!

@Numo

The article I cited above on holding leaders accountable for their wrongs (http://www.peacemaker.net/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=aqKFLTOBIpH&b=1084263&ct=1245871&notoc=1) appears to answer your question. Among other things, Sande writes:

“The second error that many churches and ministries make is to over-protect their leaders. They develop a self-confidence and blind loyalty that compels them to become defensive and automatically “circle the wagons” when a leader is questioned or accused of wrongdoing. They assume the challenge must be unfounded and immediately look for ways to minimize it or explain it away. They may rely on second-hand information or simply accept the leader’s interpretation of his accuser’s words and motives. And sometimes in an effort to justify or protect the leader, they attempt to silence, find fault with, or otherwise discredit or penalize the person who brought the accusation. As Jesus would put it, rather than humbly seeking to discern the “planks” in their leader’s or their own eyes, these leadership teams jump immediately to pointing out the “specks” in the eyes of others (Matt. 7:3-5).

This excessively protective pattern can create a “culture of denial,” where differences and problems are automatically minimized or concealed. When there is some truth in a complaint, over-protection prevents a leader from addressing a problem in its early stages, when small changes on his part might easily lay the matter to rest. If a serious complaint is true, circling the wagons can have even worse consequences. It will delay needed changes, aggravate or multiply harm to others, and diminish the credibility of the people who should have been holding the leader accountable in the first place.

Even if accusations against a leader are largely unfounded, over-protection can still cause significant damage. When sincere concerns and complaints are automatically rejected, members will feel that their voices don’t matter and give up on expressing concerns. When an investigating team fails to address complaints in a clearly objective manner, a cloud of doubt will often be left hanging over both the leader and the ministry itself. These doubts accumulate over time and steadily diminish the leader’s reputation both inside and outside the church or ministry. In addition, if an organization develops a reputation for deflecting questions and making superficial investigations, it may lack credibility when more serious issues must be addressed in the future.”

The article goes on to talk about how leaders should be held accountable and even dismissed from ministry. So yes, he seems to admit that pastors can be at fault and should face the consequences.

or maybe I should say “In the edition of Sande’s 1st book that was required reading for members of CLC (and SGM as a whole).”

@Numo
I don’t know what version you had, but in the version I have he writes this:

“Going to a Person in Authority
Your responsibility to go to someone who is caught in sin does not vanish just because that person is in a position of authority over you (e.g., an employer or a church elder). Since these people are as human as you are, they will also sin and need correction (see 1 Tim. 5:19–20).” (p.156)

He also has some particularly forceful things to say about churches that shield leaders or members from accountability for sexual abuse:

“Dealing with Abuse
One of the most difficult offenses to address is one that involves an abuse of power or authority, such as physical or sexual abuse. In rare situations, a victim of abuse may have gained sufficient strength to go and talk directly to his or her abuser. In most situations, however, it is not wise or constructive for a victim to talk privately with the abuser. Many abusers are very adept at manipulation and intimidation, and they will use the conversation as an opportunity for further abuse. Therefore, it is usually best to involve others in the confrontation process.
If the abuser is a Christian, his church has a responsibility to confront his sin, promote genuine repentance and confession, support counseling, and require him to submit to necessary legal consequences. This involvement can and should be carried out in cooperation with actions that civil authorities must take to deal with the abuse.
At the same time, the church should be ministering lovingly and diligently to the victim of abuse. This calls for compassion and understanding, acknowledging any role the church may have played in failing to properly protect the victim, providing needed counseling, and changing policies and practices to prevent similar abuse in the future.” (p. 156-7)

(Footnote” “Although space does not permit me to go into further detail on this topic in this book, I am compelled to add a strong word of warning before leaving this subject. Churches have a definite tendency to deny and cover up incidents of abuse, usually to prevent scandal, protect a pastor’s career, or to avoid the difficult and painful work required to bring healing in these situations. This strategy is blatantly disobedient to God’s Word, which commands us to confess sin, not conceal it (Prov. 28:13; 1 John 1:8-9). As national headlines reveal, this approach has also proven to be disastrous for victims, abusers, churches, and entire denominations. God’s Word provides a solid track to run on, no matter how terrible the sin or conflict. For more information on how to apply biblical peacemaking principles to these situations, see “A Better Way to Handle Abuse” at http://www.hispeace.org/html/artic26.htm, or contact Peacemaker Ministries directly.”

indeed.

if/when SGM members (and especially CLC members) are asked to abide by Peacemaker rules, guess who wins?

Hint: not the member(s). (Though aren’t pastors *supposed* to be members like everyone else?!)

Part 2

@Lin – There was some commentary on the Survivors SGM blog (a blog for people who have been harmed by Sovereign Grace Ministries in some way) indicating that Mohler clearly lied (by omission at least) about when he had access to the Detwiler documents as he claimed to have read them thoroughly when he made the comments above in C.J. Mahaney’s defense.

As I recall, there was only about a 24 hour-72 hour gap between the time Mohler gave the comments in the article above and the time the Detwiler documents were leaked to the public. That’s not considering that it took a little while for the knowledge that the documents were on Wikileaks to get around.

Hence unless he sat down and carefully read all 600 pages in less than a couple days, during which he was Twittering about doing many other things, Mohler definitely had access to the Detwiler documents prior to their public release. I imagine that he received them when Mr. Detwiler sent them to all the SGM pastors or perhaps he was given a copy to read prior to that time when C.J. Mahaney, the head of Sovereign Grace Ministries, realized he was really in hot water.

I have no idea how the SBC disciplines its employees but his decision to support actions that were highly unethical at best (some of the financial shenanigans) and illegal/appalling at worst (what appears to be a clear attempt to back-mail someone while simultaneously violating clergy confidentiality) merits further investigation I would think.

Some have claimed that Mohler was merely defending a friend but his assertion that he had carefully read the Detwiler documents and felt that Mahaney was still qualified to serve as a pastor negates that defense.

Challenging Dr. Mohler would be a tough thing for anyone in the SBC to do but perhaps some brave soul will appear!

@Eagle – so you know some of the moral issues at hand are being deliberately obscured by SGM’s world-class propaganda machine, in my opinion.

For example, the official statement about C.J. Mahaney’s “paid season of reflection” (I’m not making that up) said that neither financial improprieties nor immorality (this was later vaguely defined as sexual immorality) were involved.

Neither statement is true, in my opinion. The Detwiler documents (I’m just assuming you know what that means) raise issues about Mahaney’s financial integrity. And while Mahaney has not directly been accused of sexual improprieties, he’s been accused of helping shove sexual molestation incidents under the proverbial carpet.

I second the “nice to see you here no matter what you believe” remark, on a different note!

“@Cindy K – Dr. Mohler regularly calls himself a congregationalist as do most Baptists, I believe. That’s why I called him a congregationalist”

This is what you watch for. They call themselves things they aren’t and then redefine the term in practice. Mohler actually “acts” more like a Presbyterian with him and his colleagues being the ecclessiastical court.

@Dee
I’m sorry, I just don’t have the information or qualifications to answer your questions. They’re good ones!

Thanks watcher! But when you are the protestant pope, you can redefine meanings AND appoint all the levels of the court with your handpicked choices. It is happening more and more in the SBC structure with Mohler’s handpicks for the entities not only at national level but state associations, too. There are a few pockets of holdouts.

Lin,
This doesn’t really affect the point that you were making, but Mohler’s kids weren’t home schooled. They went to a local Christian school.

Dee and Deb,
Have you guys seen this yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQjLcda2CTQ&NR=1
Interesting to see how this congregation responded to hyper-authoritarianism. I would have been with them on this one.

@ Scott: while i completely disagree with the pastor in that video, I think there might be more of a backstory to this. It does surprise me that a UMC congregation would be such a tough place – and that a UMC minister would come on strong about his “authority.”

Since I’m originally from central PA (where this church is located), I plan on trying to find out more about what’s going on.

Wow, what an interesting, enlightening, and moving comment section. So much ground covered, so much to ponder…

NLR, Numo, Eagles, Amanda — I especially appreciate the openness, honesty, and “real-ness” of your comments. NLR, your comments at 2:54 & 5:31 reflected genuine Chris-likeness. Thanks you for sharing.

@ Lin – regarding the following quote below my note here:

Frequently we all know what’s going on behind the scenes but we can’t prove it, unfortunately. The other side says we just have a vendetta (the exact word Mohler used to describe Brent Detwiler’s motivations for going after Team Mahaney).

The beautiful part about the interview excerpt above is that Dr. Mohler directly and repeatedly confirmed how his truly extreme views about church polity contrast with the moderate ideas he tells the public he embraces.

“@Cindy K – Dr. Mohler regularly calls himself a congregationalist as do most Baptists, I believe. That’s why I called him a congregationalist”

This is what you watch for. They call themselves things they aren’t and then redefine the term in practice. Mohler actually “acts” more like a Presbyterian with him and his colleagues being the ecclessiastical court.

“Frequently we all know what’s going on behind the scenes but we can’t prove it, unfortunately. The other side says we just have a vendetta (the exact word Mohler used to describe Brent Detwiler’s motivations for going after Team Mahaney)”

And there is the rub and why they must have authoritarian rule. They cannot afford to have the light shined in the closed rooms. it takes an insider to come out and tell. That rarely happens. A lot of people figure out eventually that some things are not adding up but what can they do?

Years ago, a guy came out on blogs saying tht Mohler was a tyrannical boss who threw fits all the timeThe story got so big that Mohler actually apologized to the staff. I wish I could find the link but it was at least 6 years ago. The irony was all his defenders that had no clue if he was a tyrant or not. They just revered him and would hear nothing negative. That public persona is everything for them. It is their brand.

Brent provided an inside look even though his reasons for coming out were bizarre. He was thinking CJ must repent. We are thinking…this is what goes on at high levels of ministry day in and day out? These guys have too much time and money. They missed the point.

Mohler does not care what the docs or blogs say. He is not so much protecting Mahaney as he is protecting himself.

@Lin you have an excellent point about the non-stop partying atmosphere common in places where “Hill rats” hang out. At the other extreme many staffers work 24/7 but it doesn’t sound like Ms. Mohler is that type.

She may be partying but it’s more likely that they’ve already created a short list of prominent young men interested in competing for her hand and she’s staying with a family that will keep a close eye on her stilettos.

Actually, I think that Mohler does care about the docs and the blogs. I think he’s hypersensitive about his image generally. For another thing, his primary marketing channel is his blog and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that his site has gotten quieter since all this anti-blogging/Mat. 18 rhetoric started flying around big time.

Mohler gets a lot of frequent flyer points from the secular and Christian media by slamming mainstream Protestant denominations. He can’t do that anymore unless he’s willing to declare that this “blogging about your enemies violates Mat. 18 idea” is nonsense which will alienate his Calvinista friends OR declare publicly that Mat. 18 doesn’t apply because mainstream Protestants aren’t really Christians.

He’s in a bind because if he goes with option 1 he needs to find another source of content for his inflammatory remarks. And if he goes with option 2 and declares that mainstream Protestants aren’t Christians, he’ll lose respect and $$$ from Newsweek and his secular clientele generally.

Rumor has it that SGM and Mohler et al had a dog and pony show set up to discredit Brent Detwiler without the public’s full knowledge. Hence when the documents went public they were really mad. That would explain Mohler’s lapse in judgment regarding his revealing comments above. He was grouchy because someone threw a monkey wrench in his plans to create a large denomination ruled by himself and the few minions one needs to administer an empire.

I truly feel sorry for Dr. Mohler. He needs to be in Spain circa 1495 A.D. rather than the U.S.A. circa 2011 A.D.

Numo,

I’m glad that you’re sharing real life examples of how this stuff plays out at SGM and churches like them.

Chuck seems to have redirected his damage control away from me now and over to you. I guess if disclaimers are offered, no one has a right to say otherwise?

Earlier, you asked whether any one had a copy of Sande’s book, and you asked Chuck how what he posted negated earlier copies of the book. My book was a 2005 printing of it, so my copy is not all that old, but you don’t even need to have the book.

I went to browse through the “Resources” material on the Peacemaker’s website. This stuff may seem pretty benign to the average person, but when you are in a shepherding church, things take on deeper meanings. I think that this is especially true in SGM because they are so shame conscious. You must consider the degree of manipulation and shaming that goes on when you read this stuff.

For example, I looked at the shorter document, “A Commitment to Biblical Conflict Resolution.” A person who attends a balanced church will hopefully not get what I’m talking about, but someone who has come out of one of these highly manipulative and closed systems will see it from a mile away.

You’re supposed to follow four principles when resolving conflict. Here’s the first one:

Glorify God — Instead of focusing on our own desires or dwelling on what others may do, we will rejoice in the Lord and bring him praise by depending on his forgiveness, wisdom, power, and love, as we seek to faithfully obey his commands and maintain a loving, merciful, and forgiving attitude.

There’s a huge difference between “desires” and basic needs or basic rights. Did anyone catch that? It minimizes the importance of needs and rights by reclassifying them as “desires” which are optional.

If your husband just knocked out two of your teeth or you just saw your child’s molester working in the nursery at the church, it’s highly appropriate to focus on your own NEEDS and to dwell on what others have done and may do. That is wisdom. What does it look like to depend on God’s forgiveness , wisdom, power, and love during such a season? I think that a part of it involves the punishment of evil and providing for the safety of those at risk. Forgiveness follows after justice. Issuing a verdict of either guilt or innocence is a separate proceeding from sentencing. Declaring that a wrong has been done and establishing such is entirely different from forgiveness. And it may be entirely inappropriate to never speak of such things. Telling of the conflict may be the most forgiving, wise, powerful and loving thing that can be done in a particular situation.

The church must encourage forgiveness, but not at the expense of justice. Mercy triumphs over justice, but this is after justice has been established. Forgiveness should never be pitted against justice but should flow from justice. Anything less than establishing justice and safety for everyone is unfair to the person who has been wronged. Safety is not a desire but a need, and even under the Old Covenant, it was a right that was established for individuals.

I know that I was taught in my shepherding church that my own desires were always wrong (even if they were reasonable), and all personal rights that I had were an illusion. Personal rights should be yielded to God. The church’s needs or the needs of all others must come first. “Let each esteem others better than self” means that I may also be required to have an inappropriately low opinion of myself if the group demands it. It becomes even more complicated if the conflict involves leadership, because everyone is required to render a military style submission to all others (as opposed to a general, Golden Rule principle).

When followers do not do everything that a leader thinks is appropriate, the person who is lower on the food chain is taught that it is high treason and one of the worst sins imaginable to resist a leader’s authority. You are permitted to make an “appeal” in the appropriate fashion, but you are expected to follow chain of command as though you are in the military, waiting and praying for God to move on the hearts of those in authority over you. But unlike a military officer who is afforded rights, in shepherding, you must willingly relinquish all of your rights immediately and without question, otherwise, you will suffer subtle consequences and will be ostracized.

Is it possible to retain some basic human rights and still be considered loving, merciful and of a forgiving attitude? It is not in shepherding, especially if you are lower in hierarchy. You’re not permitted to do anything that puts any kind of pressure on another brother or sister, and you have to put all of their needs ahead of yours. If you are a woman and your husband beats you up and goes out to have extramarital affairs, not only is his sin credited to something you failed to do (love him enough, be available sexually even if you were ill, buy the right kind of toilet paper), you have to tolerate what he does because you are under his authority. Authority is always more important than needs and responsibilities. If you’re lower in hierarchy, you’re supposed to “take it patiently” without seeking to free yourself from bondage. Someone else who is worthy through hierarchy must hold your husband accountable. It is your duty to bear the suffering.

I believe that when you look at Ken Sande’s book and the PM website through the grid and the mindset of shepherding and the heavy demand to be exceptionally sweet and maudlin, this kind of thing results. If you’ve been assaulted or harmed, is it appropriate for you to be forgiving, especially in the early stages? I don’t believe that it is. If you’re being attacked, is it appropriate to defend yourself, or should you drop your defenses to show forgiveness to your attacker? What if there is attrition only because of consequences but you see no contrition in the person who wronged you? What if the conflict created a situation that was physically harmful to you or caused you so much distress that you could not function? Should you ever require your molested child to sit and break bread with their abuser if they hold no animosity towards them but still feel very threatened when they have to be in the same room with them?

In some cases and in some matters, the PM process is very good, but when you mix in the forced reconciliation factor with the forced requirement of relinquishing all of your personal interests, it can be a living nightmare.

Janna,

Yes, I am familiar with Chuck 2.0 (formerly just plain ole “Chuck”) over on both Survivors and Refuge and have read most of his comments.

I sincerely hope he and Chuck D are not one in the same, and I’ll be watching closely.

@ Cindy K: thanks so much for your reply – and you nailed it re. the language!

We could reduce it to: you are wrong because you did not “believe the best,” and whatever complaint you might have dwindles into nothingness when put side by side with the marvelousness of the anointed leadership.

Yeesh!!!

~Cindy K–

Thank you for the insight you shared on Peacemakers. That’s very telling in so many ways. It speaks volumes.

* *

~Amanda–

Many of us have been where you are. Just recently, I have been where you are short of believing God doesn’t exist. I knew he still existed, I just didn’t think he was as loving and compassionate anymore. You can read my earlier comments to see why. But for many of the same reasons you listed. Your experience sounds a lot like mine. When I left, people kept saying the same things to me like have you found a church yet? I’m so worried about your spiritual health. Every time I see them or talk to them, it’s that. I finally told three people a few weeks ago that this was no longer a topic of discussion. That I had special people in my life (you all here, those at Survivors, Lucy over at Soujourn in Sovereign Grace, my two best friends, and my family) that I would only share this with. 😉 That is was a very deeply profound and private spiritual matter and not something for temporal relationships or casual discussion. It usually shuts people down right away. Now, I dont even tell people I’m looking for a church. I tell them that I have no desire to join or attend a church right now, and I’m just focusing on rebuilding my relationship with the Lord. They are usually wide-eyed and confused. They try and ask questions but I shut it down. I always get this look of disdain. But I really don’t give a damn, like…ever. I just want to be left alone, honestly. I took about 100 people off my Facebook, made it private and decline invitations all the time. For the few of them that want to get together and meetup every other month to “catch up”, I have also been declining those because they don’t want to learn anything. I just want to be left alone. For the friends I do have, we don’t discuss it because they say things that sometimes send me into a spiral. I was really angry the other night with a friend who is having issues with the church because she said to me, “well, I just want to tell you to be cautious about what you say, and to be cautious about the counselor you talk to and the people on the blogs.” I said, well, why do I need to be cautious? If I am saying things that are untrue, that would be one thing. But I’m not. And considering how much “research” you’ve done, I dont think you are qualified to tell me that. She said well, it’s just that I care for you and sometimes it seems that you say pretty harsh things. I said, well, no, I say things that are difficult to hear, that are heavy and meaningful, and make us uncomfortable, but it doens’t mean I cannot say them. She said well, I just want to tell you to be cautious. I said, let me tell you somethinjg you need to know about me, and that is it isn’t helpful to tell me to be “cautious” about discussing or making truthful and insgihtful statements about a situation with the church when I have done months and months of work participating in discussions, reading Scripture, studying etc… You are essentially discrediting me and almost implying that I am not being cautious and rather flippant and I dont appreciate that. You have NO IDEA what I’ve been through and the amount of work I’ve done. So dont’ say that to me.

She apologized. I was still very angry and almost in tears. I almost wrote Dee to get some encouragement. She always has the right words to say in situations like that. So Amanda, it’s even hard for people that are closer to you to even understand–this, I’m sure you know.

I think many of us should try and go to the CBE conference next year (Christians for Biblical Equality). I think it would be a huge encouragement and I would love to see some of you there. I have every intention on going.

* *

~Lin–

You said “They call themselves things they aren’t and then redefine the term in practice.” Bingo! It’s hard when you’ve not been in these circles ever to know what things are originally without going back and reading original documents and schools of thought on protestantism, congregationalism, and so forth. The SBC is changing what many of these things, essentially, and for the noob like me, it’s hard to discern what’s been changed sometimes. I just know that it doesn’t sound right. Funny thing about Mohler, he preached at CHBC (my old church) the second Sunday before I left. And I thought hmmmm… boring. I didn’t get anything from this message. What’s so great about this guy?

Yep, that’s what I left with. I pretty much zoned out through the entire message and made my grocery list. I asked a few friends after church what they thought. Their responses… “meh” (insert shoulder shrug). I’m not saying that the guy isn’t smart or probably a good teacher in terms of presentation (although content would probably not be good). But I just wasn’t impressed. I mean, it was Al Mohler, you know. All of us Reformed Calvinistas were supposed to be so blessed by his glorious appearance. I remember asking my friend “who is this dude?” She was like “girl, that’s Al Mohler.” I said, “oh. Well he’s boring.” She winked. Mind you, I have listened and sat through my share of high level academic sermons.

* *

~Eagle–

I can only imagine. I hope also that there is room to change careers if what you are doing makes you miserable. You said earlier that you love the DC metro area, or did you mean to say that you live in the DC metro? Because if you live in the DC Metro, we should have coffee and chat. It would be refreshing. LMK if you’re interested, I can send you my email addy through Dee.

“Actually, I think that Mohler does care about the docs and the blogs. I think he’s hypersensitive about his image generally. For another thing, his primary marketing channel is his blog and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that his site has gotten quieter since all this anti-blogging/Mat. 18 rhetoric started flying around big time.”

Janna, the timing could not have been worse. he was already doing a major PR campaign on his ill chosen words for an article in the Christian Science Monitor written by the son of a big SBC celebrity preacher (his son is on his church staff and has some views that manyin the SBC do not like)

The article was quoted to Mohler during his SBC convention report on SBTS. He did well with his answer because he is Mohler but the stench remained and as more have thought about it, they don’t like it. (I would rather not discuss the issue). In effect, Mohler implied that SBC had lied about homosexuality and been homophobic. But he did not say how.

So his blog has been dedicated to that issue. Then the Mahaney thing. People forget that while Mohler is a sort of protestant pope he is still an employee of the SBC. He has to be somewhat careful. There are groups within the SBC who are NOT Mahaney fans.

“Mohler gets a lot of frequent flyer points from the secular and Christian media by slamming mainstream Protestant denominations. He can’t do that anymore unless he’s willing to declare that this “blogging about your enemies violates Mat. 18 idea” is nonsense which will alienate his Calvinista friends OR declare publicly that Mat. 18 doesn’t apply because mainstream Protestants aren’t really Christians.”

This is an excellent point. And one we must not forget for the future. But if you look closely, you have to realize tht Mohler follows the Matt 18 interpretation of Jay Adams. (Remember, they redefine everything).

Adams adds a step in the process of Matt 18. The step he adds is you must take it to the leaders of the church before taking it to the whole church. That is how he will provide cover for Mahaney. But it won’t work with other denominations as you say, becasue they are not real christians. Mahaney is. (Mohler speak)

“Rumor has it that SGM and Mohler et al had a dog and pony show set up to discredit Brent Detwiler without the public’s full knowledge. Hence when the documents went public they were really mad. That would explain Mohler’s lapse in judgment regarding his revealing comments above. He was grouchy because someone threw a monkey wrench in his plans to create a large denomination ruled by himself and the few minions one needs to administer an empire.”

mohler is never caught flat footed. He provided cover for Mahaney in a non SBC venue with quotes to a reporter of a secular newspaper. I have noticed the SBC pasotrs blogs are totally silent on this one. They got the word.

“I truly feel sorry for Dr. Mohler. He needs to be in Spain circa 1495 A.D. rather than the U.S.A. circa 2011 A.D.”

Interesting perspective. But mine is that he is getting his reward here and now.

This is so OT!!! But I just had to tell you guys. Why did I get a Meetup.com message inviting me to join a new meet up for Sovereign Grace Singles… Ha-larryus! (it took me two minutes to write that. iPad keeps trying to tell me to write something else. No, iPad!!!! I did not stutter. Stop it, please?!)

Anyways, I wanna write back and say “oh helllll to THA naw! Are y’all fa-real???!” À la Whitney Houston in her interview with Dianne Sawyer. Now THAT was a hot mess, but I digress… I should point them to all my comments about their stupid little courtship model and my egalitarian beliefs and see if I will still get the invite.!! Ha!

Oh and at the end of my reply I’ll put: This message brought to you by the Obama/Biden administration for the single, sexy and sexually depraved in the evangelical church who think male headship and authority are religious bunk!! YES WE CAN, BABY!!! Oh YES WE CAN!

I wonder if they’ll invite me??? Hmmm… (pondering)

@Cindy K – Thanks for your comments. I think that Al Mohler’s bank account would suffer if he acted like a minister as opposed to acting like someone who specializes in setting up faux culture wars. God works in mysterious ways. I’m sure Mohler is as smart as he is for a reason.

Yes, in a way being called onto the carpet because you’re strong is a compliment. However, in SGM’s case it also makes me sad because even many of the individuals who believe they were harmed by SGM resent attempts by non-SGMers to help them because we’re not part of the club. They’re not big on the good Samaritan parable when there’s a denominational war going on.

I braved the anti-SGM blogs for a couple weeks and found that unfortunately even many anti-SGMers that don’t attend an SGM church still exhibit a cult mentality. They’re just members of anti-SGM instead of regular SGM. Certainly that’s not true of everyone on those blogs, of course, but it’s still sad when large numbers of people have lost touch with themselves for any reason.

Truth be told, I get creeped out by almost all SGM material unless it’s so off-the-wall my initial reaction is, “are these people impaired?” Weird and creepy are two adjectives that come up a lot when talking about SGM and/or Peace Makers.

For a real laugh, check out C.J. Mahaney’s video on being a “Pastor/Athlete.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RCStEsLPCw

When I’m feeling blue I tune in for a couple minutes of it!

Best,

Janna

“I braved the anti-SGM blogs for a couple weeks and found that unfortunately even many anti-SGMers that don’t attend an SGM church still exhibit a cult mentality”

Thank you. I am not the only one, then. In a way, my heart breaks because that is all they know and they still try to communicate with that sgm language as if they are so afraid someone will think them mean! Is it mean to drive wolves away from sheep?

In another way, I want to slap them out of it or send them to exit counseling…pronto. It is as if they are all waiting for CJ to repent before they can move on. But how will they know if it is ever genuine? He has acted out his persona pretty well up to now.

” Wouldn’t it be cool if Al Mohler did nothing by post blog articles about Scripture for a full year?”

They would be articles twisting scripture to make it teach ESS. :o)

@Lin – if we have both braved posting on those blogs for any length of time then we are blood sisters! Many of those folks have got passive/aggressive behavior down to a T. Apparently I had a following of supporters who interacted with me directly on one board while also having a following of detractors that complained about me behind my back to one of the moderators.

Forget being in a shark cage or flying in a Russian MIG. If you want to do the wild adventure vacation thing head over to those blogs. Unfortunately, there’s no decompression chamber (that doesn’t involve alcohol) once you’ve fulfilled your mission.

I’ll ask Dee or Deb for your e-mail address and I understand about the hectic schedule.

I think there’s a big downside to those blogs in that some of the people who have been on them for years are using blogging as a substitute for therapy. But truth be told I wouldn’t torture any of the first-rate therapists I know with some of the former SGM folks I ran into.

😉

Janna: Are you in the DC area? BTW, I do appreciate your comments. You have a lot of insight.

RE Elastigirl on Wed, Aug 03 2011 at 03:18 pm:

Now yer startin’ to sound like an old reprobate free-thinker named Muff Potter!

muff,

I assume that’s a good thing. To get further off topic (well, not entirely), approaching the bible as this guide book and answer book for all aspects of life is like having a micromanaging golf coach.

As one is preparing to swing the coach is instructing do this, do that, no move here, adjust this, twist a little here, move back an inch, hold you head like this, no more like this, tilt yourself like this, lean a little more… all this minutiae of requirements leaves no opportunity to really learn and experience a good swing. It turns what is supposed to become a very natural function into a very unnatural one. It kills the ability of the body and mind to know what a good swing is. Turns the golfer into a robot, a non-thinking replicant of the coach who is entirely dependent on the coach for every single swing, rather than developing into the unique masterful golfer that he or she can be.

In the case of SGM, the minutiae of requirements drowns out what is intuitive, healthy, and plain-as-day (such as healthy and normal compassion and empathy).

More i could say about how this applies to many other aspects of this institution of american christianity, but it’s getting convoluted.

“”There’s an extensive spy network, and informing on people is part of the culture. People do this voluntarily for all kinds of reasons. Some of them for selfish reasons and some of them – far fewer – for idealistic reasons”

This was evident in Brent’s documents for the leadership. But I picked up on it with the membership by reading some sgm stories. It was absolutely chilling because people had no clue but everyone is so nice and paranoid at the same time.

I have seen this environment in companies and it is the type of culture that makes people sick. Literally. Many times it can spring from narcissism from the top. And then those tactics are acted out down the chain as if they are normal. It a “catch you doing something wrong” culture. With a smile, of course.

Evie, I am also very glad you are here to offer insights. Because I have seen some spiritual abuse out there but never a whole culture within a denomination (of sorts) dedicated to it.

“More than anything, members seemed to be on guard, watching out for any hint of reproach, and pouncing on it immediately.”

I saw this on the blogs, too. It is the sort of thing that makes people feel righteous. Anyone who dares to be direct, is given the treatment. I think they like their club and feel special…even the former ones. This is more of the cult thinking that is hard to shed.

Someone should write a book on this because I have never seen anything like it. It is a case study on middle class suburban cult across America. Coming to a state near you.

And Al Mohler endorses it. Actually T$G endorses it.

Janna,

I have a bit of a different take on Josh. I get the feeling he is the guy who hates conflict. And dithers. Or maybe waits to see how it will play out. I konw he did not sign the paper but after reading the docs, listening to him and from researching his stuff from way back, I am wondering if he is just one of those who waits. And he can always say sorry later or give some reason he did such and such.

I am not seeing this resolute leader standing up against the party machine like some others are.

He reminds of a guy I used to work for who always agreed with the last person who talked to him. NIce guy but you know…..

EVen in the FRancis Chan video with Driscoll and Harris, Harris was the nice guy. Did he agree with Chan or Driscoll? Who could tell?

NLR,

Thanks for your 12:11 comment. When I left my RB cult/church, I did so for the PCA, so I was able to truthfully tell those asked that I had left because of doctrinal differences (even after I had left the PCA, I still stuck to that line). The rest simply acted as if I had never existed, despite having what I had thought were very close friendships. I was basically invisible at my (somewhat small) PCA church, so no one noticed when I left and I didn’t have to deal with nosy questions. 🙂 It’s mainly been other people (family who, believe me, do *not* understand), who do. I typically shrug it off with a noncommittal answer.

Frankly, I’d consider it rude and intrusive to ask someone – even a good friend – where they go to church, *unless* they had already brought it up. For “friends” from your former church to ask where you go isn’t polite conversation (as that is hardly a topic of polite conversation); it’s intrusiveness and likely an attempt on their part to figure out if you’re having the spiritual problems that the leaders taught would befall those who leave.

It’s been very comforting to know that it’s incredibly common for former members of abusive/cultic churches to temporarily, if not permanently, stop attending church, reading the Bible, and praying. It really is only those who’ve been through the same thing who understand. That’s not something that’s easy to explain to someone who hasn’t left an abusive/cultic church.

It’s funny that you mentioned taking people off FB, because just last night I finally got around to blocking a bunch of people from my old church. (Most of them already had only limited access to my profile; now they have none.)

I’d love to make it to the CBE conference next year (I’ve found the resources on their website very helpful), if time and resources permit.

Amanda,

You wrote:

It’s been very comforting to know that it’s incredibly common for former members of abusive/cultic churches to temporarily, if not permanently, stop attending church, reading the Bible, and praying. It really is only those who’ve been through the same thing who understand. That’s not something that’s easy to explain to someone who hasn’t left an abusive/cultic church.

I’ve written this and more on my main blog concerning the effects of spiritual abuse. Most people who really “get it” initially have a great deal of trouble with Bible Study because of the trauma of it all. How do you know what you “know” to be true is really true or was ever really true to begin with? It is a very healthy survival response after a trauma to avoid those things which trigger your feelings and cause you to feel threatened. Fellowship, Bible reading, certain songs and worship styles, etc., all get layered in along with the abuse and the skewed teachings, and it takes courage, work, time, and healing to be able to sort through the rubble of the whole experience, especially if you’re a committed Christian.

(This blog is just where I consolidate multiple posts and old archived stuff from UnderMuchGrace.com to make it easier to read):

http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-do-you-study-bible-after-someone.html

Lin,

You are right to say that I found a great deal of resistance over at SGM when I started posting over there (after being invited there to participate in the comments many times beforehand, as I recall).

Again, note that I evaluate the behaviors of a group objectively based on whether or not they meet criteria and patterns, either by the David Henke Spiritual Abuse model, Biderman’s Chart of Coercion, Singer’s model, but I prefer what is more of the gold standard of Robert Lifton’s thought reform criteria.

PDI has been long known to the International Cultic Studies Association as cultic, and SGM also meets the criteria. I was involved in a related group in Maryland that had a relationship with CLC, and one of my old group’s sister church participated regularly with CLC;s youth program. My first assumption was that SGM was not cultic or problematic, but they fit the criteria quite well.

* I experienced a great deal of resistance to the idea of spiritual abuse and of thought reform on one of the survivor blogs. It is terribly threatening to consider that you were essentially and to some degree “brainwashed,” and it is a difficult process.

At the same time, it is also validating to realize that you are not dim witted or foolish but were rather manipulated by a fully orbed process aimed at control of your behavior, thoughts, emotions, and the information that you were given/become willing to accept. We all have our weak moments when we are recruited, and no one can be subjected to these influences without “snapping” to some degree, giving in to the group. So though you learn that something very terrible happened to you, learning about the process gives you tools and the confidence to cope and overcome what was done to you.

At the survivor blogs (I did not visit them all), this message was unwelcome. Even when using only terms concerning “spiritual abuse,” SGMers believed what I was saying was psychology and therefore evil. One of the other exSGM blogs posted their own articles to counter what I was communicating. They believed that I knew nothing about it and was using “wordly” terms to defame the exSGMers as individuals personally because they were too threatened by the information. It was if they refused to take medicine to cure a condition because they were threatened by the idea that they have any condition to start with.

* While actively posting on an exSGM site, I received lots of email from former members or even from people who continued to attend SGM irregularly. I believe now, after several of these emails, that people were asking me a litany of questions so that they could disqualify me in their own minds and could then disregard what I had to say. Two individuals who wrote to me had somewhat serious symptoms of clinical psychiatric disorders (and diagnoses, too), and they asked me about my opinion about meds. I’m a nurse, for heaven’s sake. Did they expect me to say that all they needed was CJ’s nouthetic counseling?

I had another person with a pain disorder ask me about antidepressants, and with this consideration I stated that certain antidepressants can help drastically improve pain tolerance. Anyway, all of these individuals broke contact with me when I stated that meds were not of the devil and were acceptable or could be helpful… In fact, one person even wrote to thank me but stated that her husband had declared that she could no longer be in contact with me.

In retrospect, I believe that the questions about medications were a litmus test, and per SGM standards, I’d failed. I also did not speak favorably about nouthetic counseling, believing it to be especially ineffective when a person has organic problems with their brain — something physiologic. Sometimes the software of our brain is messed up, but nothing except a rare miracle will help a person if their hardware (their physical brain) does not work properly. Depression and OCD and many other brain problems can be helped by alternative therapies and such, but some of it is also related to a disorder of the brain, and that can often be physical.

* On the advent of Noel sharing her story, because there was so much distress and people in the NoVa area that could benefit from a support group meeting, I pulled in favors and had others at ICSA pull in favors to arrange for a former member of an evangelical group very similar to SGM who is now a very talented and experienced exit counselor to travel to NoVa to do a weekend retreat. He agreed to travel at his own expense and do it on a voluntary basis, though he does this same work to make a living. I secured funds to pay for a facility in NoVa. I secured funds to pay for the very experienced and qualified counselor’s expenses (lodging, etc.). The support group (meetings for two days) would cost nothing for those who wanted to come. I was also going to travel from Detroit to coordinate the whole thing.

People said “That’s great!” on the survivor site (big surprise), but not one single individual wanted to come for some productive and healing discussion with their own peers where they could essentially get well on their way to healing themselves. It was not an indoctrination session or anything. These groups are run like a support group, but it is helpful to have a good counselor on site to help keep things focused and productive. Not a single person wanted this help that I worked to arrange for free — not even the people who have come forward to tell their stories online and say that they want healing.

* I am also troubled by the degree of “loaded language” of SGM-speak that is used on these sites, years and years after people have reportedly left SGM. You are never permitted to come right out and say something negative about anyone directly. You are never permitted to say anything that challenges a leader that SGM held in high esteem. (For instance, I committed a grave sin by stating that Ken Sande’s behavior was very subversive and that he had not properly discerned the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. I was chastised for suggesting that the hosts of the Pyromanics blog were not on part with the same demigod status held by CJ. I was chastised for saying that CJ Mahaney would do nothing but manipulate people who went to him for private meetings to discuss their serious problems with SGM.)

Many of the people participating there never have broken free of the cultic manipulation demanded at SGM. They continue to use the specialized language which SGM teaches as the only proper communication style for a true and earnest Christian. They continue to use the passive-aggressive, maudlin style demanded of them in the group in order to maintain milieu control. They still abide by the principles of thought reform and spiritual abuse, even though they may have left an SGM church. They don’t want to leave. They want to fix SGM, but there is no fixing it without addressing and renouncing the patterns of spiritual abuse.

There are also those who believe that it is a grave sin to entertain the idea that CJ Mahaney is not 100% ethical, honorable, compassionate, and concerned for them. I think he’s a very experienced, charismatic leader of a very powerful spiritually abusive group that has been in existence for the better part of 40 years. People choose to deny this and choose to put all their faith in their belief in CJ’s virtue.

They still follow the milieu control rules, the sacred science demand, the demand for purity, the doctrine over person requirement, the loaded language used in SGM, the confession techniques of manipulation (they just moved from their care groups on to do the same thing on the blogs), they only “dispense existence” to those who are former SGM members and hold to their own group (tribalism).

Whether they still participate in the mystical manipulation aspects of SGM, I know not, because that’s something difficult to evaluate via conversation back and forth on a blog, unless people start prophesying to one another. Mystical manipulation also accounts for and is supported by the mechanism of grapevine communication of info up through the ranks of the SGM system.

People automatically start collecting information from fellow members and pass it up through the hierarchy under the guise of spiritual concern. This info is collected by middle management/care group leaders (I was part of middle management for a short time in my own group) and is fed to coordinators, elders, and overseers. This info can then be used to manipulate followers, all with the appearance of spontaneity, making it appear like the leaders have divine insight.

>>>>

So I agree that on many of these former SGM blogs, those who participate there are there as a form of (ineffective) therapy, and they don’t really want to get well. That is fairly normal for a time after a person has exited a group. This stuff is hard to hear and to take in all at once. But I see the same names and the same people saying the same things that I saw 3 years ago — people who do not want to grow beyond the system. They are determined to rescue CJ or to believe in him hard enough that God will work some miracle to make SGM the utopian group that they need it to be.

Some give mental ascent to the idea of spiritual abuse but claim that they were never affected, denying that the obsession with participation on these blogs is part of their symptomatology. “It didn’t happen to me!” (But they know that it did on some level, so they keep coming back to discuss their pain.)

Some outright refuse to give up their belief that if only A, B, and C can happen, SGM will be the best place in the world. This is also a part of cultic programming. I was told many times at my own poor country cousin group in Maryland that no church would ever remotely be as good as theirs. And when I left “without their blessing and permission,” the leaders prophesied that great harm would come to me. These are control mechanisms, and many at these blogs choose to believe them.

@Cindy and @Deb –

I concur with your observations 100%. I haven’t played around much with the official SGM blog but that Survivors blog has some serious issues regarding some of the people who are attracted to it/the way it’s managed, in my opinion.

It has developed as much of a cult following as SGM itself and in some ways does more harm than good even though there are positive aspects to it. Some of those folks need therapy and their time would be better spent doing practical things such as writing to their local congress-person to overturn an unjust clergy privilege law or consulting with an attorney about the secret file SGM has on them as opposed to blogging endlessly about the SAME ISSUE year after year.

The terms of use policy on the Survivors blog is vague and in theory it welcomes outsider opinions. Yet I don’t know a single non-SGMer who has posted there frequently who hasn’t been subtly or not-so-subtly encouraged to leave because he/she wasn’t really part of the club by the moderators, not just the posters.

The litmus test appears to be, “have you ever been part of an SGM church” rather than “do you have a personal connection to SGM or a serious interest in helping people who have been abused by it.”

I feel for the abuse victims yet when it comes to identifying cults intellectual honesty compels me to call a spade a spade regarding that Survivors blog.

RE Elastigirl on Wed, Aug 03 2011 at 05:58 pm:

You wrote:

“…I assume that’s a good thing. To get further off topic (well, not entirely), approaching the bible as this guide book and answer book for all aspects of life is like having a micromanaging golf coach…”

It IS a good thing Elastigirl! I lived for years under the authoritarian boot of a Bibliocentric (Church) regime that believes this very thing. Looking back on it now, I don’t see how I survived such a regime. It crushes and brutalizes the human spirit in ways that are subtle and cruel. I am glad to be free.

@Dylan – I concur 100%. It’s amazing what happens when you just sit down and listen to God.

HowDee YaAll,

I can aboutz hears C.J. Mahaney right about now…

“I went down to the crossroads, fell down on my knees…
 I went down to the  crossroads, fell down on my knees…
Ask’ed the Lord for mercies….(save poor C.J)… if you pleazze…”

“I went down to the crossroads, tried to flag a’ride
 I went down to the crossroads, -tried to flag a “Reformed”ride…
Didn’t nobody seem to know me…, everybody’s  pass’in me by’e…”

>grin<

dut duh'  dut, do da' do…
dut duh'  dut, do da' do…

den he be a say'in…

"You can run, you can run, tell my friend, Mark Dever 
 You can run, you can run, tell my friend, Mark Dever :

…That I'm stand'in at the crossroads, I believe I'm sinkin down…"

hahahahahaha

Sopy

Deb,

as I was say’in…

You just may have a connection with C.J.’s relationship with the distinguished Washington Baptist minister, in the influence department *and the gradual move of his whole organization (PDI) into the reformed camp some time after the name change. 

* (If that is so, is the Ceege listening? Ha ha …

“The congregation has real authority. It is also true that the Bible presents the local congregation as having the final say in matters of dispute, doctrine, discipline, and membership. The congregation exercises this authority for the maintenance of the Body’s health and for the accountability of the elders”. 
— 9marks.org, Mark Dever )

Direct knowledge of the sources of C.J.’s influence? Nahhhh. However, I saw no indications of Calvinistic leanings prior to Larry’s departure, nor did anyone else of my acquaintance. 

(Remember, around that time, the whole * shepherding thing blew up, with mayacopas all around as late as 1989, if my gray matter serves me right?, he, he.  )

Remember also,  Derek Prince admitted to the practice of witchcraft for twelve years. 

(http://www.doyledavidson.com/news/testimonies/shepherding.html)

If they were following the big five when that thing really went south, well, we’re talking large vacuum here–don’t cha hear dat sucking sound?  …C.J. had to go somewhere, right?  Larry had hit a dead-in and his effort/vision, was no longer self-sustaining in it’s (then) current form. Did it became a “vision issue”? Well, as early as 92, Larry was kinda looking stretched … IMHO, while waiting for the next wave, huh?

Conjecture?  Mmmmmmmm, could beeeeeeeee…

Da daa,da…fun, fun, fun, till Larry got kicked to the curb?

hahahahaha

Sopy

(spiritual armchair quarterbacking is sooooo much fun, don’t cha know? >grin<

__
Googling (shepherding movement) brings up a ton O' stuff, yours included: http://thewartburgwatch.com/category/shepherding-movement/