Sovereign Grace Ministries – Who’s Confused About Apostolic Ministry?

“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” (ESV) 

 

Pope With the College of Cardinals (courtesy Malta Diocese)

 

“Change is here to stay” is the mantra long-time SGMers have heard over and over and over again. You see, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) has been morphing itself over the years. First it was called “People of Destiny”; then its name changed to “PDI International”. Finally, in 2002 this family of churches became known as “Sovereign Grace Ministries”. The “Gathering of Believers”, which is the Gaithersburg fellowship, also had a name change. Now it is called Covenant Life Church.

Names aren’t the only things that have changed in SGM. Methodologies and theological interpretations have been subject to change since it was formally organized in 1982. The most recent change was announced on the SGM blog earlier this week, which you can read here.

It seems that two Sovereign Grace church members wrote SGM headquarters to inquire about whether the apostolic team still exists. Yes, Sovereign Grace Ministries has had “apostolic” leaders until very recently. Here’s an excerpt from the SGM website:

“The apostolic team, for those of you new to Sovereign Grace Ministries, was for many years what we called the team of pastors who help us facilitate church planting, international ministry, and church care. But over time, we discovered the name confused more people than it helped, so now we’re considering alternatives.”
 

Confused people? Dee and I weren’t confused and we doubt many others were either. Using language like “confused” is sometimes used as a method of intimidation. We knew exactly what SGM meant by this grandiose title. Instead, people were extremely CONCERNED and likely knew what they were up to by using such lofty titles. Truly, it was embarrassing!
 

The explanation on the SGM website continues with the following:
 

“We’ve also gained a better understanding of the term “apostolic,” which makes us even more careful in how we apply it.”

 

Gained a better understanding? After existing for ALMOST TWO DECADES!!! Who’s really confused here? Is SGM admitting that its hermeneutics were flawed when they first defined their ministry? Could it be that their hermeneutics are still flawed and that we should be questioning other aspects of their church polity? Not only that, Sovereign Grace Ministries dares to train future ministers in its very own Pastors College instead of hiring seminary graduates. Truly, it boggles the mind to realize that significant theological changes are still being made in SGM.
 

The SGM website further states:
 

“So for now, the team is more commonly just called the regional leadership team. (For more on the role of apostolic ministry in the church’s mission, see Dave Harvey’s blog post, “Apostolic Ministry and Church Planting.”)”

The “regional leadership” moniker comes from the fact that Sovereign Grace churches are currently grouped into eight regions, and each pastor on the team is responsible for serving the churches of one region. It’s a broad role, but primarily involves the following:
 

  •  Helping pastors develop and execute church planting plans
  •  Providing care and counsel for pastors when requested
  •  Facilitating cooperation among churches for regional events, mission trips, or other activities
  •  Coordinating the ordination process for new pastors
  •  Building relationships with other churches who are interested in joining Sovereign Grace Ministries
  • Assisting in the assessment, training, and deployment of church planters”

 

What really concerns us is that Sovereign Grace Ministries appears to be changing titles without really changing roles. We believe those on the “apostolic team” will continue to operate in the same manner, so what’s really changed? This appears to be the “Lipstick on a Pig” syndrome.
 

Apparently, there have been so many concerns about Sovereign Grace Ministries that its leaders appear to be morphing it into a new entity that is more palatable to the new reformed homies they’re running around with. What a contrast between SGM’s mantra “change is here to stay” and God’s truth, as stated in Malachi 3:6: “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” (ESV) 

It’s Happening Now Alert:

There has been an outcry about a commercial that was supposed to air during the Superbowl. This was an entry in the annual Pepsi-owned Doritos “Crash the Super Bowl” ad contest that will never see airtime . It presents the bread and wine used in communion as snack foodHowever, as our readers will discover, this commercial is in poor taste and will offend most Christians. Apparently, Frito-Lay, a division of PepsiCo has wisely pulled the ad. To be fair, USA Today reports, link here, that “the maker of the ad, a Philadelphia firm called Media Wave Productions, however, says that interpretation is way off base….Dave Williams, president of MediaWave, says he pulled the ad from Pepsi’s site and from YouTube. “We felt bad,” he says. “Our intention was to win, not to offend.”

The writer of this article for USA Today further notes: ” Williams says in a comment on this blog that it walks a bit like a duck but is not a duck — that there are tiny signs throughout that this is not really a parody of Communion. I watched for a second and third time and yes, those little signs are embedded but … overall, I’d conclude like most viewers, I suspect, quack quack quack.”  I am curious if our readers can spot these clues.

However, I find this commercial almost a parody of today’s “seeker-driven, get ’em in the door by any means possible in order to improve our bottom line” church.  Those clues are far easier to spot. See what you think.

Lydia’s Corner: Leviticus 22:17-23:44 Mark 9:30-10:12 Psalm 44:1-8 Proverbs 10:19

Comments

Sovereign Grace Ministries – Who’s Confused About Apostolic Ministry? — 84 Comments

  1. Has anyone ever tallied the number of changes at SGM at the “apostolic” level? Still haven’t heard the full story on why Brent Detwiler isn’t listed anymore. And why is Gene Emerson still listed in “leadership” after an admitted 10-year cover up?

  2. Roadwork

    You should know that the leaders are only accountable to other leaders. They will not care what you or I think until their incomes sharply decline. The almighty buck talks.

    As for Emerson, they will come up with all sorts of excuses for him. Remember, it you are a pastor, you are anointed and get a pass. The average joe in the congregation would have been drawn and quartered and shot at dawn.

  3. I reckon “apostolic” is meant to get people to accept what you say unquestioningly, kind of like “spirit-filled” is empasized by a lot of sociopathic pastors that want you to think to question them fellas is to go directly against God.

  4. Roadwork,

    I have been reading your commentary over at SGM Survivors and SGM Refuge, and it appears that you may be a fairly new commenter because I’ve been following these blogs for over two years. If I’m right, you likely never read the SGM Refuge post about Brent Detwiler.

    http://sgmrefuge.com/2009/07/27/bye-brent/

  5. Dee said, “Remember, it you are a pastor, you are anointed and get a pass.” Tell that to all the pastors that have been degifted over the years. Only certain ones seem to get a pass. The rest might as well have been “shot”. SGM certainly “shot” their reputations.

    Deb: I think I went through at least part of that thread but I don’t recall any real answers. I’ll go back through it again. It’s a shame that the blogs are the only form of real newsletter on SGM.

  6. What an awesome commercial…Pepsi always has the best, why in the world would they pull it. It’s not like the Church hasn’t been engaged in marketing to fill the seats for, I dunno, maybe 2000 years or so.

    The threat of burning at the stake, the inquisition, etc. did a pretty good job of keeping people in church, but even the church learned that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

    Now, if they only offered a free state lottery ticket after your 5th communion, it would be perfect.

  7. Sure, and I’d be certain to leave a copy of one of Dawkin’s books on the pew for the next guy…kind of like when you find a “four spiritual laws” in the bathroom or stuck in a magazine you just bought at the bookstore 🙂

  8. “Lipstick on a Pig” syndrome.

    😀

    Perhaps the most concise, albeit grotesque, analogy of SGM to date.

  9. As a casual observer on this question, I would say, Yes. SGM has indeed changed its beliefs about apostolic ministry and its interpretation of scripture.

    I suspect, and it is clearly just suspicion, but that there was no way CJ could maintain with a straight face that he was an apostle while hanging out with Mohler, Dever et al. I know that you guys do not like Mohler and Dever or Sproul etc. But one thing they are very clear on in their theology is that neither CJ nor they are apostles. I am almost certain that this has had an impact on CJ.

    As to whether SGM correctly trains its ministers or encourages the assumptions of power illegitimately, that is another question. That syndrome exists even in churches where there is a pure democracy (one man, one vote etc.), but where the pastor is larger than life and basically controls everything from the pulpit such that the votes are really not votes.

    But I can applaud the fact that SGM may be moving away from this reckless “apostle” talk.

    Baby steps. Baby steps.

  10. Anonymous,

    As SGM morphs into something more palatable to CJ’s homies, let’s never forget all those who have been victimized in this “family of churches”, particularly the children. My heart breaks for them, and they are the primary reason why we will continue to hold Sovereign Grace Ministries accountable in this forum.

  11. Frankly, I don’t know what all the fuss is about. I have no problem with a church calling someone an apostle, if they are one. Same goes for prophet, evangelist, teacher, and pastor. I think people are offended by these terms because their theology does not allow for these ministries to be present in today’s church. And with such a short-sighted theology, they contribute as much to the abuse as those who use these terms, in my opinion.

    I also think many churches gain further understanding and regroup after they determine they were wrong about something.

  12. I’ve always thought that there was a difference between an apostle, little a, a term that is basically equivalent to missionary (“sent one”), and Apostle, big A, which refers to the twelve and Paul. I think the problem that arises is, since the little a version is essentially replaced by missionary in our modern vocabulary, a claim of “apostlehood” is interpreted as claiming a position equal to Peter or Paul.

  13. Garland

    I am inclined to think that those in SGM, who have claimed such a title, have aspirations that are far higher than a mere missionary since they have rarely supported missionary efforts in any significant way.

  14. Garland:

    I’m not sure how we got the big A to begin with. There are not only the twelve plus Paul, but around five others mentioned in the New Testament by name. Then there are the ones referred to in Ephesians, which opens the door for there to be many more, when you consider the context and purpose of the five ministry types mentioned there. It is the putting the twelve on a pedestal that makes it seem that apostleship today seems unapproachable. The original were sent just like you and I are sent and we must assume that we are not inferior in any way to them, except they were with Jesus physically.

  15. Deb,
    “Lipstick on a pig” — are we wandering into political commentary now? 🙂

    Michael,
    Can you elaborate on what you believe about the nature of apostolic (and prophetic, and pastoral) ministry? Or is there any source you can refer me to? It seems to me that many folks do have an aversion, as you suggested, to the idea of a current apostolic ministry, based on the elevation of the 12 and the assumption that being an apostle carries with it some higher authority than other functions within the body of Christ. But the assumption that an apostle is a unique and elevated position is pretty much all I’ve heard taught, not only by those who believe there are not apostles today, but also by some who claim for themselves the title of apostle today (as in some charismatic groups). So I’m interested in what you believe is the biblical concept of these functions.

  16. Junkster:

    Ephesians 4:11-13 says, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”

    First, most believers have no problem whatsoever recognizing the ministries of pastors, teachers, and evangelists in the body of Christ, for the equipping of the saints, etc. Doesn’t it seem very inconsistent for believers to recognize these three and arbitrarily leave out apostles and prophets? Consider that this passage is the ONLY passage in the entire New Testament that mentions the word, “pastor.”

    I think we elevate these three because they give us the warm and fuzzies and they don’t scare us like the other two. We surround the other two with so much mystique, unduly. But, do the saints still need equipping? If we leave off the first two, will the saints be equipped adequately? These ministries are supposed to be present UNTIL we all attain the unity of the faith. Has that happened?

    We don’t like the first two because in our minds we have elevated them to some place of authority. There is authority associated with them, but not more authority than the other three. God has given authority to everyone to the level that they have responsibility in an area. When we walk in humility as God intended, we can minister in a collaborative effort with no one feeling threatened. When ministers are egocentric and need their power and authority defined in the eyes of others, they lift some ministry positions up and put some down.

    I don’t know all the functions God intended in the ministry of an apostle or prophet, but I think at a minimum, the functions are what their words mean, apostle meaning sent one and prophet meaning one who forth tells.

  17. Michael,

    I understand the point you’re trying to make regarding apostles, but I have to ask this question about Sovereign Grace Ministries. What do you think this hyper-auhoritarian ministry meant by “apostolic leaders”? Remember, the sheeple have absolutely no authority in SGM.

  18. Michael

    Can you explain more specifically what you think an apostle is supposed to do? I understand that it might include the equipping of the saints but that function is often carried out be pastors and teachers. How would you differentiate the job description? What exactly is meant by “equipping the saints?” Must the exact manifestation of the equipping be defined? This is a most interesting question and I have not given it more than a cursory thought.

    However, I do know that old CJ seemed to love his old title of Head Apostle. If I look at him, I think of an overbearing man who has used ministry to elevate CJ while pretending to be “humble.” Blech! He now appears to find the title inconvenient so—“so long” apostle except nothing will change.

  19. Deb:

    I have no idea what SGM means by “apostolic leaders.” I know almost nothing about SGM. But, as in any ministry, it should exist to serve, not lord over. I would not throw out the term “apostle” just because some abuse their supposed authority any more than I would the term “pastor” for the same type of abuse.

  20. One person on SGM Survivors quoted a section of Grudem’s book Systematic Knowledge where he talks about use of the term “apostle.” This book from what I have heard was (and may still be) well esteemed in SGM circles. .

    Grudem questioned the use of the term today .

    This is the quote from Grudem’s book that the person shared on SGM Survivors:

    “Page 911 (it’s an emergency)
    Church Government: Apostles:
    C. Summary: The word apostle can be used in a broad or narrow sense. In a broad sense, it just means “messenger” or “‘pionner missionary.” but in a narrow sense, the most common sense in the NT, it refers to a specific office “apostle of Jesus Christ.” These apostles had unique authority to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write words of God. Many of their written words became the NT scriptures.
    In order to qualifiy as an apostle, someone (1) had to have seen Christ with his won eyes after he rose from the dead, and (2) had to have been specifically appointed by Christ as an apostle. There was a limited number of apostles, perhaps fifteen or sixteen or a few more–the NT is not explicit on the number. The twelve original apostles (the eleven plus Matthias) were joined by Barnabas and Paul, very probably James, perhaps Silas, and maybe even Andronicus and Junias or a few unnamed others. It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today. In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in thebooks of the New Testament. Those NT Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative reaching and governing functioins which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.
    (this is where it gets good!)
    Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read the New Testament and see the high authority that is attributed to the office of “apostle” there. It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church– not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield– has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title”apostle” to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by innappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have.”

    It is posted on the following link (comment 390):

    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=45&cp=8

    Thus maybe Mahaney and the other “apostles” finally read the book they endorsed. Notice the part that says that no major leader in church history has used this title.

  21. Steve240,

    I seem to recall reading about an abridged Systematic Theology text by Grudem that SGM uses in its Pastors College. Is that true? Perhaps this explanation about “apostle” was left out of that version?

  22. Steve

    Thank you for that. I taught, along with my husband and another man, through Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Although I have differences with him on what I consider to be secondary issues, actually profound differences, it was a helpful outline of the issues. For example, Grudem would not have approved my teaching theology from his book. Rather amusing, when you think about it.

  23. Dee:

    In a very general sense, what I observe in scripture is apostles being sent out to win the lost and build up the body of Christ in various places other than in their home town. I knew someone in college who would come as close to an apostle as anyone I’ve ever met. He was an older man in Waco, TX, but he would be led to go somewhere in the world, would lead some to Christ, disciple them for a time, establish a church and be on his way. He would check on them from time to time.

    His teaching was distinctly different from that of a pastor. Where pastors and teachers tend to exposit the scriptures and go in depth, he taught from a bird’s-eye view, revealing broader, more general truth, showing how truth is connected to other truth throughout scripture. If this kind of teaching is characteristic of other apostles, you can see how useful it could be to the body of Christ, providing a perspective that could help tie things together for believers.

    One small example of this was his teaching on how we are spirit, soul, and body. Then he talked about how we have been saved, are being saved, will be saved; we were justified, are being sanctified, we will be glorified, etc. Just knowing these outlines can give someone understanding that would keep them out of a lot of theological error. But these broader outlines are not typically laid out by pastors or teachers.

    I’m not sure all that’s involved in equipping the saints. But, if the saints are not working, serving, building up the body of Christ, then they probably have not been adequately equipped. And I believe that part of the reason they have not been adequately equipped is we’re trying to equip them with three out of five arms tied behind our backs. When we leave the equipping only to pastors and teachers, then we have a body that is severely handicapped and trying to function, but is basically crippled. Please don’t tell me that’s not the state of the church today, because it is.

    When we begin to acknowledge these ministries, then there will be a decentralizing of authority and we will see less abuse and more accountability, in my opinion. Just think, when we give place to prophetic ministries, which many on this blog have, instead of kicking the prophets out of church, and we honor their voice and message equally with a pastor’s, imagine the kind of humility, accountability, holiness, checks and balances, vision, correction, etc. that the body of Christ can be blessed with. Instead, pastors in their supposed authority, do all they can to rid themselves of the prophets, so their supposed authority will not be questioned, brought to account, lined up with scripture. Maybe this is the case with churches like SGM.

  24. I am glad that portion of Gruden’s document was helpful.

    From what I recall reading SGM uses and abridged version of Grudem’s book that for whatever reason doesn’t include the section above that discusses the modern day use of the title “apostle.”

  25. Michael

    I agree that the saints are not well-equipped. In a previous church, I was concerned that people were supporting Benny Hinn and others of his ilk. I asked the pastor why he didn’t preach out against that stuff. he claimed he was doing it through general principles. I claimed that it wasn’t getting through but he wasn’t going to change and I got that loud and clear.

    I agree that some pastors try to get rid of the prophets like Nathan, etc. who confront them. Instead they surround themselves with Bubbas who support their every whim and rarely challenge them on the essentials. This is a travesty.

    Do you think that any para-church groups fit an apostle model?

  26. Steve240

    I have heard that SGM teaches an abridged version of Grudem’s work. If one teaches through the entire Systematic Theology, one will find that people are forced to confront a number of issues that they prefer to ignore.

    My question is how Grudem fits into the SGM scene? Is he sell-out? I heard he has taught at the now non-functional Pastors College. Why would he participate in such a lightweight enterprise?

  27. I want to repeat (for emphasis) what Steve240 shared from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology text (p. 911):

    “Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read the New Testament and see the high authority that is attributed to the office of “apostle” there. It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church– not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield– has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title”apostle” to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by innappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have.”

    It highlights the reason why we wrote this post.

  28. Deb

    But doesn’t CJ consider himself the “worst sinner in the world?” Therefore, he elevates himself to a new category above Calvin. Wait………I get it, he was concerned that it elevated him above Mohler and that is a real problem for his future. I finally under$tand.

  29. Apostle Schmapostle…. I tend to think that christianity is largely bible worship, and to put a finer point on it, “Paul worship”. The bible is amazing and a treasure, and God communicated (communicatES) through it. But, I do think christians (as emulated by their leaders) often read more into it than is actually there, coming up with all sorts of convoluted systems, and complex sieves we feel we need to force our lives through.

    (This pursuit of systems & sieves creates jobs, justifies control, justifies a whole host of things, and of course brings in $.)

    The way I see it, things can be summed with:

    “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
    ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:37-39)
    “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” (Galatians 5:6)

    As far as “apostle” goes and what it does or doesn’t mean… it all makes me think of how, in the jobs my husband and I have had, sometimes people are called managers, or supervisors, or directors…. and the function is pretty much the same. No need to dissect it to oblivion.

    So many resources (time, money, emotion, energy, paper, ink, bytes, electricity…) are poured into endless discussions that amount to “It’s gray-blue.” “Absolutely not, it’s blue-gray.” “Come now, folks, the plain-seeing is “green-blue.” “Perhaps, but because I don’t want to agree with you I’ll call it “blue-green.” “It is turquoise, and anyone who is of a different opinion is obviously not part of the club.” “I’m publishing a new book called “Recovering Teal: A Response to Turquoise” which my friends & I spent months on, taking us away from our families and all other relationships and responsibilities, but we’re charging $39.99 per copy and forming a coalition…

  30. Elastigirl:

    When you wrote in the last thread, “boy, those people in Acts, what abusers they were!” I literally laughed out loud. And your last paragraph here is making me crack up. Great points and great wit. Thanks for making me laugh. You’re spot on.

    In response to Grudem’s quote, I don’t think biblical terminology needs to be changed because Christians unduly elevated the term, “apostle,” more than they should have and people with little understanding got confused. And the fact that godly men have the humility to not label themselves apostles because they don’t want to be presumptuous, does not mean they were not apostles. And if they feel they are in danger of raising suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, simply by allowing themselves to be called apostles, what does that say for those that allow themselves to be called evangelists or pastors? And if we say, well, pastors are not as elevated as apostles, then why do we elevate them so much?

    Just walk up to almost anyone in your church and ask them, “How many apostles were there?” Nine times out of ten, they will respond, “Twelve.” And because they think erroneously that the only apostles were the ones Jesus spent time with, they elevate them. They forget that Matthias was added to the 11. Then there was Paul. In addition, there was Silvanus and Timothy, and Barnabas, and two or three more that I can’t think of right now. And I feel certain that there were more that were apostles, but just not named as such in the bible.

    The point is, let’s kick out all the pedestals and understand that these are just mere men and none of us are inferior to them in any way. God speaks to and through us just as much, if we’ll allow Him to, and that each of us has our important functions in the body of Christ.

  31. Call them apostles, Pastors, managers, facilitators,bishops,ministers,deacons,priests,popes or directors. An authoritarian Christian leader by any other name will still cause the body of Christ grief but they must beware they do not cause any of His little ones to stumble.

  32. No one is disputing the fact that “apostle” is a term for a group of people whom God has given to the church.

    But I believe that the twelve, Paul and the others who had been with Jesus did have a special calling that, in my opinion, included some apostolic authority. Later apostles were indeed “sent ones”, but did not have the authority that Paul, Peter and the others displayed.

    Now, lots of people can take issue with me about what I believe, and that is fine.

    But as one person above noted, one cannot tell what SGM means by the term. And therein lies the problem.

    From what I can gather, SGM churches claim a certain authority such as that claimed (rightly, I believe) by Paul, Peter etc.

    Baptists often engage in this same authority claim for their “Pastors.”

    I do believe that God calls leaders for the church, but the leadership has lots of qualifications. And I don’t believe there is any leader in today’s church that has the type of calling that Paul, Peter and the others had.

    I believe that any church that wants to use the term “Apostle” should be very clear about what it means.

  33. I think the point here is that SGM leaders, the “anointed” ones, regardless of
    what they call themselves, believe that they are closer to god, are above the flock, and speak with God’s authority. To use the term Apostle in conjunction with those beliefs is a pretty clear statement.

    There are many SGM Pastors who place CJ on the same level as Paul and Peter.

    For SGM to say that they were confused about what an Apostle is, is like McDonald’s saying they were confused about what a hamburger is.

    One could debate gray-blue / blue-gray with one another as a customer,
    but should expect that after 35 years, the purveyor would know exactly what he is selling, and what to call it.

    It smacks of disingenuous backpedaling to me.

    BTW, Elastigirl – hope you do not mind me borrowing your color
    analogy.

  34. Unassimilated said:

    “For SGM to say that they were confused about what an Apostle is, is like McDonald’s saying they were confused about what a hamburger is.”

    Bravo! This statement bears repeating.

  35. Apostle has always meant sent one. It was no different for Paul and Peter than for anyone else who might be sent. We worship the same God, and the same Holy Spirit that worked in them is the same one who works in us. If they were elevated above others in authority, then those today are, too. If they were not, then neither are those today. It’s high time we stop elevating men.

    I don’t think there is any biblical basis for the distiction Anonymous makes between the twelve and other apostles, except the distinction of them having been with Jesus.

  36. I always thought it so funny (in my own twisted sort of way), when Dave Harvey or CJ would talk about the fact that they were Apostles with a little a, not a big A….

    In my opinion, they are both big A’s….but not in the Apostolic sense of the phrase…sorry to drag you all down, but I just remember trying to keep a straight face when these guys would say this….

  37. THE MARKS OF A TRUE APOSTLE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO WERE POSING AS THEM IN THE EARLY CHURCH
    ‘What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles;in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

    If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.” 2 Corinthians 11.21-33, NIV

  38. Doubtful

    Actually Deb and I have had our share of laughs at the bombastic pomposity of Mahaney and gang. I think that is why some of the leaders like these guys. They, too, want to pretend something that they are not.

  39. Michael

    I thought there was a distinction for those who had been with Jesus. My understanding is that was defining and unique feature that would never again be part of the Christian scene. Everything seems to revolve around them in the early church. When I reads books on how we got our canon, it is often stated that “so and so” knew the Apostle John, etc. Thoughts?

  40. “I don’t think there is any biblical basis for the distiction Anonymous makes between the twelve and other apostles, except the distinction of them having been with Jesus.”

    Not sure about this. While it means “sent one”, the “12” are mentioned in Rev. But who is the 12th? It is not Judas. Is it Mattias or Paul? I think it is Paul because he did have a revelation and was chosen to go to the Gentiles. We never hear about Mattias again.

    The 12 map to the 12 tribes. In almost every letter, So, there had to be 12 bonafide Apostles for Revelation passage to work.

    Paul describes himself as a Apostle. He defends this position. Also Acts is called the Acts of the Apostles and Paul features in Acts. .

    But it is also Paul that describes others as ‘apostles’ such as Junia.

    But the most glaring thing about the “big A” Aposltes is that their demise is not mentioned in any scripture. Except for Judas..who was a fraud. Perhaps that is so we won’t elevate them as great men and martyrs and worship their lives and deeds. But Worship the ONE who made the sacrifice.

  41. “The 12 map to the 12 tribes. In almost every letter, So, there had to be 12 bonafide Apostles for Revelation passage to work.”

    Sorry, that made no sense. I meant to say that in almost every letter Paul describes himself as an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

  42. 14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

    Rev 21

  43. Lydia has it right when she says, Worship the One, and we don’t need to elevate them.

    Obviously, the one biblical distinction is that some apostles had been physically with Jesus. Besides that, I don’t know of another distinction. I am aware of the Revelation scriptures about the 12 and can draw a parallel to the 12 tribes. But, we don’t know who the 12 are. How do we know one of the twelve isn’t Timothy or even another apostle not mentioned or one who is not even born yet? I’m not aware of any ancestral lineage, mapping each of the original 12 to specific tribes. And if it is some spiritual mapping, the 12 could be anybody.

    If Paul describes others, like Junias and Andronicus, as apostles, then they are bonafide apostles, as well. So there were 19 or 20 apostles, at least, and some of the later apostles may have been more influential than the ones that had been with Jesus. So, those who would try to elevate the original above the later apostles are just speculating, in my opinion.

    I can see how the earlier 12 could lend credibility to the books that have been canonized. The other apostles could have done the same. The distinctions have been made for years, Dee, but like so many other teachings, like tithing, passed down from pastor to pastor, or seminary to pastor, they often just perpetuate a wrong teaching. I think that’s the case with elevating the original 12.

  44. “But, we don’t know who the 12 are. How do we know one of the twelve isn’t Timothy or even another apostle not mentioned or one who is not even born yet? I’m not aware of any ancestral lineage, mapping each of the original 12 to specific tribes. And if it is some spiritual mapping, the 12 could be anybody.”

    I have not seen Timothy referred to as an apostle in scripture. Paul does map his lineage in scripture as he defends his being an bonafide apostle. But I know what you mean that the lineage is not mapped for the others except they are all Jews. But Jews of the 1st Century would have seen the significance of the “12”, in the first place. Most likely rankled the Pharisees bad since they were not even the creme of the rabbinical crop!

    In Luke 10, Jesus sends out 72 “others” after He sends out the 12. they are not called apostles so I am not sure what that means.

    To be totally honest, I have my doubts about the casting lots in Acts to find the next apostle. What I mean is that they may be been premature and should have waited on God. The passage is descriptive in nature. Yet they prayed about it.

    In effect, Paul describes himself as one of the apostles. Note what he says here:

    5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. 2 Corin 11

    11 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,”[a] even though I am nothing. 12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles. 2 Corin 12

    He was constantly defending his apostle status even in the way he addressed his audience in his letters.

  45. Anonymous:

    Look at I Thessalonians 2:6 where they write, “even though as apostles, WE,” referring to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. From chapter one, verse one, all the way to and through 2:6, the pronoun is not, “I,” but, “we.”

    Yes, Paul defends his apostleship and was not inferior to the others, even though he was not physically with Jesus. In my mind, that also sets a precedence for other apostles who were not physically with Jesus, to not be inferior to those apostles. Let’s also not misinterpret, when he uses the word, “super-apostles,” I think he’s being a little sarcastic or tongue and cheek with the idea that, even then, people were wrongly elevating these apostles, just because they had been with Jesus. Who could blame Paul, since he had such a revelation from Christ, for counting himself as not inferior and, in that context, take a small jab at people’s elevation of the others?

  46. Michael, I agree with you in much. But I hope the only thing that Paul felt elevated him was not an experience he had on a road, but the spilled blood of Jesus and the gift of being a child of the living God. (Other than that, it’s great fun to take jabs at people’s silly self exultation.)

  47. Stunned, I’m sure that’s true about Paul, that he didn’t think that revelation exalted him in any way. Quite the contrary, it humbled him. And that’s the context he might have taken jabs at any sort of elevation of other apostles, knowing that we are all beneficiaries of God’s great mercy. Thanks for pointing that out.

  48. Michael/Lydia

    I heard that since Jesus actually called (with a voice) Paul, he was considered the same as the other disciples. Thoughts?

  49. Dee:

    What is it that makes some want to lock in on the 12 as being special? His sheep hear His voice. There are many sheep and we know His voice, don’t we? The bible does not tell us what the qualifications of an apostle are, so the fact that he heard the voice of Jesus does not make him an apostle. Some have heard the voice of Jesus, but are prophets, right?

    The important thing to focus on is that there are apostles today. I’m not saying that one should proclaim oneself to be an apostle, but they know they are, if they are one. There are also prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors. We should strive to recognize all of these so the church won’t be so one-man centered and concentrate all the supposed authority there.

    Trust me, so many have been kicked out of churches because pastors are totally ignorant of the fact that prophets exist today. When a prophet exercises his ministry, because he is not recognized as such and is not welcome, people are often offended. Like I said before, I believe there are several men and women on this blog whose ministry is that of a prophet. I think you called Lydia one. Let’s honor these ministries as valid, appreciate them, knowing that we all benefit from them and are not built up adequately without them.

  50. Micheal, what is your definition of a “prophet”? I am curious because that seems to be an area of disagreement for many.

    I think you make good points. I am leary to continue because it would seem as if I am striving to elevate humans over Christ. And that would never be the case for me. I think Paul is the 12th for the reasons I gave and will leave it at that.

  51. ” heard that since Jesus actually called (with a voice) Paul, he was considered the same as the other disciples. Thoughts?”

    Paul said this about himself in 2 Corin 12:

    1I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and(A) revelations of the Lord. 2I know a man(B) in Christ who fourteen years ago was(C) caught up to(D) the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,(E) God knows. 3And I know that this man was caught up into(F) paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know,(G) God knows— 4and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast,(H) except of my weaknesses. 6Though if I should wish to boast,(I) I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7So(J) to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations,[a](K) a thorn was given me in the flesh,(L) a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8(M) Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9But he said to me, (N) “My grace is sufficient for you, for(O) my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that(P) the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10(Q) For the sake of Christ, then,(R) I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For(S) when I am weak, then I am strong.

    Another thing that is startling about Paul that I did not realize for a long time is that there is a time lag of something like 10-14 years from the time Paul was saved and did his first witnessing in Damascus/Jerusalem (Apostles afraid of him at first) to when he went was sought out in Tarsus by Barnabas and started his missionary journey’s. .We are told nothing about him during that time.

    It is also interesting to note that those with Paul on the road did not hear the voice of the Lord. (I love it when Jesus says: Why are you persecuting ME. Think of that!)

  52. Lydia

    I didn’t realize it was as long as 10-14 years! Wow! Bet he was studying and integrating the new faith into his understanding and lack of understanding of the OT.

    Maybe you could answer another question. There are some who claim that Paul’s call was no different than the call that we all receive to come to Jesus.

    Somehow, it seems to me that it was different. The fact Jesus said that Paul was persecuting Him seems specific. Also, in regards to us, doesn’t the Holy Spirit call us? This was specifically Jesus calling. This Trinity thing is so difficult to understand at times.

  53. Theologians won’t love this as much as I do, Dee, but H2O helps me to understand the trinity a tiny bit. (As much as our puny human brains can understand that which is so far beyond us.) You have probably heard this a million times (or at least thrice) but just in case you haven’t, I’ll share it.

    When I was a little girl, someone told me that we can look at God like we do at water. H2O has three forms (maybe more- I hate science). It can take the form of water, ice and steam. But no matter the form it takes, it is always H2O. You can seperate it (one cup here, one cup there) and spread it out all over, but it’s still H2O.

    Now, maybe I’m super simple but that was kind of enough for me to say, “I kinda get it and I kinda don’t.” But I know for me, I don’t need much to be anything but simple. I figure Jesus is what we see or what came to us in solid form (ice?), God’s Holy Spirit is what speaks to us (steam?) but it’s all God (water?). It’s all the same. So God put on human clothes to call Paul, but He is the exact same one who calls each of us, even though he comes to us in the form of the Holy Spirit. It’s all the same, but clearly since Paul was persecuting followers of Jesus, it would make sense that God would take the form of Jesus to speak to Paul. And who knows how many millions of others that God has shown up to in Jesus form? No where in the bible does it say that that was the only time and would BE the only time Jesus would ever say those words in that form to another human being. (But I’m guessing he wouldn’t be using the words, “Paul, Paul…” Maybe the other times he would need to say, “Sarah, Sarah..” or “Cho, Cho…” or “•Jaideep, •Jaideep…” Or “Irina, Irina…”)

  54. “Maybe you could answer another question. There are some who claim that Paul’s call was no different than the call that we all receive to come to Jesus.”

    I do not hear of many people struck blind for several days but that does not mean it does not happen. What is interesting is that Ananias also heard the voice of the Lord to go to Paul with a message. The Lord had already “talked” to Paul so it is interesting he involved Ananias. Ananias had heard of Paul and was afraid!

    I do not think Paul would have been saved any other way. He was breathing fire against the Christians. hated them. In fact, a close reading of Acts tells us he was even throwing the Christian women in prison! This can only mean he was leaving orphans or taking the children to prison, too.

    When doing this, he already knew what Jesus had claimed about Himself. In effect, we know for a fact he had heard the Gospel from Stephen before he was stoned. .He did not believe…he went on to hunt Christians after hearing the Gospel.

    This does not answer your question but just food for thought. Paul is the only rabbinical scholar out of the 12. (or 13 for Micheal :o). The original were not the creme of the crop. Paul is a Pharisee educated by a most respected rabbi-Gamaliel. But Jesus does not send the educated Pharisee to specifically witness to Jews. He, instead, sends him to the Gentiles. Ironic, huh?

    I do not for one moment think Paul had a choice in his conversion because he was totally disabled. It said he was led to Damascus where he sat and “prayed”. I often wonder about that…”prayed”..to whom? God the Father which would indicate He had a Son named Jesus Christ. . With all that said, I am not a Calvinist. It would be interesting to hear other opinions about conversions we see in the NT. Any others like Paul’s?

    “Also, in regards to us, doesn’t the Holy Spirit call us? This was specifically Jesus calling. This Trinity thing is so difficult to understand at times.”

    Yikes. You ask hard questions! I think we can say the Holy Spirit convicts us our sin and of our need for a Savior. I am doing a study on the Holy Spirit right now and it is so interesting. I am simply taking all references about Him and looking at the context. I am coming even more strongly to the conclusion the Trinity is totally united in Will and WORK. It is helping me to see what heresy ESS is! It is such an insult to Jesus Christ, our precious Savior!

    I can give you examples…In Acts 5, Peter says that they lied to God. then right after that, he says they lied to the Holy Spirit.

    Another example is the ressurection. (I don’t have time to look up the passages and cannot remember them off top of my head) In one place, it says the Holy Spirit will raise Him from the dead. In another place, it says God will. Yet, Jesus said that He would raise Himself from the dead. (He was using the temple metaphor)

    The Trinity is totally united in Will and Work AND there is no pecking order OUTSIDE the Incarnation.

    As an aside, one of the foundational verses for the ESS folks at SBTS is Phil 2. Suzanne does an excellent job showing how newer translations have missed the point in this blog post. I am sure the Calvinists don’t appreciate her showing how Calvin exegeted that passage! It is the opposite of how scholars at SBTS are teaching it!

    But it comes down to folks ignoring the Greek for their own benefit and we are talking about “scholars”:

    http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-even-all-devils.html

  55. Stunned,

    My nephew recently told me the Trinity was like an egg:. Shell, white and yolk.

    But what I am finding in my studies is that each “person” of the Trinity often does the same things. A total united in WILL and even Work.

    Bruce Ware at SBTS says in his book, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that we should not pray to Jesus Christ. It is ok to pray in His name but not
    TO Him because Jesus Christ does not hear our prayers. He says this is because Jesus prayed to God in the garden.

    This is why we must be very careful who we are listening to and learning from. WE MUST study! Consider these….

    John 14:14 “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

    John 14:13 “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

    Acts 7:59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”

    1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

    My friend, Cheryl Schatz, who was conversing with Ware over email about his teaching in his book and on the speaking circut asked him how he has a relationship with Jesus if he never talks to him. She did not get an answer from him.

    Cheryl says: The hierarchical movement has gone so far as to push unbiblical “roles” on the Godhead so now Jesus has been pushed out of a relationship with us with the claims that only the Father has the “role” of hearing and answering prayer. This is the same thing that the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. They too believe that only the Father hears and answers prayers and we are not to have a relationship with Jesus.”

    Did you all catch that? Ware is teaching what the JW’s teach! Cheryl has had a long time ministry to Mormons and JW’s…which are cults

    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

    Be very careful what you believe about the Trinity. There is some very bad stuff out there by trusted scholars…who should NOT be trusted. Anything that lessens Jesus Christ in any way shape or form is NOT from Him.

  56. I don’t know who this Ware is but when someone, ANYONE starts making up rules for how we should talk to our Daddy/Big Brother, I hope people stop up their ears and start singing, “La la la la” at the top of their voices.

    How do so many people miss that it is about a (drum roll- the most important thing on earth here) RELATIONSHIP with God?! I HATE when people split hairs over ridiculous stuff. I remember some old radio call in preacher responding to so many theological questions with something like this, “My first job is to love God with all my heart, all my soul and all my spirit. My next job is to love my neighbor as myself. When I get done doing those first two, then I’ll care about all the othe stuff.” Implication being, “Hey Baby, you ain’t gonna get to the end of the first two until long after you take your dyin’ breath. So focus on him and lovin’ others and let the stupid stuff go.”

    I still think of it when I sit in my homegroup with some of the younger folks (OK, 22 year old seminary student- I love him but man, does he love the law and rules) getting all mashuguna over things that are NOT loving on God or others.

    PS. Lydia, I love it when you bring up obscure* little stuff in the bible. So much fun to see things in a different light.

    * less noticed stuff about Paul “going missing” for 14 years is not the same as people splitting hairs or swallowing a camel when they are busy straining at gnats. It is bringing truth out into the open. Using that truth to hit someone over the head or to waste your time collecting facts ABOUT God while ignoring Him, allowing His heart to long for us all the while is what I am not so cool with. So keep brining those facts up. The nerd** in me loves ’em.

    ** Truth be known, the nerd in me is a larger percentage of my being than I often cop to.

  57. Lydia, I much prefer the idea that God is an overlap, no clear distinctions between him, him and him. (Err… God, HS and Jesus.) I am guessing our brains just can’t comprehend Him all that much.

    As a child, I used to hate when CS Lewis referred to Aslan as a wild animal. Now I get it. God will NEVER make sense to this tiny brain of mine. Wild animal is putting it kindly. I just can’t put him in a box, let alone a cage.

  58. Michael:

    Thanks for your thoughts. We disagree on this point. I do not believe there are apostles today in the same way that the 12 and Paul were apostles. I understand that you do. (btw – I know that the use of “super apostles” by Paul in II Cor is NOT complimentary).

    At any rate, my point is that if SGM is going to believe in an apostleship much like the first Century apostles, then they should say that. If they are not (and it appears that they are changing to follow more of what Dever, Mohler etc. believe) then they should say that.

    I suspect that it was hard for Mahaney to claim to be an apostle of the church while sitting in a room full of guys like Mohler, Dever, Sproul, etc. It would have to be humbling on an intellectual standpoint. And I think that they have caused Mahaney to re-think his position of apostleship, which I think is a good thing.

    Lots of those early Jesus movement type guys (which Mahaney reminds me of) had zeal and desired to have churches that were not controlled by tradition and fine doctrinal distinctions.

    Problem is that those guys learned (and apparently are learning) that there is a great benefit to being educated and being a reader. It can cause problems, true. But it can also give the historical and theological perspective that can help one avoid mistakes and bad theology.

    Other groups use different terms. Charismatics use “annointed” or “annointing” a lot. That is really a subjective term.

    Any term, whether “Apostle”, “Annointed”, etc. that conveys unquestionable authority in today’s church is an abusive thing.

    I am an elder. We have a elder led congregation, so we do make some decsiions. We always seek congregational affirmation on any major decision.

    But none of us would claim to know the mind of God or to speak for God.

    That’s where I see terms like “Apostle” and “Annointed” having potentially harmful effects. Many groups that use these terms don’t allow any questioning of decisions, and if one does, it is a sign of rebellion against God.

  59. Lydia:

    I don’t really have a definition of a NT prophet other than looking at what Vines, Strongs and Thayer says. It comes from a compound word meaning “before” and “tell.”

    I think it’s funny how I’ll get into conversations with some who believe that prophesy no longer exists. They’ll say that out of one side of their mouth, but then say that our modern day pastors are the prophets. Their definition is telling forth. Then they step into the mud, because I point out Joel and Acts where it says that your “daughters” will prophesy. but, of course, they don’t think a woman should preach. So which is, I ask? That’s usually when they change the subject.

    I have observed, though, (and this isn’t necessarily biblical), that those whom I would call prophets see things that other people just can’t see. I would imagine that you would acknowledge that about yourself. I think God just shows the dynamic to them that others are oblivious to. That’s when they get into trouble, because they share their perspective, others don’t see it, then label them as troublemakers. Then they try to remain silent to keep the peace, but sooner or later they have to reveal what they know to be true.

    There’s a lot that can be said about prophets, but I don’t have the time to go all the way with it. We can all study prophets on our own. But, I think we all have some level of belief that they exist in the body of Christ, and I just wanted to bring an awareness of that ministry.

  60. anon, I was pretty much with you (or rather am pretty much in agreement with you) until you said one line, “I suspect that it was hard for Mahaney to claim to be an apostle of the church while sitting in a room full of guys like Mohler, Dever, Sproul etc. It would have to be humbing on an intellectual standpoint.”

    You seem like an intelligent person. So here’s the question. WHAT about Dever or Mohler or Sproul would intimidate you? Or are you just saying that somehow Mahaney would put these guys on a pedestal and somehow be intimidated by them?

  61. Michael, that is a great description of the experience of many prophets. Thanks for putting it to words.

  62. Anonymous,

    I agree with your statement: “I do not believe there are apostles today in the same way that the 12 and Paul were apostles”.

    Stunned,

    When I read Anon’s comment, I didn’t think he was expressing any personal intimidation by Mohler and Dever. I’m fairly sure he meant that Mahaney must feel intimidated by them. After all, Mahaney stated at the Resolved 2010 Conference that he only has a high school education and that should be investigated. Further, he identified Al Mohler as “the smartest person he knows”. Mahaney also said he believes Mohler is the smartest man on the planet!

  63. Michael, The reason I asked about definition about “prophet” or “prophesying” is similar to your experience. A Puritan (can’t remember his name) wrote a book about this a few centuries ago and said it is “preaching”. That rankles some comps who love the Puritans because of the Joel Prophesy and other references to prophesying and prophetesses in both the OT and NT.

    I describe it as “foretell”… but I am not so sure that is done today. There is no extra or new revelation. That is Binny Hinn stuff. I agree with you that it could mean an “understanding” of the Word that is shared”

    It is an interesting topic and one we need to have liberty concerning it.

  64. Lydia:

    I agree with your description. “foretell.” I also agree with you that it doesn’t foretell as though it was new revelation. Of course, most of our scripture did not come by way of prophesy either.

    Consider I Corinthians 14, which says, “3. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. .4…..one who prophesies edifies the church. In this sense and context, it seems clear that prophesy is available to all, not just those with the ministry of a prophet. Paul tells them to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that they may prophesy. Edification, exhortation, and consolation is not the telling of the future. But, when you look at the ministries of some of the OT prophets, much of what they said was not telling the future either.

    My desire is that the church will gain some understanding in this area and will find the rightful place for ALL the ministries of Christ, not just predominently the ministry of the pastor. The pastor-centic mindset is wrong and needs correcting and is one of the main reasons why we have so much abuse, in my opinion. We’re way out of balance.

  65. Michael,

    I totally agree with your statement:

    “The pastor-centic mindset is wrong and needs correcting and is one of the main reasons why we have so much abuse, in my opinion. We’re way out of balance.”

    How do we turn the tide? I guess the blogs are a start.

  66. Deb:

    How do we turn the tide?

    1. Dialogue about it with believers and blog about it.
    2. Begin talking about the organization of the church, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, in addition to the role of elders and deacons, etc.
    3. Focus more on function rather than terminology. For example, in my travels, singing in churches across the country, I observed that many who were labeled, “pastors,” really functioned as evangelists in their church.
    4. Do not wait for the staff of your church to dictate available ministries. Step into the ministry that God has called you to without seeing if it’s okay with your church.
    5. View the church globally and not just locally.
    6. Do everything you can to push for decentralization and shared responsibility within your church, taking some of the pastor’s responsibility and passing it off, thus, also reducing his perceived and actual authority.
    7. Make a motion at a business meeting to limit the terms of leadership and stagger the terms, so leadership will not become entrenched and, over time, all your leaders become yes men to the pastor, instead of servants of the body. When it’s time for them to roll back on, they have to be re-elected, since by this time, others might be more qualified.
    8. Also, when you choose leadership, choose those who don’t mind upsetting the apple cart, but are temperate and well respected.
    9. When consensus is sought, make a motion that all consensus gathering originates with the congregation, not with leadership. When an idea originates with the pastor, group dynamics and undue influence are involved because leaders don’t want to lose their connection to the pastor if they disagree with his idea. It’s way too easy to defer to him, wrongly thinking he hears God more and has more direction from Him. The normal pattern is, pastor presents an idea, another pastor agrees, they ask other leaders and they all agree. Then they come to the congregation saying that they all agree, but asks them what they think. Of course, they agree, since they are so sure all the leaders are God’s best friends and have a special inside line to God. That is not consensus. That’s just crap and playing power politics and walking all over your congregation.

    That’s a start. I’m sure you can think of some more ideas, too.

  67. Michael,

    What a great list! Thanks for taking the time to provide your ideas/suggestions. I especially like #7. I hope others will add to it.

  68. Well, everyone, I’m glad I asked Michael to explain his views on apostles, etc., and I’m pleased about all the discussion that ensued. Very good exchange — iron sharpening iron. And a lot to think about.

    Michael,
    I like your list of things we can do to “turn the tide”. (I also think that’s an apt metaphor, as changing the ingrained, institutional mindset people have about churches and church leadership is about as difficult a task as it would be to physically make the tide go in or out. But with God all things are possible.)

    I especially like your statement “Focus more on function rather than terminology.” That’s so important, as much of the discussion seems to be about the technical meaning of the words — which has its place, but we need to be careful not to get so bogged down in what we call things that we lose sight of the need for all members of the body to function as God has gifted them. You are so right that the focus on the “role” or title of pastor is an unbalanced approach, and it needs to be addressed, regardless of what terms we use.

  69. Stunned:

    I think that Deb stated it well.

    Mahaney obviously has some impressive interpersonal gifts and wants to pursue Christ. He started a church, or rather a family of churches, and has a high school education. In most Baptist circles, that is hailed as evidence of true spirituality.

    Mohler, Dever and Sproul all have earned PhDs. They are not stupid people. They have read more church history and doctrine that Mahaney will ever be able to read.

    I can imagine that it would be very intimidating to Mahaney to sit in a room with these men to discuss some fine doctrinal points regarding apostleship etc. I find it hopeful, if true, that Mahaney may be rethinking his position on some of these issues after having spent time with people from other backgrounds who are more educated than he.

    I, too, would have to defer to them on many matters in terms of their reading and knowledge – in their studied fields. I would not agree with them on some points (Dever and I, for example, disagree about elder leadership. Dever does not believe in elder led congregations. I do.) But I am sure that if I had a lengthy conversation with Dever that he could probably line up more proofs, biblical and historical, than I could. If he could not, and I were he, I would want my money back from Gordon Conwell and Cambridge!

    But I would not be intimidated.

    But I don’t see how Mahaney could be anything but intimidated. Especially in a discussion of what an “apostle” is. That has been debated and discussed for centuries. I suspect Mahaney has very little true biblical or historical training on that issue.

  70. “Mahaney obviously has some impressive interpersonal gifts and wants to pursue Christ. He started a church, or rather a family of churches, and has a high school education. In most Baptist circles, that is hailed as evidence of true spirituality.”

    What Baptist circles? You have to be kidding. Almost all SBC churches have pastors who have nothing less than an M.Div. Even small churches have pastors with a PhD. It is almost impossible to get into an SBC church as a pastor without seminary credentials.

    And that is where I see Mahaney going with all of this concerning Mohler and even T4G.

    It is a win/win. Mahaney has been giving SBTS money. Pastors college is all but defunct. I think Mahaney is going to steer SGM guys to SBTS to get seminary degrees. Mohler gets the business and Mahaney gets credibility from the big boys and a seat at the table.

    I don’t think Mahaney is rethinking his position on doctrines at all. I think his “positions” are born out of authoritarianism and controlling people. It is shepherding repackaged. It has always been about him.

    It has nothing to do with doctrine. It was about empire building. But now, he has to think ahead about his legacy. Mohler has been moving toward a sort of presbyterian style for years. We joke around here that SBTS is the real presbyterian seminary because the one across the street is apostate with liberals. Mohler is more like John Knox than Boyce.

    I do not think doctrine has a thing to do with it. It is about consolidating power. Right now, Mohler could not get the votes to win the SBC presidency and that is the real reason he decided not to run last time. He claimed it was an operation but he was out doing speaking gigs quickly after, anyway.. With SGM folks added to the mix, he could.

    Mark my words. SGM is going to become a wing of the SBC eventually because most of their pastors will have been trained at SBTS.

  71. Just some SGM thoughts here. BTW Michael, I like your post. Just pointing out where in SGM, some of your points illustrate the issues with SGM.

    “4. Do not wait for the staff of your church to dictate available ministries. Step into the ministry that God has called you to without seeing if it’s okay with your church.”

    In the world of SGM, one does not step into any ministry with anything less than Care Group leader approval. Those that have started their own Bible Studies and Ministries have been told to shut them down. I know a few that were brought to various steps of spiritual discipline.

    “5. View the church globally and not just locally.”

    Not the SGM model.

    “6. Do everything you can to push for decentralization and shared responsibility within your church, taking some of the pastor’s responsibility and passing it off, thus, also reducing his perceived and actual authority.”

    CJ Mahaney literally owns SGM and CLC. They are incorporated as a Non profit business, not as a Church, with no members other than the directors
    that CJ nominates/appoints. No one else in the organization has a voice or vote.

    “7. Make a motion at a business meeting to limit the terms of leadership and stagger the terms, so leadership will not become entrenched and, over time, all your leaders become yes men to the pastor, instead of servants of the body.”

    In SGM, there are no business meetings for the membership. There are no deacons, and the Elders are appointed by CJ and his small group from a pool of SGM Pastors. Also see the aforementioned.

    Lydia,

    I can see where a SGM/SBC merger would seem to be on the horizon. How
    do you think CJ will get around polity?

  72. Anon, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I still don’t know if I am convinced that Mahaney would be intimidated by those guys or not. One would have to put a value on higher education to be intimidated by it and I just don’t see evidence of that in Mahaney’s life.

    On another note, Unassimilated said, “7. Make a motion at a business meeting to limit the terms of leadership and stagger the terms… In SGM, there are no business meetings for the membership. There are no deacons, and the Elders are appointed by CJ and his small group from a pool of SGM Pastors. Also see the aforementioned.”

    That is true. But I can sort of see how, given all the “degiftings” SGM does, they have their own form of staggering terms. After all, besides CJ, who has ever retired from SGM leadership. Almost everyone eventually gets dumped there. Just that with most changes of power you see it coming. With SGM’s it’s more of a led pipe to the back of the head.

  73. “I can see where a SGM/SBC merger would seem to be on the horizon. How
    do you think CJ will get around polity?”

    See your own answer to number 6 above. :o)

  74. Lydia,

    I can see where for SGM it would not be an issue, but I have been trying to figure
    out if a SGM/SBC merger would assign any ownership. Guess it will be an interesting watch.

  75. I doubt if it is ownership more than a basic transfer as in CJ promoting SBTS as the seminary to go to for SGM wannabe’s. Or sending SBTS grads to SGM churches. That would be an indicator to SGM folks to support the SBC indirectly. I can see more partnership type of things such as conferences, missions (North American), etc.

    I am basing some of this on Mohler’s takeover of several churches here and the tactics that were used to do so using the seminary. The takeovers were done by Highview where Mohler has gone for a long time. The pastor of HIghview is now president of SBC’s North American Mission Board. The teaching pastor of Highview is the Dean at SBTS.

  76. Here’s an interesting comment I just read over at SGM Survivors related to this post:

    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=2078#comment-30849

    “formersgmer

    February 2nd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    RT:

    I can tell you that a few years ago that the pastors from the fairfax church went as a group to have lunch with the pastors from Capitol Hill Baptist Church and the subject to SGM having apostles as senior leaders came up and the CHBC pastors replied “you guys have apostles?” and there was a bit of snickering from the CHBC group. So SGM’s recharacterization of “apostles” is definitely a move away from its charismatic roots and probably a means to make SGM more acceptable to reformed orthodoxy.”