"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."    -The Declaration of Independence 

 

courtesy of NASA

 

On April 18, 2011, Jim, at the well regarded SGM Refuge, printed the following letter. I contacted him and asked if TWW might be able to post it as well. He graciously gave us permission to do so.

 

This letter is written by a 30 year member of Sovereign Grace Ministries who, after many years of sacrificial love and service, felt he could not longer participate in the ministry.  It is a well written, thoughtful letter that should cause any Godly person to question why such events transpired. Pay particular attention to the excellent quotes he provides at the end of his letter. Well done, sir!

 

This is not just about SGM.  This letter could have been written by anyone who has become disenchanted or hurt by a ministry. We post this as an encouragement to those readers who feel that they want to leave a ministry but are hesitant. This is also posted as insight for those leaders in various ministries, who have exacerbated, both intentionally or not, the pain of the membership. Such leaders are not servants but wish to be served. Look to Jesus who washed the feet of His disciples. 

 

One final thing, this is just one more story about a serious problem within SGM. What in the world is going on with this group???

 

Jim wrote the following:

 

"I get mail. When I received a copy of the letter below, I thought that it was so well written and contained so much truth.I contacted the original author and received permission to post it here, unedited."

_________________________________________________________
 

“… if he (the watchman) sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people, then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand”. Ez. 33:3-6
 

My brothers and sisters in Christ, 4/9/11
 

Recently, I felt compelled to write an explanation for my leaving Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) and KingsWay Community Church (KWCC) in particular. It is important to understand that disassociating myself from an organization that I have poured my life into for nearly 30 years was not something I considered lightly, and was not without much prayer and travail with the Lord. However, I believe it is extremely important, considering the issues at hand and their spiritual implications, that my brothers and sisters in Christ take very seriously what I have to say. I encourage you to seek God as to the veracity and wisdom of my contentions.
 

First, let me say that the Peace Makers (PM) process was valuable in identifying and bringing resolution to the relational rifts that existed. The PM process was also very helpful in identifying the problematic/sin areas (over 40) that were pervasive in our church culture. However, in my opinion, that’s about as far as PM could help. PM cannot and should not take the place of the church’s authority and responsibility regarding church discipline. This is most likely the reason many of you feel that an ultimate resolution was never achieved. It is the church’s responsibility to resolve these matters, not PM’s. Remember, for SGM it is the elders, not the church as a whole that resolves church discipline. This is a direct contradiction to the New Testament examples, i.e., Matthew 18; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 5
 

I would also like to clarify one of the statements I made that Sunday morning (PM Sunday). I said something to the effect that “the pastors have dealt with all the issues, charges, and concerns.” This was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. I should have said, “The pastors have acknowledged all of the issues, charges, and concerns.” This is my mistake. I realize there is a huge difference between dealing with and acknowledging sins. Unfortunately, the former statement can be construed to mean there is nothing more to address, except the matter of consequences. In either case, regardless of whether the charges were dealt with or simply acknowledged, I believe there are appropriate consequences and issues of restitution that have yet to be considered.
 

Indeed, several of my brothers and sisters in Christ have had discussions with the pastors regarding appropriate consequences/restitution, but to no avail. This is unfortunate, and I fear that my poor word choice that Sunday has contributed to the lack of closure, especially with regard to appropriate consequences and restitution, related to the sins against Steve, his family, and the church.
 

Also, let me be perfectly clear about where I stand on the issue of polity. I absolutely support the concept of a plurality of elders leading the church. However, in most cases where a plurality of elders is mentioned in the context of church government, it is usually assumed that the congregation has some meaningful involvement in how those elders are chosen and whether or not there is biblical warrant to remove them if necessary. Nearly all evangelical theologians, including Grudem and Erickson, understand “elder led churches” to be congregational-elder led churches, and not simply ruled by elders. In my opinion, SGM is a hierarchical, top down form of church government that resembles a papacy or episcopal system more than any other form of polity. This is not so much a criticism as it is a point of fact. In my opinion, SGM polity is in direct opposition to the admonition of Jesus when He said in Matthew 20:25-26,
 

“…. You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant …”
 

The above summarizes the first reason for my departure.
 

One of the most disconcerting aspects of this entire process has been the failure of the church to realize that the sins committed against Steve W., his family, and others, simultaneously, constituted sin(s) against the local body of believers at KWCC. We as a church fail grievously when we abdicate our responsibility in being our brother’s keeper, when one of our members is publically and/or wrongfully castigated or harmed and resolution is not forthcoming.
 

KWCC, in such a situation, we are culpable if we do not lift our voice on behalf of one another. We cannot say, “It’s not our responsibility. We are an elder led church. The elders know best and they will take care of it”. On the contrary, when the elders in an elder led church foul something up, it is the church’s responsibility to say, and do, something about it. As Mark Dever contends,
 

“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
 

I praise God for those that have had this realization. Many have been convicted accordingly and have written letters, made appeals, sat in hours of meetings, prayed, fasted, etc. Those who have done so, and continue to do these things, are being good examples and we should thank them for their courage and for taking their responsibility seriously as a member of KWCC, endeavoring to promote reconciliation and closure in a way that glorifies God and honors His Word.
 

Woe to us if we are passive, when even the least among us, is harmed…. and the body of Christ, in which those who are harmed belong to and depend on, fail to lift their voice, and instead choose to remain silent.
 

For those of you who are puzzled as to why people continue to leave and/or continue to call for meetings with the pastors, I believe it is because there has been no real or meaningful repentance, resolution, restitution, or consequence(s) that is commensurate with a biblical response, the kind of response that godly sorrow dictates.
 

If, in the final analysis, I am dividing you against one another and Christ, then I am in deep trouble and have disgraced the name of Jesus, and harmed the body of Christ. However, if I am sounding a warning….. “a clear trumpet sound”, and telling the truth, then I have served you well and have been obedient to Jesus.
 

Over the past 11 years I have been encouraged and comforted by the scripture …“wisdom is justified by her deeds.” Mat. 11:19
 

Even as I write, I believe God is vindicating what is true regarding many situations throughout SGM.
 

In my view, there has been much bad fruit born from the atrocities that have occurred against the Body of Christ. Sadly, I am very aware that there is a tendency for many of us to simply ignore, reinterpret, and/or disbelieve the clear and empirical evidence that would not be characteristic of the good fruit of Christ and His ways. Unfortunately, several of these people have sent me hate letters, slandered my name, shunned and ostracized my wife and children and, in general, caused great harm to my family and many others who have taken a stand for righteousness sake.
 

Over the past several years, I have warned many of the leaders in SGM and KWCC that if they did not repent, particularly of their obsession with insisting on maintaining control and authority over God’s people, the Lord Himself would remove the lampstand (the people) from their midst and then begin to remove the pastors themselves. This is exactly what has happened at KWCC and continues to happen, even as I write, despite the fact that several of the leaders of SGM have personally come here (KWCC) in an attempt to “stop the bleeding”.
 

Let me say, the “bleeding” will not stop until there is repentance born from godly sorrow! When Dave Harvey came to KWCC over a year and a half ago and was informed of the issues (numerous charges against the pastors at KWCC), I told him as he was leaving, “Dave, we must repent our way out of this mess, not teach or explain our way out”. I also wrote a letter to Dave after his last visit exhorting him to return to KWCC and ask the church for forgiveness for preaching such an insensitive and arrogant message, especially after the trauma our church had just experienced.
 

During our last Peace Maker’s meeting Gene stated that they (the leadership at KingsWay) had decided to have voluntary accountability to SGM, and Dave Harvey in particular. I responded by asking him, “Do you mean that a man who is not a member of this church will have authority over this church?” Gene responded, “Yes”. I assume that all the other pastors present at that meeting concur, since they remained silent.
 

Brothers and sisters, this arrangement violates the autonomy of the local church (the church being removed from under the papacy or episcopal form of polity/church government), a concept that was gained through the blood, sweat, and tears of the Reformation. It subverts the biblical authority of the local church and its inherent right and responsibility to govern itself; and is a misapplication of the biblical relationship between the body of Christ and those who have the privilege and responsibility to lead the local church.
 

It must be understood that SGM polity stands isolated in the larger evangelical church. “Elder led” has a completely different meaning and application in other evangelical, reformed churches. Therefore, the term “Elder led” as used by SGM is misleading because its normative and accepted meaning is fundamentally different when used by SGM. This is the second reason for my departure, the application of SGM polity.
 

Brothers and sisters in Christ, I want to implore you to be Bereans and begin to study the Scripture afresh. Read reputable and historically trusted sources that address the authority and autonomy of the local church, especially with regard to individuals and entities outside its local membership having any sort of ultimate authority or control over a local expression of the Body of Christ.
 

Contrary to what you might think, I believe we have a responsibility, as the body of Christ, to exercise our God given authority in the local church where the Holy Spirit has placed us; to include monitoring ourselves, as well as those who preach and teach, exercising church discipline when necessary, and being our brother’s keeper.
 

However, we (in SGM) have been systematically taught that the church has absolutely no authority whatsoever. This is exactly why many of the maladies throughout our history have occurred. The church has been asleep at the wheel. We have abdicated our biblical responsibility. We must repent of this nonsense! We are responsible for each other. We are our brother’s keeper. When something is amiss in our local body it is ultimately the responsibility of the church, collectively, to insure that things are made right. When a local church fails to do this, then that church has lost its moorings and shipwreck is sure to follow.
 

That, under Christ and his word, the final court of appeal in the local church in deciding matters of disagreement is the congregation itself. (This is implied, first, in the fact that the leaders are not to lead by coercion, but by persuasion and free consent [1 Peter 5:3]; second, in the fact that elders may be censured [1 Tim. 5:19]; and third, in the fact that in Matthew 18:15-20 the church is the final court of appeal in matters of discipline). — John Piper
 

Paul is writing not only to the Galatian elders. He’s writing to the whole church. And he’s saying that the church is responsible to evaluate the teaching that comes from the pulpit. They are not to passively accept anything that comes out of the preacher’s mouth, but are to hold it up to the light of Christ and test it by His Word. And if the teaching fails the test, the whole church is responsible to quit listening to the teacher – even if that teacher is an apostle like Paul himself. — 9marks.org, Mark Dever
 

In the final analysis, we must not point our finger at those in leadership as the source and blame for our problems. We must turn our finger around and point it at ourselves (collectively as the church) because that is where God points it. As has been stated so well, “The church has been given the keys”. The keys have not been given to the Pope, a synod, committee, or any one individual, regardless of their leadership position. The keys have been given to the body of Christ! The question is, “What will we do with them?”
 

Your brother in Christ,

Bob Dixon
 

For your consideration and further study:
 

The Church does not need brilliant personalities but faithful servants of Jesus and the brethren. Not in the former but in the latter is the lack. The Church will place its confidence only in the simple servant of the Word of Jesus Christ because it knows that then it will be guided, not according to human wisdom and human conceit, but by the Word of the Good Shepherd. — Dietrich Bonhoeffer
 

What stands opposed to…virtue is tyrannical pride, when the pastor exempts himself from all subjection, and tyrannizes over the Church. It was for this that Ezekiel condemned the false prophets, that is, that they ruled cruelly and tyrannically (Ezekiel 34:4). Christ also condemned the Pharisees, because they laid intolerable burdens on the shoulders of the people which they would not touch, no, not with a finger (Matthew 23:4). This imperious rigour, then, which ungodly pastors exercise over the Church, cannot be corrected, except their authority be restrained, so that they may rule in such a way as to afford an example of a godly life.  John Calvin

 

“The elder has authority; he is called to exercise a shepherd’s oversight. Christ the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) has called him to exercise a shepherd’s care. But the undershepherd is not a stand-in for the Lord. He presents the word of the Lord, not his own decree; he enforces the revealed will of the Lord, not his own wishes. For that reason, any undermining of the authority of Scripture turns church government into spiritual tyranny. If church governors add to or subtract from the word of God, they make themselves lords over the consciences of others.” — Ed Clowney
 

Some of the worst havoc wrought to the Christian faith has been a direct result of unscriptural forms of church structure. Only a few centuries after the apostles’ death, for example, Christian churches began to assimilate both Roman and Jewish concepts of status, power, and priesthood. As a result, church government was clericalized and sacralized. Under Christ’s name an elaborately structured institution emerged that corrupted the simple, family structure of the apostolic churches, robbed God’s people of their lofty position and ministry in Christ, and exchanged Christ’s supremacy over His people for the supremacy of the institutional church — Alexander Strauch
 

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
 

That, under Christ and his word, the final court of appeal in the local church in deciding matters of disagreement is the congregation itself. (This is implied, first, in the fact that the leaders are not to lead by coercion, but by persuasion and free consent [1 Peter 5:3]; second, in the fact that elders may be censured [1 Tim. 5:19]; and third, in the fact that in Matthew 18:15-20 the church is the final court of appeal in matters of discipline). — John Piper
 

Paul is writing not only to the Galatian elders. He’s writing to the whole church. And he’s saying that the church is responsible to evaluate the teaching that comes from the pulpit. They are not to passively accept anything that comes out of the preacher’s mouth, but are to hold it up to the light of Christ and test it by His Word. And if the teaching fails the test, the whole church is responsible to quit listening to the teacher – even if that teacher is an apostle like Paul himself. — 9marks.org, Mark Dever
 

Whereas Christians are encouraged to support and submit to spiritual leadership (Hebrews 13:17), such encouragement must not be considered a blank check if churches are responsible for and have the authority to discipline false teachers and to recognize an antecedent commitment not to a pastor but to the truth of the Gospel. — D.A. Carson
 

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 inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have — Wayne Grudem
 

“Of all work done under the sun religious work should be the most open to examination. There is positively no place in the church for sleight of hand or double talk. Everything done by the churches should be completely above suspicion. The true church will have nothing to hide.” (A.W. Tozer, “Of God and Men.”)
 

In the face of increasing dependence on strong leadership in Christian circles, evangelicals who value the legitimate role of biblical submission and headship, must reaffirm the freedom which characterizes the new life in Christ. We must resist any teaching that brings into question Christ’s role as the sole mediator (go-between) between God and man. We must reassert that no Christian is ever called upon to give unquestioning obedience to anyone. We ultimately must accept only the lordship of Christ. — Dr. Ronald Enroth

 

Lording it over the flock provokes church fights and splits. A domineering spirit in elders provokes mature men of strong minds and independent judgment to leave the church. These very ones would have the greatest potential for future leadership in the assembly. Dictatorial measures make lesser men craven and dependent, stunting their true growth. But it also has its harmful effects on the “lords over God’s heritage.” It makes them egotistical and self serving.” — Pastor Walter J. Chantry
 

The first sign of an abusive group is that it is authoritarian. When it comes right down to it, control is more important than personal spiritual welfare. Leaders in an authoritarian system are not teachable. The attitude, like that of the Pharisees, is that they are the teachers and rulers of God’s people, not their servants. They may say they are teachable, but then set up rules which you must follow to approach them. Then they interpret those rules to rule you out of order. The former members of one particular group described to the author how their leader used this method to avoid accountability. He kept pointing out how their “heart is not right” in the way they brought issues to him. — David Henke
 

“The movement (Shepherding Movement) gained a reputation for controlling and abusive behavior, with a great deal of emphasis placed upon the importance of obedience to one’s own shepherd. In many cases, disobeying one’s shepherd was tantamount to disobeying God. A few of these criticisms were exaggerated, but many lives were damaged. One such testimony can be found in the book Damaged Disciples by Ron and Vicki Burks. Noted Baptist evangelist Bailey Smith, for example, in his work “Real Evangelism”, mentions having collected a very large number of testimonies of people he had encountered who were damaged by Shepherding teachings.
 

The movement (Shepherds Movement) was denounced by many charismatic leaders such as Pat Robertson and Demos Shakarian, and a 1975 meeting (known as “the shoot-out at the Curtis Hotel”) to resolve the dispute achieved little. The Fort Lauderdale Five eventually parted company. Derek Prince and Bob Mumford both publicly distanced themselves from the teachings. Derek Prince withdrew in 1983, stating his belief that “we were guilty of the Galatian error: having begun in the Spirit, we quickly degenerated into the flesh.”[3] Bob Mumford issued a “Formal Repentance Statement to the Body of Christ” in 1990 and was quoted as saying, “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness.”   Taken from Wikipedia’s “Shepherding Movement” article.

 

Perhaps the longest lasting damage from spiritual abuse is loss of ability to trust. Mark Twain said that a cat that walked on a hot stove would never walk on a hot stove again. But then, it would not walk on a cold stove either…Finally healing comes when the individual is able to give help to others out of his own experience. The ideal setting for this is a support group. This writer has felt for many years that there needs to be a bridge between the abusive experience in their past and a grace oriented church to which they will eventually go, or maybe are now trying to re-learn to trust. That bridge needs to be their “Church In Between” a place of refuge that will function as a church, with understanding of their responses. Because, they are still like the cat that walked on that hot stove. — David Henke
 

The apostle Peter does not command, but exhorts. He does not claim power to rule over all pastors and churches. It was the peculiar honour of Peter and a few more, to be witnesses of Christ’s sufferings; but it is the privilege of all true Christians to partake of the glory that shall be revealed. These poor, dispersed, suffering Christians, were the flock of God, redeemed to God by the great Shepherd, living in holy love and communion, according to the will of God. They are also dignified with the title of God’s heritage or clergy; His peculiar lot, chosen for His own people, to enjoy His special favour, and to do Him special service. — Matthew Henry
 

When the way is hard, the flock may often become quite unsettled, even when it’s on its way home. The shepherd observes a poor old ewe, limping along at the tail of the mob. He goes to her and finds a small hard stick between her hooves. He takes the ewe in his arms, holds her gently and reassuredly, and carefully removes the offending hurt. He rubs in some soothing salve, lifts her to her feet, and moves her into the homeward path. — John MacArthur
 

Taken from the book, Perspectives on Church Government: Daniel Akin, James Leo Garrett Jr., Robert L. Reymond, James R. White, and Paul F. M. Zahl: Pgs.2, 26-35, 37,-41, 57, and 80.

“…polity can generally be defined as “the organizational or governmental structure of a local church or fellowship of churches” (p. 2).
 

“… church polity is typically conceived as the way in which a local church or a group o churches organize and administrate themselves” (p. 2).
 

“New Testament churches were basically Congregational in their government and polity” (p.26).
 

“Congregationalism locates the authority of the church in each local body of believers” (p. 27).

“Striking a delicate but discernable balance, leaders in a local congregation are answerable ultimately to God (Heb. 13:17; James 3:1; 1 Peter 5:2-4), but they are also responsible to those who have chosen them” (p. 27).
 

Regarding Matthew 18:15-17, Mark Dever gets to the heart of the issue when he writes, “Notice to whom one finally appeals in such situations. What court has the final word? It is not a bishop, a pope, or a presbytery; it is not an assembly, a synod, a convention, or a conference. It is not even a pastor or a board of elders, a board of deacons or a church committee. It is, quite simply, the church — that is, the assembly of those individual believers who are the church” (p. 29).
 

“However, as we examine the scriptures, the evidence leads us to the following position: New Testament churches were basically Congregational in their government and polity” (p. 26).
 

“Congregationalism locates the authority of the church in each local body of believers. No person or organization is above or over it except the Lord Jesus Christ alone as its head” “This is a wise strategy that balances congregational participation with pastoral leadership (p. 27).
 

Commenting on the passage in Acts 6:1-7, “They (the whole multitude) then brought these men before the apostles who “when they had prayed, they laid hands on them” (Acts 6:6), F.F.Bruce, no Congregationalist, accurately notes, ‘“It was the community as a whole that selected these men and presented them to the apostles for their approbation; it was the apostles that appointed them to their office”’.
 

John Stott adds, ‘“The twelve did not impose a solution on the church, however, but gathered all the disciples together in order to share the problem with them”’. “In this incident we discover the wisdom of strong pastoral leadership and appropriate congregational involvement. Even the apostles recognized that it was proper to involve the congregation in vital decision-making that would affect the life and ministry of the church” (p.30).
 

Saucey summarizes the entire event quite well: “In all of these important actions there is no hierarchy which rules by its own authority”. The apostles and their representatives (e.g. Titus) appointed elders for new church starts, gave their judgment, made recommendations and provided advice, but they did not exercise rulership or control (p. 31).
 

D.A.Carson addresses this well when he writes, “Whereas Christians are encouraged to support and submit to spiritual leadership (Heb. 13:17), such encouragement must not be considered a blank check; churches are responsible for and have the authority to discipline false teachers and to recognize an antecedent commitment not to a pastor but to the truth of the gospel” (p. 38).
 

As Clowney notes, “Church authority, grounded in the Word of Christ, is also limited to it. Christian obedience to church rule is obedience in the Lord, for His Word governs the church” (p. 38).
 

The congregation has a voice in who leads them, but once these leaders are chosen, the members of the congregation are obligated to honor and follow them unless they (the leadership) are disqualified through immoral, unethical, or unscriptural behavior (p. 39).
 

But since all ecclesiastical authority resided in the congregation jointly, the elders had no formal authority to act on any matter as a body of elders. Their role was to initiate, advice, and exhort (p. 57).
 

Congregationalism locates the authority of the church in each local body of believers. No person or organization is above it or over it except the Lord Jesus Christ as it’s head (p. 80).

 

 

Lydia's Corner: Judges 1:1-2:9 Luke 21:29-22:13 Psalm 90:1-91:16 Proverbs 13:24-25