Until the text gets fixed, here’s the link HT to The Tolling Bell:

http://www.challies.com/articles/thinking-biblically-about-cj-mahaney-and-sovereign-grace-ministries

Challies Implies that Christians Shouldn’t Care if Kids Get Molested in Other Churches

I found the quote below from Challies very interesting. Apparently he doesn’t think that Christians, or mature adults in general, have any reason to care about kids being molested in Churches outside their geographic area.

That’s quite a conviction from Challies, who just gave Mohler’s new book about Conviction, a glowing review on Amazon.

In addition to the generally immoral line of reasoning Challies is advocating, I would add the following counter-argument:

The public picks up the tab for medical care when churches let kids get molested so everyone has a big stake in preventing this from happening. For example, if pastors let serial pedophiles molest kids, who later end up in the hospital and on Medicaid, society is paying millions of dollars for their care. A single day in the hospital in the U.S. costs at least $1000-$3000 and many of these victims will presumably need psychiatric care for life.

Challies Quote

“This is an issue of greater urgency to some than others. The way each of us thinks through it will depend on the extent to which we are stakeholders, to our relational proximity to those involved and even geographic proximity. If you are a member at a SGM church this issue is very urgent, and particularly so if your church is considering withdrawing from the association. However, the majority of us are far on the outside with very little at stake. For this reason many of us simply do not need to have an opinion.”

“For this reason many of us simply do not need to have an opinion.”

Yea, none of us needed an opinion about Penn State. Give me a break.

I’m sorry – but what a coward. If you look at the A La Carte article just before the one mentioned here, he ponders things like Louis CK, and the meteor that exploded in Russia. Got time for comedians and falling rocks, but not abuse in the church. Talk about convenient priorities. Good grief.

Patrick – good point. If he’d said something like, I don’t know all the facts and I’m not going to pre-judge precisely because these matters have such potentially serious implications, that would’ve been one thing. The time-management thing is just banal.

BTW – I take it your avatar is meant to be the Stig?

Guys like Challies, Mohler, Piper, et.al. have no problem railing against the immorality and Godlessness of the mainstream culture, but when it comes to one of their own. . . . . .[chirp]

I’m just surprised Challies tried to make excuses for his silence. Fail.

The bible says that we are not to provoke one another, and this is exactly what Tim Challies has done. He’s thrown a big fat log on the fire.

Well, God will even use cause this for our good, to be sure. Adding fuel to the fire will work against SGM because you can be sure God is not pleased with Tim Challies and the position he has taken in support of SGM, especially when so many of God’s people have come out as true witnesses against SGM. Guess the lines are drawn. Tim Challies makes it sound like he’s sitting on the fence, but that’s not what he’s doing. He’s on SGM’s side.

With people like Challies saying stuff like this, it won’t be long before people start taking it to the streets. We’ve already been shouting it from the rooftops. This is really outrageous.

Tim Challies has closed the comments on that post?
Well, I guess I’m really glad that Deb and Dee are here with open comments so people can point out how wrong Challies is.

(I’m glad Dee and Deb are around for other reasons too. It’s just today I’m particularly glad they are here for this.)

Ugh.

“We tend to believe that the side that is slow or hesitant to release information must be in the wrong, that their silence is an admission of guilt. Keep in mind, though, that Jesus did not protest his innocence and that people took this as a sign of his guilt, though he, of all men, was completely innocent.”

He equates CJ and SGM with !Jesus!. Good grief.

He is heaping more hurt upon those who were abused. He is an arrogant Pharisee.

@ Jeff S.:

“What was God’s sakeholding in my salvation as a lost and dying sinner? I guess he did not need to have an opinion on the state of my soul. I’m grateful he did and sent his Son to the cross for me.”

Excellent Jeff!!!

Re: Challies deletion of Jeremiah’s rebuke to false/greedy prophets/priests. Jeremiah had his whole book deleted back then. From ch 36 :
‘And Jehudi read it to the king as well as to all the officials who stood beside the king. 22Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. 23When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe’s knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier. 24Yet the king and all his servants who heard all these words were not afraid, nor did they rend their garments. 25Even though Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah pleaded with the king not to burn the scroll, he would not listen to them.’
But God just had Jeremiah rewrite it!

It seems Challies and Mohler would have a difference of opinion. I agree with what Mohler says regarding the sexual molestation scandal at Penn State. I am at loss to explain why he doesn’t appear to hold to his own counsel regarding his close friend and benefactor C.J. Mahaney.

From Challies’ blog:
“As it pertains to the sexual abuse lawsuit I do not take this to mean that I necessarily presume innocence until guilt is proven (since, after all, there are professed Christians as both accusers and defenders) but rather that I am to do my best to withhold judgment until the God-ordained civil authorities have been able to do their work. It is for them to evaluate the case and to pass judgment, it is for me to withhold judgment until that time, especially so since these are, by their very nature, allegations and not yet proven facts.”

From Al Mohler’s blog:
“But the world has not only changed for college athletics. The detonation of the Penn State scandal must shake the entire nation into a new moral awareness. Any failure to report and to stop the sexual abuse of children must be made inconceivable. The moral irresponsibility that Penn State officials demonstrated in this tragedy may well be criminal. There can be no doubt that all of these officials bear responsibility for allowing a sexual predator to continue his attacks.

What about churches, Christian institutions, and Christian schools? The Penn State disaster must serve as a warning to us as well, for we bear an even higher moral responsibility. The moral and legal responsibility of every Christian — and especially every Christian leader and minister — must be to report any suspicion of the abuse of a child to law enforcement authorities. Christians are sometimes reluctant to do this, but this reluctance is both deadly and wrong.

Sometimes Christians are reluctant to report suspected sexual abuse because they do not feel that they know enough about the situation. They are afraid of making a false accusation. This is the wrong instinct. We do not have the ability to conduct the kind of investigation that is needed, nor is this assigned to the church. This is the function of government as instituted by God (Romans 13). Waiting for further information allows a predator to continue and puts children at risk. This is itself an immoral act that needs to be seen for what it is.

A Christian hearing a report of sexual abuse within a church, Christian organization, or Christian school, needs to act in exactly the same manner called for if the abuse is reported in any other context. The church and Christian organizations must not become safe places for abusers. These must be safe places for children, and for all. Any report of sexual abuse must lead immediately to action. That action cannot fall short of contacting law enforcement authorities. A clear lesson of the Penn State scandal is this: Internal reporting is simply not enough.

After law enforcement authorities have been notified, the church must conduct its own work of pastoral ministry, care, and church discipline. This is the church’s responsibility and charge. But these essential Christian ministries and responsibilities are not substitutes for the proper function of law enforcement authorities and the legal system. As Christians, we respect those authorities because we are commanded to do so.

There may well be further arrests in connection with the Penn State scandal. One can only imagine the lawsuits that will consume the university’s time and treasury in years ahead. Christian institutions and churches looking at this scandal had better act immediately to ensure that all operate under adequate policies and guidelines. What would prevent this scandal at your school or church?

Church leaders and pastors must decide now — not later — that we will respond to any report of sexual abuse with immediate action and an immediate call to law enforcement officials. We must decide in advance what we will do, and not allow ourselves to think that we can handle such a challenge on our own. Every church and Christian institution needs a full set of policies, procedures, and accountability structures. As leaders, we must develop the right instincts for right action.

The leaders of Penn State University must have acted, or failed to have acted, out of many motivations. One may well have been to protect the image and reputation of the university. Well, we now see where that leads. A scandal reported and ended in 2002 would be horrible enough. A scandal that began there, was known by officials, and explodes almost a decade later is too horrible to contemplate.
We all need an immediate reality check. I discovered yesterday that the policy handbook of the institution I am proud to lead calls for any employee receiving a report of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, to contact his or her supervisor with that report. That changes today. The new policy statement will direct employees receiving such a report to contact law enforcement authorities without delay. Then, after acting in the interests of the child, they should contact their supervisor.

In a real sense, the whole world changed today. We all know more than we knew before, and we are all responsible for that knowledge. The costs of acting wrongly in such a situation, or acting inadequately, are written across today’s headlines and the moral conscience of the nation. The tragedy at Penn State is teaching the entire nation a lesson it dare not fail to learn.”

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/10/the-tragic-lessons-of-penn-state-a-call-to-action/

@Searching…
Shortly after Brent’s documents were released to the public and before we left our SGM church…that was the talk going around. People were comparing CJ with Jesus and saying that Jesus was misunderstood and falsely accused just like CJ. Made me sick at my stomach to say the least.

I saw this quote today on Forbes. “Facts are worthless to a man if he has to keep running to somebody else for advice on how to use them.” If people feel they need to consult guys like Tim Challies and look to him for advice on what they should be doing then the only thing missing are the facts.

@ Mandy…I love it…”Church of Manly Pansies”!!!

@ Patrick Henderson:

So Patrick seeing your U.S. flag on your post you really should put up Fat Stig, Stig’s American cousin. 🙂 Damien Lewis did a lap in the reasonably priced car on the new season premier and it was fabulous.

On topic – Tim Challies has just rendered himself of no consequence or spritual or moral authority with this post. None whatsoever.

This is just a horrible, shallow response from Challies, & once again, more inclined towards protecting the good name of the church even if it’s at the cost of abused children. Idiotic behaviour…RHE was right interms of how he’s positioning the leaders as the Christlike persecuted, & the families as the ungodly accusers. Vile & loathsome, & totally delightful to paedophiles hoping to continue with their actions in churches. I despair of this.

Tim Challies: every christian, every person who cares about young people has a dog in this race….don’t fool yourself.

“However, the majority of us are far on the outside with very little at stake.”

Really? SGM materials, Mahaney’s in particular, are promoted all over. Non-SGM churches and pastors are being influenced by SGM, and push the same kind of so-called biblical thinking on their congregations. Anyone who cares about the teaching direction of their own church has a horse in this race, because SGM’s influence is pervasive.

Mandy wrote:

Tim Challies, welcome to the Church Of Manly Pansies. You have officially earned your membership along with the men you like to defend with your silence.

Tim Challies, why doncha go beat up your wife to show us Unwashed how Manly Man you are.

Timely – I ran across this quote today by J.K. Rowling, “It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends.” Perhaps John Piper, Al Mohler, Tim Challies and co. should think on that.

Marshall Coleman

I like your forthrightness. I think there is a need for this. No need to us to sound doubtful or lack deliberativeness. This situation requires direct responses characterized by a steadfast confidence in the Lord. There is no need for us to waver on this. Right on brother!

@TW

You quoted: From Challies’ blog:
“As it pertains to the sexual abuse lawsuit I do not take this to mean that I necessarily presume innocence until guilt is proven (since, after all, there are professed Christians as both accusers and defenders) but rather that I am to do my best to withhold judgment until the God-ordained civil authorities have been able to do their work…”

Here is the crux of the matter: Challies is specifically stating that when its a Christian who is accused then you need to “withold judgement” the implication being that when it is a non-christain (like Sandusky) – judge away.

Comment deleted by editor

@ Lee

They are in denial that the leadership and teachings themselves could have lead to something this embarrassing (the proper term is despicable but they are really just embarrassed) – ergo there is no need to remove those materials and influence from our library shelves – it is clearly not the fruit of the movement and its important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Tim Challies needs to repent ! As Christians , we are called to defend the abused in our own regions and all over the world . I donate to World Vision to supply food and educate to a little boy in another country , according to Tim Challies , I should have no concern whatsoever for this little boy or his family because they do not live in my region . It’s not an either or situation here !!! You can do both , speak out against injustice in your own regions and all over the world . This is one of the most disgusting , cowardly things I have read . Makes my stomach turn ..

The woman ran to Jesus, Oh Master, some of our people have been abused by the religious leaders can you help us find the truth and provide comfort for them?

Jesus replies:

My sister, I have chosen to read the news stories, to understand the basic facts, but conscience compels me to stop there. To do more may not be spiritually beneficial, it may not reflect good time management, and it may not be loving toward those who are involved.

Way to go, Tim. You are very Christlike. Doing all you can to protect the innocent and encouraging the wolves to forgo the 1st Amendment and be truthful and encouraging your other celebrity Reformed buddies to back away from promoting the wolves until this is resolved..

Disappointing that Challies would take this “non position” position.

It’s typical. “If it’s not my problem…it’s not a problem”.

I guarantee you if one of Challies kids or relatives was among the victims, he’d care…

Challies says: “I take this as a call to consider carefully what information I learn.”
How is that different than willfully looking the other way when powerful men commit great crimes?

“Since when did Stupidity become next to Godliness?”

@ HUG:

Err…the exact moment da LegalBeagles get involved.

Itz about collateral damnage.

Itz about da M-o-n-e-y.

Silly…

“If there is a story in there, I am asking” :

“Why would God reveal Himself in this story?”

“Why does He want me to know this story?”

“What am I being called to do?” 

– Tim Challies

hmmm…

Good questions, Tim. try them again in this SGM context sometime…

I am sure God is listening, and  your proverbial Bible study friends can probably wait a moment.

(grin)

Sopy

@ Miguel:

There is no difference….willfully ignorant must be bliss for this man. Another moral coward who thinks he can tell others how to think while he himself is choosing not to think!

Where is Balaam’s donkey when you need him?

At the Boar’s Head Tavern, Chris Hubbs has posted a link to Challies’ post, a very good response to it, and a link to Rachel Held Evans’ post. Because the BHT has close ties to the Internet Monk site, I hope this means somebody at IM will bring it up too.

Link: http://boarsheadtavern.com/2013/02/28/yet-another-topic/.

“It strikes me as deeply problematic that it’s somehow not okay for Christians to criticize other Christians. It also strikes me as extremely odd that there’s an apparent exception: it seems you can criticize people when they, in turn, are criticizing genuinely bad behavior. ”

They missed the point. It is “Christian LEADERS” one is not to critisize. And questioning is considered critical

ES wrote:

Here is the crux of the matter: Challies is specifically stating that when its a Christian who is accused then you need to “withold judgement” the implication being that when it is a non-christain (like Sandusky) – judge away.

Well, maybe Challies is right. Think of all the times Jesus harshly criticized the pagans while reminding his followers that their own religious leaders were above reproach and should be passively followed without question.

…Hey, wait a minute! 🙂

It is becoming increasingly clear just how dangerous this ‘authoritative’ view of church structure is. There is zero provision in this theology for sin and corruption in the leaders themselves.

The victims went to pastors for help. Instead of guidance they received authoritative instruction. They were expected to obey what they were told, even if it was against their wishes. They could not voice opposition, as this prompted accusations of “bitterness” and “disobedience.” Victims could not turn to other church members, friends for help, because this is “gossip.” Victims could not leave the church, because the leadership would follow them and shame them. Victims cannot appeal the courts because ‘1st amendment means the government has no right to intervene.” And now, victims cannot appeal to the global church or the public, because it is “not their business!”

Unbelievable!

Off topic-

I noticed these tweets at Challies’ twitter–first one from Barnabas Piper (John Piper’s son) and then Challies’ ?cute? response–

10 hrsBarnabas Piper‏@BarnabasPiper

Forgot to check in early for my flight to TX. Now guaranteed a seat between the fat farter and the screaming baby. Swell.

9 hrschallies‏@challies

@BarnabasPiper Such a rookie mistake!
https://twitter.com/challies

Fat farter? And all Challies can say to Piper’s son is rookie mistake? How about something like this that Challies wrote just today on his blog:

“You and I are responsible to do well here, to be above reproach in our thoughts, words and actions. We are responsible to be marked by love whether evaluating a difficult situation or taking appropriate action. We can make the gospel look great or we can make it look insignificant.”

Seems to me Barnabas Piper made the gospel look insignificant with his cruel, not above reproach fat farter comment, and all Challies can say is “rookie mistake”. Or was all that biblical advice that just for us non-celebs.

I can tell by the comments that this whole thing is really starting to come to a head. People are becoming very clear headed and seeing the truth. The fog is lifting and the light is starting to shine with a laser like intensity, PTL.

Thank you Tim Challies for being an instrument of righteousness, in ways you don’t know.

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. “So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them. Gen. 50:20-21

“My plan will stand, and I’ll do everything I intended to do.” Is 46:10

Kristin wrote:

It is becoming increasingly clear just how dangerous this ‘authoritative’ view of church structure is. There is zero provision in this theology for sin and corruption in the leaders themselves.

The victims went to pastors for help. Instead of guidance they received authoritative instruction. They were expected to obey what they were told, even if it was against their wishes. They could not voice opposition, as this prompted accusations of “bitterness” and “disobedience.” Victims could not turn to other church members, friends for help, because this is “gossip.” Victims could not leave the church, because the leadership would follow them and shame them. Victims cannot appeal the courts because ’1st amendment means the government has no right to intervene.” And now, victims cannot appeal to the global church or the public, because it is “not their business!”

Unbelievable!

Completely astounding!

Kristin wrote:

It is becoming increasingly clear just how dangerous this ‘authoritative’ view of church structure is. There is zero provision in this theology for sin and corruption in the leaders themselves.
The victims went to pastors for help. Instead of guidance they received authoritative instruction. They were expected to obey what they were told, even if it was against their wishes. They could not voice opposition, as this prompted accusations of “bitterness” and “disobedience.” Victims could not turn to other church members, friends for help, because this is “gossip.” Victims could not leave the church, because the leadership would follow them and shame them. Victims cannot appeal the courts because ’1st amendment means the government has no right to intervene.” And now, victims cannot appeal to the global church or the public, because it is “not their business!”
Unbelievable!

Kristin, another commenter on another blog (who I would love to credit, but I have lost track of that particular page) described why churches like SGM are prime for this kind of thing. Because of the emphasis on identifying sin, being repentant, being held accountable, etc., in a situation like this the PERPETRATORS appear to be “more holy” because they are weeping about their sin (actually about being found out…), while the victims are angry and not willing to just forgive and forget that it ever happened, and therefore are perceived – and labeled! – as the ones who are sinning.

“here is zero provision in this theology for sin and corruption in the leaders themselves.”

Bingo. Closed system. No accountability. Thinking you are specially anointed. Power corrupts.

They become the lawless ones as they emulate the Pharisees.

Marshall
Let us know about your blog and we will plug it. @ Marshall Coleman:

Tim Challies = Sergeant Schultz

http://youtu.be/-BFY9IkUt8w

Wish the comments weren’t closed. O Tim, Really now, really? This is your response to children who have suffered molestation? Do you have any idea the long term ramifications of what sexual abuse does to a child… You make me sick.

Eagle wrote:

Also what is this “Need to Know” crap that Tim Challis spouts? “Need to Know” in Christianity? 😯 It makes me wonder…is Christianity to be run like the CIA? NRO? FBI? Department of Homeland Security? FBI? Are we talking that kind of “Need to Know”? 😯

I remember when I was still in the WOF bubble…. The concept of ‘watching what you learn’ was present. Anything that made you squirm concerning the ‘doctrine’ you had swallowed and were being fed was something you ‘didn’t need to know.’ This post is an effective tool for Challies to keep the ‘faithful’ in line and not reading those ‘gossipy’ blogs and having their minds ‘tainted.’

I remember actually being afraid to read anything that was critical of one of the WOF leaders (Hagin, Copeland, etc.) because it would ‘weaken my faith’ and ’cause me to doubt.’ Yeah…Challies’ followers got the message….

Interesting, Challies has no problem opining about the Pope stuff and RCC and a variety of other stuff he is not directly involved with…but feels the need to express the rhetoric of “Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil” regarding Mahaney and SGM. Tims’ wrong on this one big time.

Kristin,

You have captured the essence of this type of oppressive Christian church leadership!! You have covered the main distresses and the crazy reasoning behind them. Your comment has resonated with many others. You will be quoted!

@Dee: I’ll check IM first thing in the morning.

@ Ryan: Spanier was only fired from the presidency of PSU. he is still a member of the faculty, and receives a large salary + benefits package. I’m sure he’s banking on a pension as well.

🙁

Thanks, and the Timing of Challies Change in Attitude About SGM

Thanks, Dee and others who have given me positive feedback. My blog may be fairly dull as it talks about how to file HIPAA (medical privacy laws in the U.S.) complaints (against pastors who blab about the medical conditions of victims to their care group leaders ) and shows people how to tell the IRS if you think a certain non-profit church is behaving without integrity. But taking action feels good.

Believe me, the IRS is distrustful of non-profits in general and would be happy to get a good faith complaint from anyone who thinks church leaders are illegitimately benefiting from money donated by their members. From what I see, the leaders of SGM and CLC have some explaining to do!

As for Challies:

I’ve never seen the guy’s appeal. He’s a bad writer as his recent convoluted mess of an article illustrates. According to the posts above he acts like a frat boy, too, behind the scenes. Yet some folks like his schtick and that’s their prerogative.

However, I also wonder about the timing of his latest piece of drivel designed to semi-distance himself from SGM. Tim Tebow claimed that new information, the nature of which he did not disclose, caused him to bow out of speaking at the Gospel Coalition recently. Piper did speak at Mahaney’s new Church but his references to CJ being persuasive and frequent reassurances that he was there of his own volition indicated that someone was actually twisting his arm pretty hard.

I think that the SGM/CLC legal defense, arguing that the First Amendment lets pastors cover up sexual abuse with impunity, is putting too much heat on Mahaney’s supporters. Of course secular authorities are not to be trusted or respected but you’re not supposed to tell the public that or they might take away your tax breaks!

That concern would explain Challies statements about letting civil authorities handle Mahaney’s case and his sudden desire to read new reports from the mainstream media about SGM.

Just a thought.

I just read Challies and was so appalled I came over here and was delighted to see you’ve addressed it. I’m sure others have already commented on this, but to e the truly horrific thing was that all his comments about Christian love and thinking well about people were aimed at the perpetrators, not the victims. So now we know that caring about injustice is poor time management. Makes you wonder why Jesus ever wasted His precious short time on earth speaking about the false teaching of the Pharisees. I am doubly struck because just this morning I was asked to speak at our local WDP on the theme of “I was a stranger and you welcomed me”. The thing that really struck me was in Matt 25, when Jesus speaks about the sheep and the goats, he identifies, not with the generous (as we would expect from the Maker of All) but with the “least of these”. God is more interested in how we treat the ones at the bottom of the pile than the ones at the top

Pam wrote:

Sexual abuse victims? Better cross the street and walk on the other side lest he get tainted by them.

Or lest he get thrown under the bus by his Neo-Reformed pals, like the victims were. That’s another possible reason why the priest and the Levite walked on by. They may have been terrified of getting beaten and robbed themselves.

Hester wrote:

I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. -1 Timothy 5:21

Funny, Mickey Connolly used that exact verse at CrossWay to “prove” that the 3-man panels SGM used back in 2011 (1 board member; 2 pastors) were fair and unbiased. Essentially, Mickey said that because this verse charges the panel to judge without partially, therefore we can know that the panel did judge fairly and without bias. That was Mickey’s whole argument – it’s a solemn charge, so of course you know these men of “impeccable integrity” did it. And I’m afraid a whole bunch of people swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.

In her 7: 28 am #160 March 1st. comment over at SGM Survivors, Kris the Moderator there said the following:

“Earlier, ‘Benjk’

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=4041&cp=3#comment-73395

..said he thought we were being unfair for seeming to accuse Challies of being deceptive. As I tried to get at with my comment #149, 

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=4041&cp=3#comment-73403

I don’t see why it’s necessarily shocking or scandalous to look at Challies’ abundance of pro-SGM posts, his expressed wistfulness for a mentor like CJ, and the book endorsements from CJ’s come-hell-or-high-water supporters and see someone who is indeed (contrary to what he claims) very personally invested in the idea that CJ Mahaney and SGM are worthy of all the good things he has always believed about them.

It’s like anyone who has thought and promoted a particular point of view for a long time. How many of you reading this right now had a really difficult time acknowledging the problems in your SGM church because you’d committed so much of your time, money, and devotion to the idea that you’d found the ‘best church out there’?

Who wants to acknowledge that they were snookered?
I know book blurbs aren’t the be-all end-all, but surely that’s got to be at least a passing thought in Tim Challies’ mind. Unless he’s not normal, not human like the rest of us, he’s got to feel a level of pressure to remain in agreement with the guys who endorsed his books. They’ve all (to their ultimate embarrassment, I believe) come down hard on CJ’s critics and declared CJ fit for ministry. They continue to stand behind their friend. 

Al Mohler accepted over $100,000 in donations from CJ to the SBTS. He has an increasingly cozy little relationship with CJ now that SGM moved its headquarters to Louisville. 

Ligon Duncan has written some pretty acrid words against those who would dare to question CJ. 

And Mark Dever (another endorser of Challies’ books) welcomed CJ to Capitol Hill Baptist when CJ was trying to avoid his critics at CLC.

How hard would it be to break ranks with the big-name guys who helped you out by providing promotional statements for the back cover of your first book? 

What sort of crazy irony is there in publishing a book about “spiritual discernment” when you yourself are forced to admit a few years later that you resolutely refused to discern dysfunction and evil and pressed on in your admiration of a particular man?

If we’re human, we’re going to be invested in our long-held opinions, especially if we’ve shared them with other people. 

In addition to the pastor gig he got primarily because of the influence he’d wielded on his blog, Challies makes his living from sharing his beliefs through his writing. 

People have been looking to him for years because they respect his opinions and think he’s got discernment. He actually literally wrote the book on discernment (just like CJ wrote the book on humility).

So, no matter what he might say about his supposed non-relationship with CJ, he’s got a lot riding on having been right about CJ and SGM. 

I can’t imagine why that would be difficult to see. And I can’t imagine why that would be hard to understand.”  -Kris

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=4041&cp=4#comment-73414

“Withholding judgment” simply means that Mr. Challies won’t take a stand against sin because he makes a living from his blog. He has worked long and hard to carve out his profitable place in the evangelical landscape.

He cannot afford to take a stand and so he, along with many other Christian leaders, choose to sacrifice our children on the altar of their wallets and reputations.

What Was Really Bothering Tebow?

Thanks, Dee. My apologies on getting my facts wrong as to where Tebow declined to speak.

I agree that the big controversy surrounding the event is likely why he backed out but he knew about the views and attitude of its sponsor beforehand. And he could have said attending the event was more trouble than it was worth but added another rationale for canceling, according to a Christianity Today article written by Al Mohler:

The controversy threatened to dominate Tebow’s life, so the 25-year-old athlete withdrew, attempting to escape his predicament. Stating that he has wished to “share a message of hope and Christ’s unconditional love” with the historic congregation, Tebow said that due to new information that was brought to my attention he has decided to cancel the event. He then pledged to use “the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope, and Love to all those needing a brighter day.

What was this new info Tebow felt compelled to reference so vaguely? Was there a side predicament Tebow was attempting to avoid?

Like the SBC potentially having a big Penn State problem he doesn’t want to be associated with?

It’s just speculation but then so is everything and keeping track of potential puzzle pieces can be helpful when looking at big picture problems, to me.

@ Diane:
Diane,
I did an impulsive thing, I really didn’t think it would even post but it did. I did not put your moniker to it but I copied and pasted your post to Barnabas Piper blog. I added my own exhortation to BP but it looks like I wrote the whole thing, sorry.

Dear Tim:
I’m sorry that you closed your comments. As a fellow blogger, I can understand why you might – keeping up with comments is exhausting, especially if you have to censor them. That being said, I was very disappointed with your article. I just wanted to say that just because you put “Thinking Biblically” in your title doesn’t mean you actually have. I could write a longer comment dismantling your bad arguments, but others have already done so above. I say this with concern – please read and learn. It is public knowledge that you make money from SGM. In this whole issue you come across as caring more about your income than about allegations os sin so terrible it begs for millstones and oceans. Please don’t be foolish. Sincerely,

Check this out about Challies:

http://boarsheadtavern.com/2013/02/28/36079/

Is this really a quote by Tim Challies about his friend/non-friend, CJ? “In his 2005 post on Desperate Jealousy, for example, he wrote “[Joshua] Harris had his mentor in Mahaney, and I couldn’t think of too many guys who would do a better job of it. There isn’t much I wouldn’t give to have that type of relationship with a man like Mahaney.”

Dee – Terrific job at iMonk!

(My sole comment there is awaiting moderation… Must’ve gotten some nasty stuff coming their way already.)

Dee, you’re welcome to quote me but I don’t want to add extra citations to your article – I’m cool just being “thoughts from a reader” and don’t even generally care if people borrow “my ideas” because all ideas are borrowed in some sense as a collaborative process.

Plus it’s not like I’m re-inventing Coca-Cola or coming up with a new Kennedy assassination theory.

The info above can easily be researched by anyone. Because I’m in the web marketing business I happen to have more insight into how Challies makes his money than the average person would.

I’m just happy to have this forum through which to get feedback about some articles I’d like to write about SGM/CLC and hopefully help protect kids from the less-than-mature adults in their lives.

I had some hard times as a young person but was lucky to have great adult role models, some of whom were not in my geographic area at the time, taking care of me. Paying that forward even a little bit is a joy I’m sorry that Tim Challies may never know.

Marshall, Amen and God Bless you.

Hester, All you say is correct. Those of us who have read Challies from almost the beginning know that there is a trajectory here. He built his career on the Reformed brand.

Others have too. And as they drop….like Driscoll and now Mahaney….and more will….there is a problem of “distancing” oneself from the fallout. Especially when it if financial. Guys like Mohler, Duncan and Dever will be ok and this fall out will not hurt them financially. It might lessen numbers of attendees at a conference or something but at the end of the day, they will have their pastorate and be a seminary president. And Piper will be a global Apostle and 21st Century John Calvin to the world.

Hi Ladies,

We have found the practice of recycling all of our sermons, as well as our conference, workshop and blog topics because we believe in conservation and in saving energy. It sure saves us the energy of having to come up with something original and inspired that’s for sure!

So with that in mind, we thought we would recycle this “Thank You Note” we wrote to Tim Challies and posted on our blog back in August of 2011 because we couldn’t have said it better again ourselves!

We wanted to take a moment and thank all of you for the countless messages of support, encouragement, and prayers we have received these past few months. You will never know this side of heaven just how much you have blessed us by your kindness. We thank God for you. Today we are also thankful for the biblical perspective Tim Challies shared on his blog. In the days ahead we look forward to telling you about the many ways we are experiencing the steadfast love of the Lord in the midst of this trial. God is doing a gracious work in Sovereign Grace Ministries and we look forward to seeing His good plan unfold.

Your grateful friends,
Carolyn, Nicole, Kristin, and Janelle

http://www.girltalkhome.com/blog/thank-you

“And Piper will be a global Apostle and 21st Century John Calvin to the world.”

…which boggles my mind as I’ve never heard the man say anything profound or insightful. High word count, though. : ) Is that really his plan, then, to globetrot and keep writing books?
”

Did you not see his Geneva video? Oh my word. The guys in the white coats need to be called. He has lost it. I do wonder how much it cost to send a crew to Geneva to film that bizarre announcement about his future plans.

It’s my understanding that Challies has no seminary or bible college training. He serves as an associate pastor at his church and “became an elder in 2010”. I looked at his church’s website (under pastors) and saw three listed: the founding pastor who lists his B.A. and M.Div., and 2 others (one being Challies) who list no seminary or bible college.

http://www.gfcto.com/about/pastors

If I am supposed to accept what Challies says here:

“However, the majority of us are far on the outside with very little at stake. For this reason many of us simply do not need to have an opinion.”

I would like to know on what basis?

He says we are out of the proper jurisdiction, so to speak. That part of the body of Christ is too far away for us to worry about. (Isn’t it incredible that it is his opinion informing us that we may not have an opinion?) Nowhere in God’s word does it say we cannot be concerned for and have an opinion about other believers who are far away.

I guess I would like to know what qualifies him to say I do not need to have an opinion? The fact that he was declared an elder in 2010? The associate pastor status he acquired with no seminary/bible college education? His 3,409 consecutive days of blogging? Because he wrote a book on spiritual discernment? What is it? Theological education at least gives some weight– if one is going to act as an authority/teacher/informer…even if one doesn’t agree…one can respect the effort put forth in obtaining education. imo

Eagle wrote:

You know I was thinking….some Christians make marriage an idol. They elevate it so high that it is worshipped. At I-Monk a few years back I think it was HUG who called this “Salvation by Marriage”.

I didn’t coin the term. Some commenter at Internet Monk did in a thread about Christian Singles in 2006. I started using it because it’s a good one-liner.

“Did you not see his Geneva video? Oh my word. The guys in the white coats need to be called. He has lost it. I do wonder how much it cost to send a crew to Geneva to film that bizarre announcement about his future plans.”

Did I read something about his wife being there with him? A working vacation? Make a video in an afternoon and have a nice vacation.

“Did I read something about his wife being there with him? A working vacation? Make a video in an afternoon and have a nice vacation.”

Maybe he was “working on the garden of his marriage” like he did when he had to take a 6 mo Sabbatical but only after speaking on stages all over for years on how to have a Gospel marriage? We thought he had one! Hope his followers can afford 6 mo Sabbaticals to work on the garden of their marriages after following his teaching.

Sheesh! These guys are such fakes.

From Challies’ church’s website under links/resources:

“Sovereign Grace Ministries. A tremendous resource for Christian music, books, conferences, church planting initiatives, and various other resources.”

http://www.gfcto.com/links

Trememdous resource for church planting initiatives. Would that include SGM head honcho C.J. Mahaney’s own Louisville church plant as an example of such awesome tremendousness? The cut and run church plant initiative? The do what I say not as I do church plant initiative?

@ lilyrosemary:

“I guess Piper never figured out that brevity is the soul of wit!”

Or – Johnny, you’ve been Strunked! ; ) I’d love to put proofreading marks in red ink all over my copy of Don’t Waste Your Life.

@ lilyrosemary:

I’m certainly not against long sentences…but the key word in Strunk’s dictum is “needless.” Personally I’m convinced that Don’t Waste Your Life could probably have been ~85 pages, tops, prob. more like 50. 300+ was completely “needless.” : )

I think the fact that Challies has a vested interest in defending C.J. Mahaney has been well established, but lest anyone should still think he is just a neutral, disinterested third party observer here is a quote from Brent Detwiler:

“My counsel to John Piper is the same as my counsel to Tim Challies from one and half years ago when he defended C.J. and condemn me as a slanderer on his blog.

“I hope you will read all of my documents and also my posts at BrentDetwiler.com. That’s required reading if you are going to post about me. What you fail to realize is the pervasive and profound nature of problems in SGM. Hundreds, if not thousands of people have been mishandled and mistreated. You don’t have two anti-SGM blogs, SGM Survivors and SGM Refuge, because of disagreements between C.J. and me. You really must get educated about the depth and breadth of ungodly practices that have existed in the movement. You haven’t done your homework. You also fail to recognize the long term and serious nature of C.J.’s sins. Many men have brought many charges for many years against C.J.” (Brent Detwiler, A Brief Response to Tim Challies, August 17, 2011)”

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2013/2/22/john-pipers-unqualified-endorsement-of-cj-mahaney-breaks-hea-1.html

I think that it is sad, perhaps the saddest consequence of evangelical biblicism, that the Tim Challieses of the world use scripture to justify their bad behavior; and not just use it, but use it with seemingly no twinge of remorse. The archives of this and countless other blogs are replete with similar examples. I don’t know, but I suspect that this is the natural outworking of what appears to be a view that the bible = God. Unfortunately the epidemic shows no signs of abating and that doesn’t bode well for those entrapped in that system of belief. This brings to mind this verse:

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. – Matthew 9:36

As to Piper’s retirement, I am waiting on pins and needles to see what RISKY things he signs up for along with his wife. After all, he’s the one who wrote an entire book, “Don’t Waste Your Life” teaching the rest of us that unless we’re out there doing big, risky things for God, including risking our lives that we are big fat Christian zeros. Somehow, I doubt he’ll follow the same advice he’s been feeding the rest of us.

Yes, I am angry for being sucked into that mindset. I am currently recovering from the burnout of trying to live in like Piper teaches.

The world ooooohed and ahhhhhhed about how great it was that he took an 8 months leave of absence to naval gaze. Really, who can afford to do that?? Only wealthy, privileged mega pastors.

And now Crossway publishing, riding the success wave of David Platt’s “Radical” has released “Risk is Right” by John Piper, which is nothing original, but merely a reprinting if one of the chapters from the book, “Don’t Waste Your Life.” Forward by David Platt. Fleecing the flock is good business. As for Challies, he left a glowing five star review on amazon for the book.

“All of a sudden, Challies has identified himself as a bit of an expert on Christian time management. Could he be the next neo-cal version of Steven Covey (author of best seller “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”). Could he be planning a new book “Seven Habits of Highly Effective Neo-Cals”, with another endorsement by CJ?”

Oh yes! This is a great question. How about the “One Minute Christian”? A bit dated but Blanchard took his “servant leadership” model to megas back in the 90’s.

Challies could explain biblically why it is poor time management for Christians to acknowledge broken abused people….from toxic churches.

Marshall, Thank you so much for your informative comments. I am learning a lot.

Dee –

There was discussion on Survivors this past week about a book review that Challies did on “Feminine Appeal” by Carolyn Mahaney. Someone shared an excerpt from the book and pointed out the terrible exegesis that Carolyn developed. It didn’t seem that Mr. Challies was very discerning about what he read, or possibly didn’t read at all, though the book received a glowing review.

Let’s not forget that Challies is also one of the “women can’t read scripture out loud during our Sunday service” guys. He is a biblical literalist with the best if them. I just want to know when all these literalists are going to cut off their hand or gouge out an eye, or maybe put their own child to death.

Dave, I could not get past “opinings” for a while but once I did I had to crack up at “those who have no real knowledge of the matter…. (first hand narrative?) OR “authority” to comment upon them”

Does he not realize he outed the entire T4G movement with that? It is all about them having “authority”. They get to decide….which is EXACTLY why there is an SGM scandal!

@ Anon 1:
I’m LOL as it occurs to me– I deleted Duncan’s reference to Wounded People and inserted “…”
T4G and TGC wish they could just delete all Wounded People and make them “…” 🙂

@ Anon 1:
And they have fingers firmly in ears to AVOID hearing anyone with first-hand knowledge of the matter, except he current “authorities”. Even hundreds of pages of documents or hundreds or emails from former “authorities”.

Dave,

So now….CJ is going to have to listen…I doubt if his hierarchical peers will be around to listen, too, if it gets to that point.

And CJ will listen to a woman in “authority”.

Poetic justice?

Dave A A, I’ve been at clc since it was gob. I know bits and pieces of facts about all the law suite stories. Does that make me qualified to think? Or talk. I have talked to Susan Burke.
My kids know things, as well, but they won’t talk. What happened with some of our kids is unbelievable and I wish they would talk. But this blog is for old people (they think). They’re done with church. This is abuse just as much as child sex abuse. It needs to be stopped. And CJ is responsible for an awful lot.

Dee and Deb, I wish my kids would talk to you about their stories. I feel this is at the crux of the matter. I just don’t know how to explain what I’m trying to say. Their stories are the fruit of sgm’s mess.

dee
Challies review of Piper’s “Risk is Right” was almost as long as the “book.”

Piece of cake!

More like a “Pamphlet Review”!

“I think there’s a need for a seperate and distinct ministry for them, to bring them out from under it all and into the light.”

I agree, Evie. I know they are busy and do not really see how deeply it affected them but one day it will rear its ugly head as they grow older. Perhaps we could appeal to they are helping others by talking?

They desperately need to be affirmed and told that what they lived through there has nothing to with King Jesus. Even though they used Jesus to try and control people.

Yes, Evie I was incorrect on Challies’ star count for Risk. I should have rechecked.

“At this point I get the impression John Piper is putting himself out there instead of being sent, know what I’m saying? And if that’s the case, I can imagine him attempting to generate stories of being in danger as a way of proving to others his mission, his ministry, and as validation for his asking people to contribute financially toward all his trsvels into foreign lands. Its like I sense he’s hoping for his life to be threatened like Paul’s was. ”

There is another aspect to this I think is worth analyzing. Not long ago a YRR youth pastor told me that Piper was the greatest evangelist of our time. I asked him politely to rethink that. Piper has spent his career preaching/teaching audiences of professed believers. And many of those audiences have been aspiring or current pastors. That does not mean he has NEVER spoken to non believers it is just not what he is known for. I asked him to take that into consideration.

So why do these young men think he is an evangelist as that is not the first time I have heard him referred to that way? For one reason he preaches to these audiences as if they are not saved. Anyone else ever notice that? That is one reason folks miss some of the glaring problems with his doctrine and illustrations. Some people think that is good because they say most believers are not really saved. But Piper preaches almost constantly from a Justification point of view. His followers never really get past the milk and into the meat of living out that life in Christ. They are busy being saved all the time. They are stuck at the cross, too, but in a much more subtle way than how other Reformed guys are more obvious. Piper is so flowery and verbose most don’t see it. Being stuck at the cross seems to be a tenent of this YRR movement but communicated in various forms.

Perhaps, Piper wants to now be a real evangelist. Let us see how that works. Too seek unbelievers, he will have to get his hands dirty.

“I think his article was a trial run to see how people would react to some of the arguments the bigger fish would like to use in weaseling out of associating with Mahaney without outright condemning him. I doubt they’ll repeat the “don’t interfere with sex abuse cases unless they’re in your own Church” argument as it didn’t go over well in any geographic area.”

I totally agree with this assessment. He has done what I thought at the time were trial balloons on other topics in the past. In fact, I suspect he does this at request or suggestion of others.

I agree with you he is an empty suit. But is ranked #2 Christian blog and that carries lots of weight.

http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/Christianity

ES wrote:

Here is the crux of the matter: Challies is specifically stating that when its a Christian who is accused then you need to “withold judgement” the implication being that when it is a non-christain (like Sandusky) – judge away.

That seems to fly in the face of Apostle Paul’s instructions here, to other Christians:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? (1 Cor 5:12)

dee wrote:

Carolyn
We are soooo excited about your comments re: the defender of the weak and gullible. Tune in on Monday when we reveal how close you all are. (I can’t take it. i am sitting here snorting.)

Is the Girl Talk blog a parody of the “Girls Gone Wise” blog? I’m usually bright enough to spot satire and parody when I see it, but in this case, not so much.

There sure were a lot of photos of babies on the Girl Talk site. Babies sleeping on books. On chairs. On bed spreads.

Anon 1 wrote:

Maybe he was “working on the garden of his marriage” like he did when he had to take a 6 mo Sabbatical but only after speaking on stages all over for years on how to have a Gospel marriage?

My Mom used to garden.

Gardening is a “gender neutral” activity, but I guess since from my earliest memories I recall my Mom being such an avid gardener, if I had to classify gardening, I usually view it as more a feminine pursuit.

Not that I think it’s wrong or weird for a guy to garden.

My point is, Piper’s gardening reference is ironic, because Piper thinks men should avoid feminine pursuits and females male roles.

Not that I personally care if a guy wants to garden, nor do I think it detracts from his manhood if he does. Adam in the book of Genesis was a gardner.

I’m only saying if you go by Piper’s own views on gender, combined and my childhood association of ‘gardening = mostly womanly,'(due to my Mom’s hobby of flower tending), his analogy of his marriage repair to gardening, means, from my view, he’s not adhering to gender roles. He’s being feminine on that. Funny.

I didn’t word my thoughts on gardening in my last post too clearly. I hope everyone understood what I meant.

Maybe it would be more clear if I put it like this. If Piper wants to sound manly (using his own rules about gender) about comparing restoring his marriage to something, he should have taken a page out of Driscoll’s book and used cage fighting or wrestling for his marriage, not gardening.

That way, Piper could have said he was “wrestling” with his marriage. Or fighting for it.

His wife, he could say, was ‘tending to the garden’ that was his marriage.

dee wrote:

Steve240
Ignorance is bliss except when God knows that you are not ignorant. I want Deb to stress this.Tim Challies was contacted by Kris at SGM Survivors (Way to go, Kris) a long time ago. He knew, darn it, he knew and instead chose to prop up some people he has been in bed with for quite awhile. Coming on Monday….

I certainly didn’t say or mean to imply “ignorance is bliss.” My guess is that Challies reason for not reading Brent’s documents is that he knows they have something in there that he wouldn’t want to know and would have to change his stance on Mahaney. Thus he chose not to read Brent documents and can write what he does and claim to not have any knowledge of Mahaney’s sin and hypocrisy.

I am looking forward to reading your post on Monday about Challies and his ties with SGM.

M. Joy wrote:

And now Crossway publishing, riding the success wave of David Platt’s “Radical” has released “Risk is Right” by John Piper, which is nothing original, but merely a reprinting if one of the chapters from the book, “Don’t Waste Your Life.”

Piper must mean risk is for males only.

Because guys like him teach that a woman’s only biblical or appropriate roles are as a wife and mother.

If you are a married woman living a typical American, suburban, middle class, married- and- motherhood life, you’re probably not taking on too much risky living.

If you are a woman, even if you learn Karate, Piper says, if you’re on a date being mugged, you are not to use your Karate expertise to repel the attacker, but let your husband/ boy friend get beat up. No risk taking there.

The Pipers of the world discourage females from taking risks or being risky. I wonder if his “Risk” book contains such a disclaimer on the book jacket or the preface?

“But it’s a matter of degree and extent.”

Hester, this is key. And one reason it is almost impossible to discuss this with a YRR type. They automatically ask you if you think you are sinless or if sinless perfection is attainable. . Or they tell you the bible says you have a “wicked heart”. It is an “either/or” false dichotomy. While it is more “both/and”. Makes having a convo about it impossible. It really is absurd to try and even discuss it with the YRR pastor types.

Yes, we are sinners because we are born in corrupted bodies into a corrupted earth, sin attaches itself to us. But we can grow in maturity and holiness in sanctification. We can actually sin less and less as we grow in Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. Problem is, we won’t need them or their doctrine if we do that!

@ Hester:

It also makes me wonder if he gave his book much thought, how it would come across to women.

Telling Christians to take risks in one book, while telling half of them (females) in other books or lectures, that their only options in life are motherhood, being a wife, and that even in the marriage element, their husbands get to make all final decisions….

How is a female supposed to take any risks or meaningful risks under those confining, very narrow roles and circumstances?

It was always my understanding that in DWYL, Piper was talking about both men and women. I think it was in the first chapter of that book where he berated the man and woman who were picking up seashells on the beach? I’m away from home right now and don’t have the book right here, but that’s what I remember.

We were in a reformed church that followed Piper’s teachings. Members who went to the mission field were revered, praised and held up as the example of what we should all be. (especially dangerous places)I remember our pastor once told the entire congregation from the pulpit that it was his hope that one day, we would ALL be sent out.

I could tell stories that would make your jaw drop. Some families who had no business going in the mission field were approved for missions and the results were not pretty. Perhaps I’ll have a chance to share more on this topic another time, but right now I’m typing this reply on my phone and am running out of patience. :-/

@ Daisy, Evie & M. Joy:

“Telling Christians to take risks in one book…”

Not only telling them to, implying throughout that they are some kind of sub-Christian if they don’t. So I guess, following that logic, that women must be ordained by God to be permanently “less” Christian than men…?

“I think it was in the first chapter of that book where he berated the man and woman who were picking up seashells on the beach?”

It’s so funny, literally everyone I’ve ever mentioned this book to brings up that seashells thing immediately. I didn’t read the whole book, only the beginning and then sections, and I never ran across that story.

Isn’t it about a couple who spends their retirement on the beach collecting shells or something? My immediate thought after I first heard it was, “Wow, that was awfully judgmental of you, Pipes. I guess you’d rather this couple go do something they both hate just to make sure they don’t ‘waste’ their life, or to make themselves ‘holier’? Rather than bonding and strengthening their marriage (like you allegedly want all couples to do)?” Maybe they’re ‘tending the garden of their marriage’ too… ; )

M. Joy wrote:

It was always my understanding that in DWYL, Piper was talking about both men and women. I think it was in the first chapter of that book where he berated the man and woman who were picking up seashells on the beach? I’m away from home right now and don’t have the book right here, but that’s what I remember.

What’s Piper got against picking up seashells?

The thing that strikes me about the risk-your-life type theology is that it ignores that fact that most people in western countries are living those nice comfortable lives. The seashell collectors can share the gospel with fellow beach-combers, the high-flying executive can share the gospel with people as he sits in an airport departure lounge, the well-off housewife can share the gospel with her neighbour. It seems such a stupid thing to have to say, but ‘mundane’ people need to hear the gospel too!

Daisy wrote:

I’m not against charity. I’m not against Christians down-sizing, or any thing like that, but I do have a little bit of a problem with pastors or TV shows that try to make Christians feel guilty if they don’t live an extreme austere, impoverished live for Christ.

Yep. And I have a huge problem with pastors who make a comfortable – some of them very! – living off their followers giving sacrificially just so they can prove they aren’t wasting their lives.

“There’s a younger pastor and author who has a weekly show on a Christian network who preaches along the same lines.

His name is Kyle Idleman, and the show he hosts is called “Not A Fan.” The show also follows the exploits of a lukewarm Average Joe American Christian whose brush with death makes him change his views on life.

Kyle’s message is that anything less than 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, on fire for Jesus living means you’re slacking off, or not a follower, but a mere fan.

So the fictional Average Joe on the show sells his big suburban home, quits his lucrative job, and he starts working in a soup kitchen. He gets rid of all his business suits.
”

Daisy,

Kyle Idleman is buiding his national brand name with his stint at a mega church after supposedly being a “church planter” which is how he terms himself. His “Not A Fan” is everywhere here. T-shirts, bracelets, etc.

He makes a 6 figure salary and put his home on the market for 700,000 (a lot of house here) and is reportedly looking to buy 80 acres in an upscale rural area here. So, he is not exactly living out the sacrificial life himself but that what is obvious is never really obvious to the pew sitters at SECC who is footing the bill for his national brand launch.

I recently saw him on Ed Setzer video and know he is making quite a national name for himself. I had to laugh out loud when he called himself a church planter as the mega is really planting “McChurch” franchises around the metro area mostly in upscale demographic areas. He was also hailed by Ed as being part of the most successful mega church “sucesssion” plan in history. Oh yes, they have swept a lot under the rug to carry on that fiction. Since the main guru retired and they brought in Kyle, it has basically factionalized. One likes Apollos (Dave) and the other likes (Paul) Kyle. It is anything but harmony but the fiction continues.

I know several folks who have left in the last few years. One man went there for 20 years and in the last few became alarmed at some things money was being thrown at (if he only knew what he did not see!) and tried to see a budget. He spent weeks being given the go round. The church is elder ruled and pew sitters are to give not ask questions. He was not allowed so he left. That is one story out of tons i hear as I go about my days. Some of the people who grew up in that church are leaving as they get older and wiser and realize they have been used to make local celebs. That is not good enough for Kyle. he is going to be a national brand.

He is due another book out about “Idols”.

Can it get any cheesier?

“Also the impression I always got from these guys is that they don’t like any kind of evangelism except explicit and quick Gospel-sharing – living out your faith in front of your unsaved neighbors and helping people is “just an excuse to not share the Gospel.” You’re supposed to select your Unsaved Evangelism Target and Gospel-bomb them with Jesus’ message not to waste their lives. Getting to know them first, so they trust you and don’t just write you off as an obnoxious proselytizer, is an unnecessary delay.”

Hester, You are bang on! That is not valued. Living sacrificially, helping others where you are is not enough. Everything has to be this frenzied evangelism. Why? To build bigger churches. The more folks who leave church the worse they get because they know this trajectory is not good. Where will the money flow come from?

And they are completely ignoring the sanctification part of living as Christ now, where you are, helping others. That is why I so enjoyed Matt Redmond’s God of the Mundane.

Who is making money these days? It amazes me that celebrity pastors are part of that answer. That is the new normal. See, if they are successful it automatically means God approves.

DG Hart has a very good response to Challies’ post:

http://oldlife.org/2013/03/by-this-logic-god-would-not-have-given-us-the-bible/

Thanks for the link, M Joy. Great post! It as also great to see Ingrid Schlueter commenting over there. She has long “got it”. she knows exactly what is going on. I was reading her blog, Slice of Laodicea, when I first started seeing the huge problems in Christianity back around 2004-5.

I am sooo glad more and more are getting it now.

In this 2011 interview with Julian Freeman, Tim Challies says:

“When you align yourself with a ministry or any other organization you cannot openly criticize that organization or people associated with it (any more than I would openly criticize my fellow elders at Grace Fellowship Church). Typically this is not a problem because you only align yourself with organizations you deem trustworthy.”

“JF: “What are the big no-no’s? Are there people or topics that are off limits?”

TC: “I find this difficult to answer. Theoretically if I were to write a thorough rebuttal of the ministry of a big-name leader within this part of the Christian world I may find it more difficult to sign my next book contract or I may find that I do not get asked to speak at any more conferences. This is quite a tight-knit little corner of the Christian world. But I admire the leaders in this part of the Christian world so can’t imagine too many cases in which I would want or need to write that kind of rebuttal. But let’s be honest here. I’m a 34-year old guy who has never been to seminary and whose formal training extends only to history and computers. I hope I would only ever bring critique when I was utterly convinced that it was warranted and when I had checked with men I love and trust to see if they agreed. I want to model honoring older men as fathers rather than model youthful arrogance. I do think there is room to have some respectful disagreement. For example, I’ve written about John Piper inviting Rick Warren to speak at his conference. I have never gotten any indication that Piper or the people of Desiring God were offended by this or held it against me. Similarly, people have written critiques of me or of things I’ve written and I haven’t held it against them. It comes with the territory of public ministry.”

JF: “So, on at least some level you cannot freely criticize big evangelicals without consequence. Is that a good or a bad thing? Does it reflect or protect the gospel? How does it contribute to celebrity-ism?”

TC: “I don’t know that it’s good or bad. It just is. I guess it depends on where you rate the criticisms (are they issues that are critical to the Christian faith or are they peripheral) and how much you want to enjoy the good graces of the people in this part of the Christian world. Again, the fact is that I can’t imagine there would be a necessity for a lot of that kind of rebuke among the leaders in this movement. If we needed that kind of criticism or rebuke, I hope I would be willing to do it no matter the cost. I hope this both protects and reflects the gospel.”

http://biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/blogs/2011/09/17/the-bcc-weekend-interview-series-tim-challies-and-christian-blogging/

From the same interview~

JF: “Perhaps a ‘case-in-point’ would help clarify. You have been criticized in a few places for having recommended Sovereign Grace Ministries in the past, but refraining from commenting on the current situation with C.J. Mahaney. How would you respond to the challenge that you are being controlled by ‘the code’ or ‘toeing the line’ for the sake of the Old Boys’ Club? Shouldn’t you retract your endorsement of SGM?”

TC: “Good question. I have seen some of that criticism, largely because it has ended up in my inbox. In the past I’ve recommended C.J. Mahaney’s books and spoken positively about Sovereign Grace Ministries. I don’t see that recent developments morally bind me into having to now revoke or amend those statements. The simple fact is that I was very uncomfortable with the way the recent information about Mahaney came into the public sphere. I don’t like the Wikileaks mentality invading the church (though interestingly, I warned that this would happen just a few months ago). I saw the way Sovereign Grace was handling the situation and did not have a whole lot to say about it. I also wanted to be careful not to draw undue attention to leaked documents that most of us had no business reading. I knew in my conscience that if I were to write about it, I’d be doing so to draw attention to my site rather than to say something that would edify.

My decision not to write about this particular situation had nothing to do with a code or with toeing the line. It was a personal decision.”

Did he wrote his latest article to draw attention to his site then?

“I saw the way Sovereign Grace was handling the situation and did not have a whole lot to say about it. I also wanted to be careful not to draw undue attention to leaked documents that most of us had no business reading. I knew in my conscience that if I were to write about it, I’d be doing so to draw attention to my site rather than to say something that would edify.”

Sinning by reading Christian leaders acting sinfully. Better to be ignorant and keep giving them money and promoting them. That is exactly what Jesus taught about the Pharisees.

Tim is unqualified. He is all over the place. He does not want to draw attention to it, yet he does in a way to try and paint anyone speaking out about this as sinners and he is “biblical”. Right. The bible teaches that we should enable leaders to continue in evil.

This is just regurgitated, “the bloggers are sinners” stuff. Funny how Tim got his start as a blogger. But his blogging is godly.

“Even in the documents about Mahaney it is quite clear where the bias lies and where information is missing or where motives are assumed. This is simply the way it will always work. We can see this in Detwiler’s documents where at certain points he goes far beyond the facts and begins to pass judgment on Mahaney’s motives and character. He does this despite his regular declarations that he is doing nothing more than presenting the facts and letting them stand on their own. The very purpose of these documents is to influence us to think about C.J. Mahaney in a certain way. Are we willing to allow this man to tell us who C.J. Mahaney, one of our brothers in Christ, really is?”

http://www.challies.com/articles/cj-mahaney-and-difficult-days

Not necessarily…any more than I would allow Challies to inform me that I cannot have an opinion about something…or that I should allow Challies to tell me how his way of viewing the situation is how to think biblically about it. Besides, in the documents Mahaney does a thorough job himself (in his own emails/words) in describing how he really is. Detweiler provided the access. But that is Challies’ problem: he sees the messenger as the problem, not the message.

“I guess it has already been clear that I’ve looked over the documents. I haven’t read every word, but I’ve spent quite a while reading them. At first I resisted, feeling that I had no business doing so and realizing that most of my desire to read them was obviously sinful. But then, as I saw more and more discussion about these documents, I felt it would be wise for me to look through them. The Lord has given me a unique platform at the blog and if there was a serious, systemic issue within the ministry, I might be able to use the blog to inform people. Was this legitimate or mere justification? I don’t know that I can discern the motives of my own heart enough to say with certainty.”
http://www.challies.com/articles/cj-mahaney-and-difficult-days

Oh good grief. Why should anyone read anything he puts out? He cannot discern the motives of his heart? He “discerned” enough of his heart to say that most of his desire to read them was “sinful”… but since everyone else was doing it…he gave in. What was sinful was now wise. If it was serious enough, hey–he would even use his blog to inform people.

Well, I can see from the Julian Freeman interview I posted above at 11:53 that THAT would not necessarily be the case.

@ Caleb and Anon 1~

Was trying to find out on how he bacame an elder/pasto–found this interview–

“Could you tell us a little bit about how you became a pastor at Grace Fellowship Church?

It was about six years ago that I became a member of Grace Fellowship Church. In those days my blog was starting to grow in readership and I was eager to put myself under the authority of leaders who shared a vision for the site and who could keep a loving but watchful eye on me. Also, ironically, while my blog was gaining a lot of attention in the Young, Restless, Reformed movement, I was attending a church that was non-Reformed (and, in fact, closely modeled in the styles of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren) and whose leaders considered my blog a liability. Through what seemed a coincidence but was clearly God’s providence, I met Paul Martin, the pastor of Grace Fellowship Church, and we immediately hit it off. Two days after meeting him, I took my family to Grace and we have never looked back.

After a few years of being a member at the church, the elders approached me and said that they would like me to be examined by the elders and the congregation for ordination as an elder or pastor (we make no distinction between the terms). In 2010, after that examination process, I was ordained as an elder. Not too long after, in January of 2011, our church sent out a plant led by Julian Freeman, who had been associate pastor. This left a position open that the other elders asked me to fill. And just like that I became associate pastor.

The funny thing is that years ago, all the way back in eighth grade, I underwent vocational testing and I recently came across those results. Right there at the #1 suggested vocation for me was “clergy.” I guess that counsellor knew something I didn’t at the time (especially since, to my knowledge, I was not yet even a Christian then).”
http://dashhouse.com/dashhouse/2012/2/10/friday-questions-an-interview-with-tim-challies.html

(giggle.) Wow…the old 8th grade vocational testing…

“It is particuarly relevant here because Mahaney’s disciplinary system is set up withing a ‘family’ of churches that he created and grants extreme authority to pastors/elders in isolated local churches with little to no larger oversight”

Caleb, they love to talk about church discipline. But Mahaney in that system would have to “discipline” himself. And besides, guys like Mohler love it too but he has surrounded himself with yes men trustees. There is always a way around for the leaders. But they do so love the power of “disciplining” others.

@ Diane:

“And just like that, I became an associate pastor.” That about says it all. The contempt for training and education in those circles really gets my goat.

Anon 1 – you’re right. They love their authority.

Ok–done trying to find out who Challies is…except found one more interview I want to post for anyone who is interested… with Adrian Warnock, no less. (I do not promote/agree with Warnock and am not promoting his blog). It was humorous at times readng Challies’ replies–especially about interacting with the readers of his blog, commenting. etc. This interview was done everal years ago.

Of particular interest Challies says:

“Of course I also blog because I love to challenge other people and to interact with them. I love people and love to spend time with them, even if only in an non personal setting like the Internet.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2006/02/adrian-interviews-tim-challies/

Having had a comment or two removed from his site, and having observed first hand how he deals with some people in the commnents section of his blog, I do not see the love nor the spending time with them. In fact, I do not see him interacting much in the comments section at all. I have seen many questions posed to him with the end result being–silence… there the question stands…all alone…with no asnwer. I understand when he has 100 comments on an article that he cannot/will not reply to each and every question. But it is not the norm for him to have that many comments.

I am wondering, upon thinking about how Challies was made an elder, was the fact that he was a famous blogger a factor in the elders’ decision to make him one? Does it give their church any advantage to have a YRR famous blogger as an elder? And, when the associate pastor left to plant his church, Challies was given the associate pastor gig but no explanation was given as to why he was chosen over the other elders. I am curious about that.

@ Anon 1

“I cannot discern the motives of his heart? He “discerned” enough of his heart to say that most of his desire to read them was “sinful”… but since everyone else was doing it…he gave in. What was sinful was now wise. If it was serious enough, hey–he would even use his blog to inform people. ”

This is the YRR gobblygook. They trot out some variation of the perpetual wicked heart stuff when it is convenient and they don’t want to take responsiblity. Since he does not know himself at all or who He is in Jesus Christ and has NO volition in such things, perhaps it would be wise if people take him at his word and avoid his teaching all together?

If he cannot discern the motives of his heart (is he admitting the Holy Spirit does not dwell in him?) then why did he write a book on discernment? To say he has none?”

That first sentence should have said, “He cannot discern, not I cannot discern. Sorry for that confusion. Anyway, so Challies cannot discern SGM and reading the documents, but look here- he can discern that his motives are pure for writing on his blog every day. So, since he has discerned this, we can read his blog. !!!! (Just not the SGM documents though…those motives he cannot discern.)

“Tim

That I have committed to blogging every day has raised a few eyebrows and brought some gentle chastisement. But I feel my motives are pure. I know my personality and know that once I allow myself to become lax in an area, I tend to become very lax. And so I try to blog every day. Blogging is so closely connected to my personal spiritual disciplines that I fear I have a lot to lose if I stop blogging!”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2006/02/adrian-interviews-tim-challies/

“He cannot discern, not I cannot discern. Sorry for that confusion”

I actually read it the way you intended. The bottomline is that Challies does know his heart and has discernment when it is convenient….as evidenced by his own words.

This is why I encourage folks, especially the very young YRR pastors to analyze everything these guys say and teach. At some point, we should see some consistency in application to similar situations. When we don’t, we know there is an agenda. And they apply the black hole of Reformed thinking to it to make it a sin, Gospel or biblical.

Carolyn,

Your slip is showing!!!

(wink)

Carolyn Mahommey wrote:

We’ll soon be launching a new series on the blog that we’ve been hard at work on. It details our plan, that involves the kids and grandkids, of how to operate successful Kool-Aid Stands throughout the city, and then the state, and then the country, and then the world! We speak from experience, so tune in!
Thank you so much for serving us!

Oh Carolyn, hope you are having a lovely, feminine, winsome, quiet and submissive day!

Your Kool-Aid certainly packs a punch, I’m sure!

Toodle-oo!

@ Carolyn Mahommey:

Carolyn, I’m a lady who is thinking about taking Karate lessons at some point, but complementarian John Piper seems to frown on women knowing Karate, or at least actually using it if they know it.

Would you say learning Karate is biblically womanhood-ishly appropriate, or should I stick to baking cookies?

If Karate is biblical for Christian ladies, and if I make it to black belt, should I ask the Sensei to change the belt from black to pink, to make it feminine?

@ Anon 1:

Thank you for both posts. I did not know all that about Kyle Idleman, about his $700K house, etc.

Idleman seems so sincere on the “Not A Fan” show he hosts, and the other one.

Yes, I had heard he has a new book about idolatry. The Christian network ran a show about it.

There was something about Idleman’s constant pressure on Christians on the ‘Not A Fan’ show to live perfect Christian lives and ‘go to extremes for Christ’ attitude that made me feel a little uncomfortable.

I think Christ came (among other reasons) to free us from feelings of guilt, obligation, and from a performance-based service, but some of these pastors, such as Idleman, want to make Christians feel they have to perform and do good deeds out of some kind of religious obligation, or from feelings of shame or guilt.

I am not against Christians helping nonChristians, or helping people in other nations, or helping homeless people and so forth, but at the same time, I’ve seen this curious habit of some American Christians who are so “outward-focused” that they ignore, or don’t care about, the needs and problems of, or ministering to, hurting Christians who live next door to them, or who attend their churches.

(Then there’s the other extreme, some churches who are so “inward-focused” that they don’t care about ministering to nonChristians in their communities or in helping people in other nations.)

But the first group I mentioned, the “outward focused” compounded some pain I was already in after my mother died a few years ago.

When I went to other Christians (including at a new church I had just joined), they dismissed my suffering by pointing to homeless people in our city, to argue that the pain I had from my mother’s passing really isn’t all that bad as what the homeless people were enduring.

(One of the Christians who told me this volunteers at a homeless shelter about once a month.)

I think it’s great to help homeless people, and yes, they have life very difficult, but I can’t wrap my head around someone who can be so compassionate towards people they doesn’t even know, but then act so dismissive about what I was going through.

It’s so odd. You get these guys like Challies who think he should only care about pain and suffering within his own church/ denomination (ignore abuse of children in other churches)-

But then you have these other Christians who feel fine ignoring the pain and problems of other Christians they rub elbows with weekly, and who believe that they, or their church, should place a premium on ministering to non Christians, especially ones in other (normally third- world) nations.

You said,

People can be so silly listening to a sermon or reading a book by some guy who wants to be famous and doing what HE says.

I agree. Some Christian love to dispense advice to other people but won’t help those people, or don’t stop to think how their advice may not be all that useful if it’s implemented.

It’s very easy for a John Piper to advise abused wives to “endure abuse for a season” when he’s not personally affected by that advice.

Or these “quit your jobs and live in a shanty in poverty in Africa to share the Gospel to pagans” pastors. It sounds pretty and religious to teach that, but when and if that guy takes that advice, is that pastor going to lift a finger to help him, to pay for any food, rent, or travel expenses he has? Probably not.

There are a few reasons why I have been dancing around leaving the Christian faith, this being one of them, the Christians who direct others how to live life, but who won’t do anything to help.

When I was younger, I used to wonder what Jesus meant by this comment, but I understand better now:

Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.” (Luke 11:46)

@ Daisy:

P.S. Idleman would probably disagree with my description of his views or TV shows as trying to make Christians perform better out of feelings of guilt or obligation.

He’d probably say he thinks people should serve out of love and gratitude, and he may even truly believe that way, but, the impression I got from watching all the episodes of “Not A Fan” and similar shows he’s hosted, is the opposite.

There was what appeared to me a large emphasis on performance-based Christianity on his shows, not serving out of love and a cheerful heart, but you’re a bad, selfish, or lazy Christian, or only a “fan,” if you don’t spend every waking moment feeding homeless people in a soup kitchen, or something.

I went to his website and another one to see he is now selling his “Not A Fan” book to teenagers; the book has been edited for teens.

Where’s Idleman out of? I’ve never heard of him.

Daisy, None of what we are discussing has anything to do with the REAL Jesus Christ. If we map Jesus to the ridiculous evangelical world in America that uses Him for personal gain and to get followers, we are missing the bigger picture. As I tell people, I will defend Jesus but NEVER will I defend a church or a movement. Too many people using Him. I really do not think He is pleased at all with what is taking place in America in His Name. But I am a nobody with an opiniom.

oops. I posted twice when I did not realize it. Sorry about that!~

@ Anon 1:

“This employee had a 6 figure income in a growing industry which is rare these days. He listened to this ‘not a fan’ stuff, chucked his job and decided to be a missionary. Since SECC does not fund missionaries this man has to raise his own funds. He has a wife and kid! Now it is letters all the time to everyone he knows begging for money so he can GO on the mission field.”

It disturbs me that so many people ignore the “provide for your family” clause, esp. in these circles that allegedly are about men being providers and protectors. The consequence of failing to provide is to be deemed “worse than an unbeliever”…not good when pastors are actively encouraging men in their congregations to put themselves and their families in that position.

@ Rafiki:

I agree. I know it can be a slippery elitist slope and I don’t mean to say (as you don’t) that a good education is the only measure of intelligence or competence. It certainly doesn’t ensure morality. And like you pointed out, in some areas (especially business) some very successful people never got much formal education. And there are always exceptions in other fields, too. And we could talk about the issue of over-education.

But a pastor, I think, needs certain guided and rigorous training, just like a historian, philosopher, scientist, etc. And Mr. Challies has not shown himself to be one of the exceptions to that rule.

Daisy wrote:

Would you say learning Karate is biblically womanhood-ishly appropriate, or should I stick to baking cookies?

It might be ok with Piper if you hit the attacker with the cookie sheet. That would be biblically womanhood-ish enough as long as you have sought out every male possible BEFORE you hit the attacker.

@Steve D

It might be ok with Piper if you hit the attacker with the cookie sheet. That would be biblically womanhood-ish enough as long as you have sought out every male possible BEFORE you hit the attacker.

Bwahahaha! Probably lots of truth to that!

Pam wrote:

As a good feminine female you can hit someone with your handbag – hitting them with shopping bags is the advanced class – because this maintains your womanliness by using a womanly implement.

I really hate to be pedantic, but according to Piper she would have to defer to the male(s) first she would have to get permission before she hit the attacker with ANY implement. Naturally, the male would have to use the shopping or hand bag first.

@ Steve D:

Thankyou, Steve, for your correction. My easily led astray female brain did erroneously try and usurp male authority there.

Marge, I simply do not understand all of this. How can the “sgm board” ask Mahaney to resign? BRent writes:

“Even more importantly, you need to be transparent about the reasons for removing C.J. from the Leadership Team and as President of SGM – that is, the widespread loss of trust and erosion of confidence in him. ”

Ok, I am totally confused. Is what moved to Louisville, SGM or not? Is it simply a new church plant? Did CJ take SGM assets with him to Louisville? This gets more confusing by the minute.

Is there an “SGM” for CLC and all the churches that left? Not sure how this works.

He’s talking about the SGM Board asking CJ to resign as President of SGM. CJ is also Sr. Pastor of the church in Louisville, but that has nothing to do with this.

Yes, Sovereign Grace Ministries (the organization) moved to Louisville. Simultaneously, they planted a new SGM church in Louisville, with CJ at the helm.

CLC and the other churches that left SGM are entirely independent now.

Tbanks Marge, SGM is so cult of personality driven around CJ, I am wondering how all this will play out in the larger T4G world.

Hester wrote:

@ Steve & Pam:
So which man gave Jael permission to hammer a tent peg through Sisera’s head? ; )

Does this mean Jael was sinning!?!

Carolyn Mahommey wrote:

Some of you may be wondering why, with so much more time on our hands (after escaping those ghastly crowds at CLC) why we don’t allow comments on our blog and interact with our readers? Well, the biblical reason is that we believe its important to focus on our eternal lives, and to experience as much heavenly bliss as we can in the here and now

Ah, yes. As they say, ignorance is bliss Carolyn!

You should think of becoming part of the Tim Challies’ “I Have Deliberately Avoided Learning Too Much Society,” and add it to your blog for your readers to join, right there next to your “5am Club.” He’ll probably give the club a glowing review and a 5-Star rating!

@ Anon 1:

He is simply resurrecting Not A Fan, (which is old) and making it a “system” for Christianity.

I wish preachers would stop trying to do this, come up with some kind of trend, a next thing in Christianity, and they also make the trendy thing, whatever it is, available as t-shirts, posters, etc.

All the marketing and gimmicks are so cheesy.

@ Hester.
I’m not an expert on all things Idleman, but his television shows come on Christian networks such as “TBN” a lot.

Idleman hosts a show called “Not A Fan” (and a few other programs) on TBN.

Idleman makes an appearance about half way through this video:
“Not A Fan” promotional video

@ Marshall:
Very interesting, Marshall.

Anon 1 wrote:

I know of purses that could kill someone with one blow.

Oh yes – Aunt Esther on “Sanford and Son” wielded her purse against Fred with alarming skill and accuracy. 🙂

"Marge, there’s actually a lot of confusion/fishy business going on regarding whether SGM really moved to KY and whether CLC is truly independent of SGM, legally speaking"

Marshall, Thanks for your entire comment. That was what I was looking to understand.

dee wrote:

He will also go down as someone who tried to obfuscate his “relationship” with SGM.

Looking forward to your post with more info on this – shine the light of truth and watch the rats scurry!

@ Marge Sweigart:
Yes, it is. The deeper I dig the more interesting things get. I’m hoping the IRS and state of MD feel the same way regarding some concerns I have about the validity of the non-profits in question as it pertains to decisions people like Mahaney and Harris have made over the years.

Also, I mis-stated the apparent agreement between SGM and CLC. It’s inherently confusing and I’m not an accountant so I could be a little off on the exact arrangements of the deal.According to SGM’s latest financial statement if they pull the plug it looks like CLC only has to pay back 45% of the property’s original purchase price. If CLC bails it has to pay back what SGM originally paid plus some. Since the original price was more than a million dollars and CLC is reputedly already $2,000,000 in the hole, it seems that clause should have mentioned prior to the fake vote.

Pam wrote:

Does this mean Jael was sinning!?!

No, that was during the Old Testament. Some scholars call that period B.P. (Before Piper).

@ Marshall:

As far as mascots go, terrapins are way cooler than Stanford’s little green tree any day. 🙂

Steve Dawson wrote:

You must tell him to leave first, then you may call him by the womanish-ly insult.

I don’t know, according to Piper and most SBC, I think I would have to graciously ask the guy to leave first?

And, per Piper, I think I’d have to ask in such a way that the male burglar does not feel as though I am usurping his male headship authority, or disrespecting his manliness.

As in (while batting my eye lashes at him coquettishly), “Please, Mr. Burglar, would you be so kind as to leave now? Please leave my television here, too.”

But you’re the male here, so I will defer to your judgment.

I wonder if a female calling the police in such a situation would be acceptable to complementarians?

What if I called 911, and the police who showed up are female police officers? I guess female police can’t use deadly force or bark orders at a robber either?

Daisy wrote:

dee wrote: Because only boys can go on adventures, or it’s only biblical for boys to do so.

Of course.

Here’s an example of the way Piper defines things. He makes it clear women are to play the submissive, supportive role and never relate to men by giving them ‘personal directives.’

Also, it’s the woman’s fault if she “comes on too strong” in relating to a man because that’s a “violation” of her femininity, says John Piper (speaking for God).

“Some influence is very directive, some is non-directive. For example, a drill sergeant would epitomize directive influence. It would be hard to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant over men without violating their sense of masculinity and her sense of femininity.
Non-directive influence proceeds with petition and persuasion instead of directives. A beautiful example of non-directive leadership is when Abigail talked David out of killing Nabal (1 Samuel 25:23-35). She exerted great influence over David and changed the course of his life; but she did it with amazing restraint and submissiveness and discretion.
When you combine these two continuums, what emerges is this: If a woman’s job involves a good deal of directives towards men, they will, in general, need it to be non-personal.
The God-given sense of responsiblity for leadership in a mature man will not generally allow him to flourish long under personal, directive leadership of a female superior. J.I. Packer suggested that “a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary” puts a strain on the humanity of both. I think this would be true in other situations as well. Some of the more obvious ones would be in military combat settings if women were positioned so as to deploy and command men; or in professional baseball if a woman is made the umpire to call balls and strikes and frequently to settle heated disputes among men. And I would stress that this is not necessarily owning to malel egotism, but to a natural and good penchant given by God.
Conversely, if a woman’s relation to man is very personal, then the way she offers guidance will need to be non-directive. The clearest example here is the marriage relationship. The Apostle Peter speaks of a good wife’s meek and tranquil spirit that can be very winsome to her husband (1 Peter 3:4). A wife who “comes on strong” with her advice will probably drive a husband into passive silence, or into active anger.
It is not nonsense to say that a woman who believes she should guide a man into new behaviors should do that in a way that signals her support of his leadership. This is precisely what the Apostle Peter commends in 1 Peter 3:1. Similarly in the workplace it may not be nonsense in any given circumstance for a woman to provide a certain kind of direction for a man, but to do it in such a way that she signals her endorsement of his unique duty as a man to feel a responsibility of strength and protection and leadership toward her as a woman and toward women in general.” John Piper “What’s the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible” ppg 63-64

I suppose if a woman warded off an attacker and saved her life and the life of her male companion, she should be rebuked for not purposefully suppressing the use of her skill so that the man she is with can exercise his “natural and good penchant” to be the leader.

Kinda makes me wonder what “tending to the garden” of Piper’s marriage looked like. I’m guessing it involved spending a lot of time in the Role’s Book.

Evie – you really did need to give that alert. Thank you. I can only take so much of Piper.

Rafiki, Like you I have always had male direct reports who were professionals. Piper has not worked in the real world. He has NO clue. I often wonder what these pastors who are so isolated from the real world have to teach us about living as believers in the real world? Nothing. It becomes so obvious all the time.

Gender is not even a consideration when everyone is a professional unless someone decides to make it an issue. I spent years traveling with male colleagues. A big no no in the comp world. That is just the way it is. People can decide to be professional or not. (oops, I forgot, God is controlling us)

I’ve been joking around quite a bit with Piper’s nonsense. Mainly, I can’t believe that such drivel passed from his lips.

I was thinking today about Piper’s pronouncement about the male taking the lead in defending a woman even if she is more capable. I spoke with a younger female teacher. She told me that she was involved in a Roller Derby league. She’s taller than I am and rather broad shouldered. I was contemplating the idea that if we were attacked, she could probably pulverize the attacker without breaking a sweat. I would definitely defer to her.

@ Evie:

“Some influence is very directive, some is non-directive. For example, a drill sergeant would epitomize directive influence. It would be hard to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant over men without violating their sense of masculinity and her sense of femininity.”

When you combine this with his comments about muscular women, what begins to emerge is a picture very like Miss Trunchbull (talk about “directive influence”)..and I certainly hope THAT isn’t what he thinks all non-demure women are like.

My apologies everyone for posting so much Piper. Especially before dinner.

Rafiki wrote:

Our team are too bloody busy giving each other professional feedback, creating a respectful work environment, and getting stuff done well, under budget, and on deadline to concern ourselves with our gender’s “unique duties” as they exist only in Piper/CBMW la la land.

This is the big problem with Piper’s insistence that patriarchy is God’s eternal plan and straying from it will always lead to immediate disaster. What about all the women in the modern workplace who are able to fill leadership roles competently and responsibly without being either shrill emasculating harpies or “winsome” milquetoasts? What a false dichotomy!

@ Kristin:

The answer I keep coming to is that those who preach the importance of gender roles are not really secure in what Christ has completed. They need extra propping up to be able to function as men in Christ. This is often what they preach. They teach that men “need” women to respond and act in certain ways so that men can be what God has called them to be. They are new creatures in Christ BUT they also need women to be a certain way. If women don’t come through (as the gender men proclaim) well then men just can’t seem to be men. Pretty darn lame if you ask me.

@ Bridget:
“It was the woman you put here with me!” *eyeroll*

He admits that his head is plunked firmly in the gospel ground because learning about how churches approach child sex abuse “is not spiritually beneficial…”

Move over Sgt Schultz, this is classic Gnosticism, AKA “Spiritual Good, Physical BAAAAAAAAD!”

Because rape of children is Physical and Secular, not Spiritual(TM) and Eternal.
And Challies is too Spiritual(TM) to be concerned about it.
“It’s All Gonna Burn…”

(And I’m not going to even start on Predestination….)