Mahaney’s Chicanery Regarding Calvin

It is always the secure who are humble. G K Chesterton

 

Bluebird eggs in my backyard

 

Our blogging buddy Steve, who operates a website called I Kissed Dating Goodbye: Wisdom or Foolishness and who also posts comments under the name Steve240, submitted the following article for publication here at The Wartburg Watch.  Steve contacted us at our Wartburg Watch e-mail addresses to make a number of astute observations regarding comments C.J. Mahaney has made in the past, particularly on his blog.  We found Steve's comments so thought provoking that we asked him to put them in the form of a post so we could share them with our readers.  If you have thoughts you'd like to share on any theological topic, please contact us at The Wartburg Watch via our e-mail addresses.

 

********************************************

                      

With the recent revelations of what has been going on behind the scenes with SGM especially Mahaney I went back and looked at one of the old SGM Survivors posts titled:

C.J. Mahaney – Criticized Because He's Just Like Calvin?

This was a commentary on Installment #8 in Mahaney’s blog series entitled "The Pastor & Personal Criticism'.  The post appeared on February 24, 2011, and was entitled:  Why Faithful Pastors Will Be Criticized.

It is interesting now to look at Mahaney’s blog entry knowing when Brent started to give Mahaney the various documents that were recently posted for all to see. Mahaney used Calvin’s commentary which can be found here

Mahaney blogged about this Bible passage found in 1 Timothy: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19)

Sadly Mahaney DID NOT comment on these adjoining passages of Scripture:

Verse 20 – Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful /of sinning/.

Verse 21 – I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of /His/ chosen angels, to maintain these /principles/ without bias, doing nothing in a /spirit of/ partiality.

Verse 22 – Do not lay hands upon anyone /too/ hastily and ^[ thereby share ^(/responsibility for/ the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.

– 1 Timothy 5:20-22

THE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE VERSES

What I find so revealing, especially now, is how Mahaney so quickly emphasizes the point about “not entertaining”, but chooses not to comment or quote, even in subsequent blog posts, about the verses that follow, which provide a much needed balance. Maybe Mahaney’s blog post revealed his heart including possible self deception?

Certainly there is a need for “not entertaining” but what do you do with pastors who “continue in sin?” Doesn’t the need to rebuke them in the presence of all need to happen? Is that something optional that churches don’t even need to do? With Paul saying that if you do have to rebuke some elders it will serve as a good deterrent so that other elders won’t sin, one would think that it needs to be done when necessary. Also isn’t there a need to rebuke “without bias, doing nothing in a /spirit of/ partiality?” Isn’t that also important?

Could Mahaney have written this blog entry as a means of silencing his critics and trying to get the body of Christ not to even “entertain” accusations against him?

Here are some interesting dates:

Mahaney’s Blog Post: February 24, 2011

Brent Detwiler Began Sending Documents to Mahaney: March 2010

These dates show that Mahaney wrote this blog entry after he was in possession of at least one of Brent Detwiler’s documents. We are able to deduce here that Mahaney wrote this blog entry in the context of reviewing the allegations that Brent was making about Mahaney. The blog entry was not written before Brent Detwiler started sending Mahaney documents

Someone shared with me that Mahaney’s comments within the article are obviously designed to disqualify ANY critic by the simple fact of their “criticism”, which is an absurd standard. Perhaps we now know why? Could it be a ploy to deflect criticism and make people afraid of listening to any criticism about Mahaney, or was Mahaney that deceived as some allege? Both are possible.

HOW MAHANEY COMPARES HIMSELF TO CALVIN (using only verse 19)

If you read Mahaney’s blog post you will see he is implying that he is being criticized due to:

* His furthering the kingdom of God

* Tricks of Satan to bring his message in contempt

* Sincerity of trying to advance God’s kingdom.

* Satan, i.e. Satan makes most people, in fact nearly everyone, over
credulous so that without investigation, they eagerly condemn their pastors whose good name they ought to be defending

Mahaney also implies:

* If this was the criticism Calvin faced, then no pastor (including Mahaney) should be surprised when criticism arrives.

* He is exposed to slander because he is a godly teacher.

* Wrong is done to innocent people whose reputation is undeservedly injured.

WHAT CALVIN WROTE ABOUT VERSE 20 (one of the verses that Mahaney didn’t include):

This is what Calvin’s commentary says about verse 20:

“Those that sin rebuke before all” (vs.20a) 104 *Whenever any measure is taken for the protection of good men, it is immediately seized by bad men to prevent them from being condemned*. Accordingly, what Paul had said about repelling unjust accusations he modifies by this statement, so that *none* may, on this presence, *escape the punishment due to sin*. And, indeed, we see how great and diversified are the privileges by which Popery surrounds its clergy; so that, although their life be ever so wicked, 105 still they are exempted from all reproof. Certainly, if regard be had to the cautions which are collected by Gratian, 106 (Caus. 2, Quest. 4 and Quest. 7,) there will be no danger of their being ever compelled to give an account of their life. Where will they find the seventy-two witnesses for condemning a bishop, which are demanded by the disgusting bull issued by Pope Sylvester? Moreover, seeing that the whole order of laymen is debarred from accusing, and as the inferior orders, even of the clergy, are forbidden to give any annoyance to the higher classes of them, what shall hinder them from fearlessly mocking at all decisions?

Some of Calvin’s points for this verse are:

· “Whenever any measure is taken for the protection of good men, it is immediately seized by bad men to prevent them from being condemned.”

· What “Paul had said about repelling unjust accusations he modifies bythis statement, so that none may, on this presence, escape the punishment due to sin.”

· Talks about the popery and “although their life be ever so wicked, still they are exempted from all reproof.” Sound familiar?

· Additionally about the popery “there will be *no danger of their being ever compelled to give an account of their life*” since Calvin indicates that 72 witnesses are required.

It sure sounds like Mahaney may have been doing what Calvin talks about in the above quote. Let’s check each bullet point:

· Using verse 19 to keep him from being condemned? It sure sounds like it. .

· Escape the punishment due to his sin? Sure sounds like it.

· Trying to be exempt from reproof? Again it sure looks like it.

· Wanting no danger of ever being compelled to give an account? Sadly again it looks like this is the case. It now looks as if Mahaney may be one of these “bad men” that Calvin refers to in his writings, or at least it is a possibility.

THE NEED TO NOT IGNORE BALANCING PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE

One should be quite careful, and "alarms go off" when someone teaches one passage, but does not include the balancing portion of the same passage.

· If as a leader you teach Hebrews 13 on submission to leadership, you should also teach and act like one day you will have to give an account to God for your actions.

· If you teach that wives should obey their husbands, then you should also teach the part of scripture that commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

· If you teach that children are to obey their parents, then you should also teach the passage that says fathers aren’t to provoke their children.

One should always be worried when someone’s teaching shows an imbalance.

Calvin put the balance this way about I Tim 5:19-20:

“It is therefore proper, carefully to observe this moderation, that insolent tongues shall be restrained from defaming elders by false accusations, and yet that every one of them who conducts himself badly shall be severely corrected; for I understand this injunction to relate to elders, that they who live a dissolute life shall be openly reproved.

WHY DID MAHANEY TEACH ONLY ONE VERSE AND “FORGET” THE OTHERS?

So why did Mahaney teach only this one verse and give an unbalanced view on “entertaining?” I cannot totally answer that question. Some may say he used this teaching as a ploy to try and silence his critics. Others may claim the man was so deceived that he taught this thinking he was doing the right thing. It might even be that Mahaney decided that he was so right in his own mind, he felt he shouldn’t be criticized.

As I shared earlier about a comment someone made to me saying that Mahaney’s comments in his blog posting are obviously designed to disqualify ANY critic by the simple fact of their *criticism* which is an absurd standard. Despite the motives, it certainly appears that Mahaney may have written his blog entry to deflect any criticism. In other words Mahaney appears to be trying to teach that if you are criticizing Mahaney:

· You must be wrong.

· Here is a possible list of why you are wrong.

· See what Calvin said you just might be doing.

With the recent revelations about Mahaney it is no surprise why he blogged like he did. Like Calvin indicated Mahaney has, “*Seized (this) by bad men to prevent them from being condemned.” *

MY RESPONSE: 

Nice try Mahaney.  Maybe Mahaney needs to fully read what Calvin says about the whole passage, and not just the portions he wants to use to protect himself.  I could stop here but there are other verses. In these verses Paul explains the needs for publicly rebuking elders.

Verse 20b: So That the Rest Also Will be Fearful /of Sinning

In the second part of verse 20 Paul gives the reason for publicly rebuking an elder who continues in sin: It is a proactive way of making other elders fearful of sinning. Hopefully this won’t be one’s only motivation, but if an elder knows that if he “continues in sin” he will be rebuked in front of everyone, then he will be less likely to commit the sin. Maybe this is another reason you hear of so many cases of elder/pastors abusing people in SGM; SGM doesn’t practice this and thus other elders aren’t fearful.

Verse 21: Do This Without Favoritism

“without bias, doing nothing in a /spirit of/ partiality”

To me it is clearly obvious that this scripture passage is saying rebuking should apply to all elders with no bias and no partiality. Despite how far up a leader is in the hierarchy, including being the group’s head or “pope” this should apply. If one read’s Brent’s documents it appears Mahaney does not believe this.

FINAL COMMENTS

* Now that the history behind this blog entry is known the “independent” panel should investigate why Mahaney wrote and said this. Was this something Mahaney did in attempt to shield himself from any criticism?

* Sovereign Grace Ministries is quick to quote Jeremiah 17:9 about the heart being “sick” and “deceitful.” Sadly this apparently shows how one leader’s heart apparently can be deceived. If this wasn’t an intentional act then sadly it shows just how deceived Mahaney’s heart became. I guess the rules of not trusting a person’s heart should apply to leaders also.

* This action reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart who was condemning Jim Bakker’s adultery while he was doing something similar. Ironically, I can remember hearing Mahaney say just how bad Jimmy Swaggart’s hypocritical actions were. Sadly Mahaney is doing something similar in terms of hypocrisy.

* Josh Harris said on Sunday 7/10 that C.J. Mahaney still hasn’t seen and acknowledged all of his sin. This certainly looks like a “good” example of this.

* Since other SGM Leaders didn’t notice this possible deception, maybe they were deceived just like Mahaney appears to be.

* When a leader of a group teaches only one side of this passage, it should be no wonder why the leaders below him were afraid to approach him as Brent Detwiler has alleged.

 

Lydia’s Corner:        2 Samuel 20:14-21:22    Acts 1:1-26    Psalm 121:1-8   Proverbs 16:18

Comments

Mahaney’s Chicanery Regarding Calvin — 38 Comments

  1. Your attenton please!

    The letters to The Wartburg Watch can be rearranged to spell “We Thwart Grub Chat”, or “Hag Wrath Butt Crew”, or “That Cub Wrath Grew”.

    That is all.

  2. Really?

    Mahaney really likens himself to Calvin?

    I tend to agree with Mahaney if he means the smart-alecky kid that one sees on the back window of redneck pickup trucks, you know, the little fellow that urinates on things.

    Because he really doesn’t compare to John Calvin.

  3. One of my favorite sayings is: SIN CAN BE SPELLED BEST WITH THREE LETTERS: E G O!

    Another is: Sin is a two-year old’s attitude toward life: ME DO.

    It appears that those with either attitude seem to have the other.

  4. DH says that

    Wag Tart Brew Hutch

    is a great name for a coffee shoppe.

    (He adds, “But you probably couldn’t get away with charging five bucks for a cup of coffee, though.”)

  5. Junkster,

    Your diabolical ploy to derail the post about Calvin was pure genious. (insert evil laugh)

  6. I really, really want “hew raw bug chaw” to be in the running here, but I’m afraid I added an extra W and didn’t use any of the Ts.

  7. Steve,

    Despite this silliness, you’ve written a great and needed post.

    I get frustrated with the tenacity with which former members of any group defend their leaders. In “Take Back Your Life” by Lalich, in third chapter, there is a section called “Unmasking the Guru.” It seems to me that former members from SGM have a great deal of trouble breaking out of the expectation and demand that they must see CJ as infallible. Perhaps it is so frustrating for me because it reminds me of my own counselor commenting that I was my former pastor’s greatest defender, but I was confounded by his inexcusable, harmful, and unChristian behavior. I remember getting so angry, but it was a watershed moment.

    CJ talks such a good and humble line and performs it so well, weeping with the wounded people who come to him after they are abused in his SGM churches. Then comes the turn, and the victim is suddenly redefined as the aggressor who causes the Kingdom to suffer violence. His words and his testimony do not match what he does. I don’t believe that they ever have, from what I’ve known of his behavior over the years.

    How can we challenge people to consider that CJ does not practice his profession? You’ve done so here, and I pray that it penetrates the hearts and awakens the discernment of the disgruntled and wounded who still cling to the “sacred science” and the “doctrine over person” and the “demand for purity” aspects of the manipulation at SGM. May this break the undue influence that so many carry, long after they leave the system.

    It is hard and it is confusing to love someone who can love you so well and also treat you so poorly. (And to do so without much apparent conscience until under the threat of exposure.) Love believes all things and hopes all things and sees the good in us. But I pray that that love will be tempered with discernment and self respect and self care which honors the Image of God in the individual. May this break the yoke of bondage.

    You’re a great iconoclast.

  8. Steve,

    Thanks so much for putting this post together. I believe what you have shared demonstrates Mahaney’s chronic misuse of Scripture. Taking a verse out of its proper context (surrounding verses) is extremely deceptive.

    Here’s my final off-topic comment on this thread:

    I find it extremely ironic that the “most recent” comment on Dave Harvey’s “Listening” post was added 18 HOURS AGO!

  9. Arce
    So, what you are saying is these pastors are stuck responding to the cries of their inner child. Hmmm, I always thought some of them were big babies anyway.

  10. Steve

    This was an awesome post. You did a great job elucidating the passages and also examining Calvin’s intent. This post should serve as a warning to all pastors who think that they are “above reproach.”

  11. Steve240,
    This was an excellent piece, thanks for the work you put into this.

    Deb & Dee,
    I enjoy reading here – thanks for all you do.

  12. happymom, dee, Deb, Cindy

    Thank you for your comments. I sure hope that this blog post and others like it help open people’s eyes to this contradiction at best that is going on.

    Cindy

    I especially enjoyed your comments.

    “CJ talks such a good and humble line and performs it so well, weeping with the wounded people who come to him after they are abused in his SGM churches. Then comes the turn, and the victim is suddenly redefined as the aggressor who causes the Kingdom to suffer violence. His words and his testimony do not match what he does. I don’t believe that they ever have, from what I’ve known of his behavior over the years.”

    Sadly I have known of specific cases of this happening.

    Cindy also said:

    “It seems to me that former members from SGM have a great deal of trouble breaking out of the expectation and demand that they must see CJ as infallible.”

    That is so sad but true. Hopefully with more things being questioned and pointed out the illusion of Mahaney’s infallibility will be shattered.

  13. Sorry, Steve, no derailing of your post topic was intended. Glad that wiser minds brought the discussion back on track. Good post!

  14. Junkster,

    Your reputation precedes you! Those who see your name and comments here and elsewhere would have discerned your intent. I’m one of your fans. (Betcha didn’t know that, either.)

  15. “Sorry, Steve, no derailing of your post topic was intended. Glad that wiser minds brought the discussion back on track. Good post”

    Junk, I am one of your fans, too. We go way back to the early days of blogging and I thought you would get the “Calvin” part of my rebuke. You DID get it, right? :o)

  16. Loved the bluebird eggs. Sometimes we don’t even have to open our Bibles. Sometimes all we need do is open our eyes.

  17. Muff
    Wait til you see the babies. These bluebirds have been coming to my yard for a couple of years and having lots of offspring. They allow me to hold the nest, even with the babies in it. I put a disposable cup in the bluebird house and they build their nest in it. I can take it out to look at them. I empty the nest when the babies fly away and they build two more for a total of three sets of babies each year.

    That picture was taken about 3 hours before they hatched.

    The dad visits me twice a day, beating on my window with his beak while sitting on the hummingbird feeder affixed to my window. His name is Arthur. When he does this, I give him some worms that I purchase at the bird store. I am quite thoroughly trained by him.

    This has been a gift of God in my life. They make me smile.

  18. Thanks, Cindy & Lin, for your kind words. I just didn’t want Steve to think I didn’t appreciate his post or take it seriously.

    That said, another way to reaagange the letters to The Wartburg Watch is “Whew, that crab hurt!”

    🙂

  19. Dee,
    Are you sure it’s the same pair of bluebirds coming back each time? Or perhaps your backyard is a good place for random stranger bluebird hookups?

  20. Dee,

    We have hummingbird feeders here on our grounds too. In addition, there has been a Cooper’s hawk scouting the top of our oldest pine for a possible nesting site. Hummers and Cooper’s hawks will live together in a cooperative symbiosis. However, they (hummers) will not tolerate the red-tailed hawk in their domain.

    I too am awed by the machinations of the Great Spirit.

  21. Steve….

    I do so love irony, so this post is the height of pleasure. Notice the full context for Calvin’s criticism.

    In the modern age, most Protestants venerate Calvin as the poster child of courageous defense of purist bible faith. Most of our doctrines have evolved from him, so people don’t want to look too close at historic realities because that would call into question some of our most dearly held beliefs. It comes as no surprise that CJ can apply no real critical review to his bible interpretation or his historic hero. Is blatant effort for some righteousness- by- association is Vicar Charles Joseph goal. Curiously he has conveniently left out the murder and despotism of good ol’ Johnny C so he should also get credit for guilt-by-association. But that is only the beginning of the irony. Notice the reason for Calvin’s bible commentary:

    Calvin wrote: And, indeed, we see how great and diversified are the privileges by which Popery surrounds its clergy; so that, although their life be ever so wicked, 105 still they are exempted from all reproof. Certainly, if regard be had to the cautions which are collected by Gratian, 106 (Caus. 2, Quest. 4 and Quest. 7,) there will be no danger of their being ever compelled to give an account of their life.

    We forget that Calvin, in fact, spent most of his life defending his “heresy” against the Catholic orthodoxy. Since most of us are Protestants we assume that those dastardly Papists were the guys in black hats and Johnny C was in the white hat. But this fails to grasp the historical reality. Since the time of Pope Innocent the III what Calvin (Luther, Zwenglli, Beza et al) had done was tantamount to (civil) treason, and considered absolute abandonment of the true Christian Faith. With that brief context, now notice what Calvin is really arguing. His commentary on Timothy is a counter interpretation designed to justify his criticism of Church authorities. He is answering the logic put forth by Gratian and seeking to undermine the doctrinal bulwark that prevents clergy from “ever being compelled to give an account of their life.”

    He is responding to the argument that HE is disqualified because he is leveling criticism against “elders.” Calvin is challenging the very assertion that Mahaney is hiding behind: Critics are disqualified BECAUSE they criticize. He is challenging the root of Papal power to shield the bad behavior church leadership.

    And Calvin goes on to write:

    Moreover, seeing that the whole order of laymen is debarred from accusing, and as the inferior orders, even of the clergy, are forbidden to give any annoyance to the higher classes of them, what shall hinder them from fearlessly mocking at all decisions?
    This is SGM 101: the prevailing assumption that only leaders have the right to correct leaders. Laity just needs to mind its own business and let God deal with the holy men of God.

    This is hilarious … and the pinnacle of irony. Mahanay is using Calvin as proof text for his own beleaguered state of persecution, AND he is hiding behind the same Romanist assertion that it is immoral to criticize “elders.” He is resurrecting the very arguments the let the Catholic Church remain immune from criticism AND likening himself to Calvin who was arguing for the very RIGHT to challenge church leadership.

    What a hoot!

    Why do people doubt me when I say they are preaching Protestant Papacy?

  22. John, You crack me up…thanks for digging into that one for us.

    (For those who may not know, Vicar Charles Joseph is John’s nickname for CJ Mahaney)

  23. Dee … Lin thanks…

    Dee yea… i have some thoughts but they are explititives because someone hacked my site and whacked all the comments off my most recent post. LOL… Oh wow… someone didn’t want those speicific musings public.

    Anyway … you are welcome to use the observations in your history segment as you see fit. I’m still getting lots of pleasure over Vicar Charles Joseph’s irony. I do soooo love irony. I should have been British.

  24. John

    In some sense, we are all British but took a little turn towards a Republic.

    Any idea who is hacking your site? I have a wonderful geek guy who is keeping an eye on things. I bet if they tried it here, he could track them down.

    Anyway-the peasants are rising!

  25. John, I was wondering about your site. Comments are gone. I think the discussion was to hard hitting with actual critical thinking instead of just expressing feelings and still…after everthing…hoping the leaders at SGM change….someday….:o)

  26. Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed Dee and muff P’s bird stories + the photo of the eggs in the nest.

  27. Amen on the blue birds. Meg is preaching today on “red fish, blue fish” (Seuss) and the parable of the net full of fishes, some of whom get tossed and some get kept.

  28. Lin . . .

    From hard hitting critical thinking to eggs… lol… just struck me as an object lesson contrast….

    I long ago said there can be no reform within SGM. I know how desperately people want to hold out a vague hope, and live the ever present fantasy, that the pastors will return on bended knee and beg forgiveness. I’m kinda like the kid that tells everyone that Santa is not real. It is not going to happen, because the underlying ideas behind the SGM phenomena are designed to do exactly what they do: create a structure of despotism that can not be challenged.

    So many people think this is about bad polity and poor interpretive conclusions based on a lack of accountability (That is even Steve’s core assertion in this post.) But this is not the real problem, but merely a symptom. The root of the CJ/SGM issue is centered on the MORAL AUTHORITY to insist on an interpretive METHOD. The METHOD is then in service to a monopoly on interpretive conclusions. That is to say: to make TRUTH the property of the State.

    The Mahaney phenomena is actually not unique at all. He is only one more in a list of dozens that have arrived at the assumption that HE is uniquely qualified by the force of moral authority to define TRUTH His “logic” (as demonstrated by Steve’s post) is consistent with that foundational premise.

    The reason no one can really get underneath the SGM arguments. The reason no one can successfully unravel the insanity is because they concede the argument foundation: the moral authority of the SGM interpretive conclusions. Pretty much everyone assumes that this is a “Good idea taken too far.” I contend that if you can take an “idea too far”, you MUST check the premise of the idea. As you read through most of the blogs, with frightening consistency people measure the failure and success of the conversation based the the SGM yardstick. They openly pine for their (SGM) pastoral approval. It is no wonder the arguments fail. You can’t argue with the Pope as long as the Pope is in charge of meaning.

    Hence the Blogosphere disconnect … everyone is left to haggle over their emotional upheaval, or what SGM (and their defenders) assume is some vague doctrinal hair splitting of no real consequence or importance. And besides, those silly lay people just don’t have the burdens of OUR calling so, we (the SGM leaders) will just not answer fools in their folly. Alakazam Poof! Vicar Charles Joseph gets to define every issue and every implication and every sin and bear zero responsibility for any outcome.

    It is Magical Metaphysical Mayhem

    OL….

    Dee…. I haven’t figured out the hacker part yet. I have an IP address but that of course is not really connected to anything. So… IDK… My hosting company was able to get some more info… but not sure what to do with it.

    Since I’m my own tech geek I have to fix some things on the blog I guess.

    John

  29. “The root of the CJ/SGM issue is centered on the MORAL AUTHORITY to insist on an interpretive METHOD. The METHOD is then in service to a monopoly on interpretive conclusions. That is to say: to make TRUTH the property of the State.”

    John, I have been reluctant to say this on blogs but think if one person “gets it” it will be worth the backlash.

    After reading several threads over at survivors, I have come to the conclusion that some, not all, are behaving much like victims of domestic violence usually respond to abuse.

    After all these years and the PATTERN of behavior from Mahaney with no accountability and sin sniffing of the culture of sgm, they are actually hoping for true repentance and they will finally be humble servants of God.

    “He really means it this time”. He won’t beat me again. He is really sorry and he really is a nice man and great father to the kids. And all is well for a while.

    Judges have little time for it and neither do I.

    The thread on “strengths and weaknesses” of SGM just about blew my mind. How can their be strengths when the very premise is wrong? The barrell is rotten? So what if there are “nice great people” when they are supporting such a system?

    The very fact that so many are praying and hoping for CJ to repent actually gives him cover! They are enabling what they so hate! I feel like I am watching a real live experiment in group think. Well, I am! The foundation of what is wrong with SGM is still intact and even former members who were forced out are stll enabling CJ without even realizing it.

    I think it has to do with a deep misunderstanding of what is “nice” and looks Christian.

    I find it total irony that they want their Christian leader and guru to act…err…like a real Christian.

  30. “I think it has to do with a deep misunderstanding of what is “nice” and looks Christian…”

    Exactly right.

    And that misunderstanding is directly related to the SGM ability to define interpretive conclusion and standards. CJ’s “step down” letter is fully of the SGM presumption to redefine word meaning and ethical standard. As an organization SGM has boldly set out to define “nice” and “sin” and “pride” and “grace” and . . . the list of their determination to hold a monopoly on every doctrinal definition knows no bounds. There is even as one of the posts on this site notes, the redefinition of “gospel.”

    SGM has a strangle hold over the moral authority to define the interpretive outcomes… so everyone keeps measuring themselves against that standard. … because they have been led to believe that the SGM doctrinal standards are “Essentially” Reformed ergo essentially unchallengeable. And this is what very few people seem to be able to see their way out from underneath. So they rail about abuse, but like Stockholm victim’s they continue to identify with their captors. Never once do they realize that CJ et al, don’t really think they have done anything wrong … well, anything truly disqualifying. It’s just the way of a sinners groping blindly down the path of life… but really, what can you do, but forgive and move on?

    Judges might not like it… you might not like it… but all abused women have to arrive at the conclusion: THEY are morally valuable and worthy of respect.

    Right now… very few people are willing to challenge the premise of THEIR moral inferiority. The Essentially Reformed people presume the essential depravity of their own existence. Until they are willing to challenge the very core of their insecurity… they will return over and over and over to the abuse that is the inevitable conclusion underneath the SGM stranglehold.