[Editor's note: The following is a guest by Brian Auten, a member of a Sovereign Grace Ministries affliliated church in Fairfax, Virginia.]
Yesterday, Tim Challies offered some thoughts about what I would argue—and he himself admitted—is a narrowly defined aspect of Sovereign Grace Ministries’ (SGM) current difficulties; that is, the question of whether Christians should condone internet whistleblowing. The issue arises because it was an internet leak of a 600+ page document compiled and annotated by Brent Detwiler, a former SGM pastor and a founder of the movement (formerly known as Gathering of Believers and People of Destiny International), which has precipitated the continued, public airing of the denomination’s woes. The document outlined in great detail, reproducing internal emails and communications, Brent’s grievances with SGM’s top leadership, most specifically with the denomination’s president, C.J. Mahaney. In early July, Mahaney took a leave of absence in the wake of Detwiler’s dissemination of his document to SGM pastors nationwide. The document was subsequently leaked to the public, but not by Detwiler.
Challies’ position on Christians and whistleblowing is firm: If the issues-in-question are interpersonal in character and cannot be resolved privately, a Christian is prohibited the whistleblowing route. It is Challies’ contention that the issues in the document are indeed “largely” interpersonal and therefore fit—and only fit—within the Matthew 18 or 1 Timothy 5 parameters for Scripturally mandated conflict resolution. Conceding that it was not Brent himself who leaked the information, Challies nonetheless argues that the sheer number of SGM pastors who received the document “pretty much guaranteed” its public release. Detwiler, therefore, had no Scriptural basis for his expanded distribution of the document.
Challies would undoubtedly agree that his argument rises or falls on (a) his interpretation of the document’s content and the overall conflict as almost wholly interpersonal; and (b) that Detwiler’s wider distribution was intended to result in public release. Neither Challies nor I can have any possible insight into the latter point, save what we might be told by Detwiler himself (and Detwiler has responded to Challies at his own blog). Where I think Challies’ argument falls flat is with respect to the first assertion. The document’s content is indeed chock-full of interpersonal conflict, yet Challies knows well that it’s not merely that, else he would not have pulled his punch (using adjectives like “largely”) or insist that he would not address other “blogs that seek to expose issues in SGM.” The fact is, there is a context that Challies leaves undefined. It’s much more than interpersonal, and the Mahaney/Detwiler conflict (and the leak of Detwiler’s document) is what we would label in history or political science an “immediate proximate cause” rather than an “ultimate” cause of the denomination’s implosion.
Unlike Challies, I’m a six-plus year member of a SGM church in Fairfax, Virginia. Granted, in a family of churches that originated with the Jesus People movement in the early 1970s, six years is admittedly small potatoes. I didn’t personally experience the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s in the movement, which means that my understanding of our denomination’s history is almost wholly based on what I’ve read, heard, and inferred from interactions with others. Much—though by no means all—of my information has been derived from the stories and testimonies posted to the blogs Challies obliquely references in yesterday’s post—blogs that are made up of flawed, sinful individuals, and blogs that, by analogy, I like to compare to political exile organizations, or groups of folks who, for one reason or another, have had to flee their beloved homeland to live in a “host country.” Political exiles are notoriously rowdy, unwieldy, and volatile, yet when one combines four years of reading consistent stories at the SGM “exile” blogs with personal observations and, now, what has been publicly shared by multiple SGM pastors (including my own) over the last month and a half, it becomes clear that the denomination’s problems are not individual, but systemic. Our separatist and, at times frankly elitist, church subculture and “slippery slope” skepticism of congregational forms of church government have produced, and reinforced, poor church practices that have been detrimental to both the health of SGM congregants and the shepherds who have led them. And, as an important caveat, I would assert that these are “bent versions” of otherwise admirable and good conservative evangelical practice. Some of these systemic issues include:
(a) hesitancy about the infiltration of humanistic, “therapeutic” concepts into church counseling (including skepticism over forms of “integrative” Christian counseling) coupled with an overly strict insistence, movement-wide, on the use of “Biblical” categories for describing one’s struggles led pastors to quickly focus congregants suffering from abuse and trauma on their own sin while in the midst of their own pain;
(b) the desire to apply Biblical conflict resolution models, but with the treatment and assessment of parties in identical ways regardless of individual or family circumstances, thereby leading to the misuse and misapplication of said models in cases involving victims of abuse and trauma;
(c) legitimate concerns about liberalizing doctrinal tendencies in the wider American evangelical world, when tied to SGM’s separatist subculture and non-congregational form of church government, resulted in a squelching of congregational initiative in ministry, a marginalization of laity input in church decision-making and strategizing, a tentativeness about non-pastor-led group Bible or theology study (save those focusing on what the pastors preached on Sunday mornings), apprehension over cooperation with local churches or ministries outside of SGM, and the creation of SGM versions of nihil obstat and imprimatur; and,
(d) a concern for “pure” and “sound” doctrine, coupled with a top-down governmental system led to the establishment and promulgation of single “Biblically based” authoritative practices for secondary and tertiary issues like dating and courtship, schooling choice, parenting style and child discipline, clothing, and media consumption.
Again, it is so important to note that these practices derive from solid conservative evangelical goals; however, I believe that it is the case that, over time, the combination of SGM’s separatist subculture and its authority structure mutated these practices into something much, much less healthy.
***
What might all of this mean for the wider conservative evangelical crowd in the near term?
First, for pastors or elder boards who are thinking of affiliating their congregations with SGM, or who are currently in the process of church adoption, may I suggest, as a SGM member, that you pause and take some additional time to think and reflect upon what you’re hearing about us as a whole? Call or email some local SGM congregations and ask pointed questions about what you’re reading and hearing in the public domain. By moving ahead full-steam into this currently divisive situation, you may be doing the congregation you shepherd a disservice, particularly if events lead to a split or dissolution as you’re just coming in. Ditto goes for young men who are presently considering the SGM Pastors College. I’m not saying you shouldn’t come; I’m saying that if you’re planning to pastor a SGM church or plant an SGM-affiliated church, the movement—and the pastoral possibilities within it—could theoretically look very different over the near-to-medium term. The wife and children you lead need you to walk with a clear-eyed assessment of the overall situation. Again, may I suggest that you call, write, and ask more than one local SGM church your questions about the movement’s state of affairs?
Second, for those who are basing their excitement about the upcoming Together for the Gospel (T4G) 2012 conference in large part on the up-front participation of SGM personalities, I would ask that you reflect upon the fact that, while no family of churches is perfect, we have over the years portrayed ourselves and our “brand” to the wider, conservative evangelical community as if our own house was in good order, or at the very least wasn’t as messy as some others out there. Our house has not been an orderly one; shiny surfaces, perhaps, but underneath some serious, grimy build-up. We’ve not been as healthy as has been generally believed over the last 5-8 years by the young, restless, and Reformed world. I actually think it would be more appropriate, irrespective of whether our leaders are determined to be ministry qualified or not, for SGM to sit on the sidelines at T4G 2012. By all means, we should go and serve our brothers and sisters, but we should do so from behind the scenes. Let our worship music be played, but let us not—this go-around—teach from the pulpit. Of course, there won’t be a pastor or speaker at T4G who has done his job flawlessly, but in this situation, the up-front presence of denominational representatives intimates to the audience a family unity that, realistically, isn’t completely there. Other T4G luminaries—some I expect with very clear, prior knowledge of SGM’s systemic problems and some who had merely a “vibe” or “sense” that something was peculiar or amiss—should carry the teaching load this coming April.
To end, I want to emphasize that I continue to love my local SGM church. I see change afoot, and I am cautiously optimistic about how this will all shake out at the local level. In all honesty, I am less enamored, at present, of what I see coming from our denominational headquarters, as well as the public pronouncements of some of the folks more closely tied to T4G. Together with Challies, though, I hope SGM eventually does recover and is strengthened from this trial. I hope there is reconciliation between Detwiler and the SGM leadership cohort this side of the crystal sea, and I really hope that, 50 or 100 years hence, when my grandchildren and great-grandchildren sit and consider SGM’s impact on their own lives and the lives of their others in their generation, their assessment does not mirror that of Shelley’s traveler in “Ozymandias,”—witnesses to only half-buried ruins surrounded by the “lone and level sands stretch[ing] far away.”
August 18th, 2011 | 10:11 am | #1
Hi Brian
You have written an insightful response, and I actually agree with much of it.
However, I think you have made the illogical debate fallacy of “moving the goalposts” when you broaden Brent Detwiler’s wiki-leaks documents to be a referendum on the entire SGM movement. Brent’s documents are very clear in their scope and purpose, and that is to bring a charge against C.J.. Given the nature of their purpose, Challie’s response is spot on. Brent’s documents are mostly about interpersonal conflict, and their public release is not in accord with Biblical guidelines.
The fallout of their release has been to put SGM policies and failures in the spotlight. But we shouldn’t re-interpret effect based on the cause.
August 18th, 2011 | 10:24 am | #2
As one who was a loyal SGM member for more than two decades, I could not agree more with your post. I am most grateful that these things have been exposed. Nothing happens apart from the Lord’s doing and they have been exposed for a reason. SGM, for many years, has been a proponent of exposing sin so repentance may follow. At this point, C.J. and the SGM board should, rather than vehemently defending themselves and garnering the support of reformed “big dogs” such as Challies, Mohler, Duncan, and others, wait on the Lord and wait for the results of this independent panel. Instead, what is seen is a posture of self-defense. If they truly trust the Lord, waiting on God through the process would be the right response. This is what they have taught the congregations, but they are not doing this themselves.
Also, if C.J. is taking a leave of absence, then why did he go to minister in the Southern Hemisphere this week. This is truly an egregious lack of discretion and wisdom.
August 18th, 2011 | 11:23 am | #3
“Conceding that it was Brent himself who leaked the information”
Should this read, ” it was NOT Brent himself”?
August 18th, 2011 | 11:57 am | #4
“I think you have made the illogical debate fallacy of “moving the goalposts” when you broaden Brent Detwiler’s wiki-leaks documents to be a referendum on the entire SGM movement”
That isn’t a logical fallacy–it’s a different interpretation. Moving goal posts has to do with raising the bar for potentially incriminating evidence so that it isn’t incriminating anymore.
Brian, I have to ask: poly sci major? :)
August 18th, 2011 | 12:21 pm | #5
Heather, yes, it is a typo. Brian mentioned that in an email exchange this morning and I assume he’s contacted the editor to fix it.
August 18th, 2011 | 12:28 pm | #6
Very well said, Brian. As an SGM church member for 11+ years, I would second your analysis on every point. I could possibly add some additional concerns, but they would be related and not necessary at this point. Your thoughtful cautions as someone who remains at your local church and is interested in reforming from the inside, to the extent that members will be allowed to do so, is particularly meaningful. I’m at a similar point, although my SGM church is in a less healthy place than yours. I particularly share your concerns about the way the SGM board seems to be responding in this very public season of the Lord’s correction.
August 18th, 2011 | 2:24 pm | #7
Brian – as a two decade member of an SGM church, thanks for this post. It is spot on and offers an honest, realistic view of where SGM is right now and clues as to how it got there.
Underneath our shiny exterior is some rust of pride and self righteousness exhibited in elitist views and positions. Undoing decades of ministry and structural philosophies that are misaligned with the gospel isn’t going to happen overnight or without some pain. But everyone who seeks the best for SGM should embrace its current season of pruning.
August 18th, 2011 | 2:49 pm | #8
Well stated, SGM needs to listen and embrace local congregational leadership. As always Brian you are years ahead of us.
For those who don’t think Brent leaked the documents, it is irrelevant, he gave them to enough people to insure they were leaked.
August 18th, 2011 | 2:55 pm | #9
Brian – as a member of an SGM church for nearly twenty years, I think you have good observations about our network of churches. And I, too, understand the sentiment of being cautiously optimistic about the trajectory of change.
However, Challies’ post wasn’t an assessment about SGM as a whole but about the “Wiki-Brent” documents and information like it. And essentially, his post was about how to biblically process “Christian wikileaks”, in an internet age. In this regard, I think Challies hit it spot on.
Second: It’s feels ironic to me that Detwiler would be considered a “whistleblower”. He has been apart of SGM from very early on (almost the beginning). Any weakness or deficiencies in our network of churches isn’t just carried by Mahaney, but by Detwiler and the other little “a” apostles. So, in light of this, don’t you find it interesting that there isn’t any culpability admitted on Detwiler’s part???
Last: Would you want someone to send all of your email exchanges (with a personal commentary attached) to 50 or 100 different people? If not, then maybe Matthew 7:12 applies?
August 18th, 2011 | 3:24 pm | #10
One more and truly final thought (adding to what I wrote above): You hit the nail head on with point “a”: SGM has been anti-therapeutic to the detriment of appropriately caring for people. What you may not realize (and this again is the irony) is that Detwiler was the main champion of SGM being an anti-therapeutic movement. Whatever faults there are in SGM, Detwiler owns it too.
August 18th, 2011 | 4:51 pm | #11
I guess I’ll phrase it another way.
Brian Auten identifies four current problems with SGM as bullet points a, b, c, and d in the above blog response.
However, NONE of these problems are identified or addressed in Detwiler’s wikileaks documents (yes, I have read them). Detwiler is very clear on his purpose for compiling and releasing that information and that was a rebuke of Mahaney.
So Challies’ blog remains in my mind a more accurate interpretation and assessment of the wikileaks documents.
I agree with nkob above. I think the command to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” fits here. Would any of us want private and confidential emails regarding our sin patterns for the past decade posted on the internet?
Lastly, the systemic issues (a,b,c,d) being identified on other blogs ARE a separate issue and shouldn’t be conflated with Challies’ specific concern regarding SGM wikileaks.
August 18th, 2011 | 6:26 pm | #12
The “prohibited the whistleblowing route” line is silly. The Bible is *not* some text that magically anticipates, and provides detailed directions for dealing with, every possible scenario. There is no “biblical” standard for whistleblowing, for or against.
Chailles invokes Matthew 18. Again, that text is *not* some legalistic process to be followed as if governed by some ecclesiastical bureaucrat. It *does* present 3 steps: talk to the person, talk to the leaders, take it to the entire community. If the person does not reconcile, treat him as an outsider.
But it is up to (hopefully supernaturally-aided) reason to interpret and apply that process. It appears to me that Detwiler was in the process of doing that: he had failed in reconciliation with Mahaney; the “leaders” (of the leaders) had failed to deal with the situation; so he was exposing the problem to a wider body of leaders (the “church” in Matt. 18). Whatever sin was committed (if there is one) was committed by the person “outing” the documents. But even there, how can we weigh the imperatives between reconciliation and necessary exposure of evil?
This of course is the central problem of sectarian Protestantism (of which I am a part): there is no magisterium, there is no supernaturally authorized hierarchy. And this sorry episode again demonstrates the folly of creating an ersatz one.
August 18th, 2011 | 7:51 pm | #13
Brian
A thoughtful post. Likewise, I am a loyal SGM member of around the same tenure and share a lot of your assessments. Although, I think any anti-therapeutic sentiments come from a backlash against the therapeutic gospel that has done as much harm to evangelical church as any backlash that may have resulted from it. Admittedly, I haven’t spent a lot of time on the subject. I have gained much from reading people like Ed Welch and Paul Tripp. But, I can imagine great damage being done to someone by an immature pastor trying to ham-fistedtly apply their principles without thought or care.
I agree that that the biggest flaw in Challies’ post was his definition of “interpersonal”. Which was any matter that doesn’t involve illegal behavior. I’m sure anyone reading at First Things can immediately come up with quite a few counter examples to disprove such a contention.
To those who raise the criticism that YOUR concerns were not raised in Brent’s documents, the answer is that Brent’s documents still raised matters that were beyond the interpersonal. To reduce it to a single issue, it was the dysfunction of the board. This board was entrusted with the oversight of member churches which Brent alleges were improperly handled and with the oversight of CJ Mahaney which he alleges it neglected when it became difficult. This is “family” business not an interpersonal matter. Even the preliminary panel of three saw this when they made the unsolicited comment: “To varying degrees, the three of us have wondered at times whether this present controversy was made worse by well-meaning but unwise leadership structures, by the lack of an established disciplinary process, by a lack of communication, and by an over-emphasis on introspection and confession.” These are three dear friends of SGM identifying problems beyond the interpersonal.
I don’t believe the fact that there was a high probability that one of the pastors would distribute the documents more widely bars Brent from distributing them to those pastors if that is the next level of appropriate distribution.
I don’t believe Challies, and others such as Duncan & Mohler are doing my church any favors with their “shoot the messenger” attitudes. (No matter how flawed the messenger may be.)
It is good to know that there are members such as you in SGM. I am fortunate in that I have encountered numerous other such thoughtful individuals in my local church.
August 18th, 2011 | 9:17 pm | #14
(Partial) Solution: join a church that has bishops, preferably one that has a clear line back to the Apostles.
August 18th, 2011 | 9:22 pm | #15
[...] Kris says: What follows was posted on the Evangel blog over at the First Things website. I thought Mr. Auten did an [...]
August 18th, 2011 | 10:40 pm | #16
Orthodoxdj-
Last time I looked that didn’t seem to free anyone from leadership or pastoral problems. I am pretty sure the laity is still paying for the checks that the bishops are writing for past leadership failings. I am afraid original sin is universal.
August 18th, 2011 | 10:48 pm | #17
Brian,
Wonderful job of interpreting what has gone wrong with our “brand” of churches. Part of the systemic problem is the eroding of the “5-fold” ministry. Right now all we see at our church are pastor/teachers. Also, we have the professional clergy mentality that hinders the members from being involved in a deeper way. We love our church too but definitely want to see change. We’re hoping and praying and watching and waiting.
August 18th, 2011 | 11:36 pm | #18
First, I really appreciate the feedback and the comments (the questioning ones as well as the supportive ones).
@nkob @Mark Crater — Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we apply a counterfactual. Let’s say it’s a situation in which the overall state of SGM’s affairs (church government and subculture) is much healthier than it is now. And let’s say that, in this healthier environment, Detwiler had still brought his charges and accusations against the SGM leadership cohort. Would we have seen a leak happen in that case? I’m not arguing that the person who leaked the information to the public was “in the right”; I’m stating that Challies’ analysis of the leak left out the overall context. One can certainly examine, as a theoretical issue, Christian ethics and whistleblowing, but one cannot address this particular leak without reference to its context. This is not conflating the issues. The ethics of it aside, this particular leak was symptomatic of much deeper problems.
August 19th, 2011 | 12:41 am | #19
Interesting that GregB should mention (in quotation marks) “family business”. I realize he meant it metaphorically, but there is at least one sense it which it is literally true.
C.J. Mahaney’s spouse is Carolyn, née Layman. She happens to be my first cousin. According to this page– https://www.facebook.com/pages/Carolyn-Mahaney/106165416081464 –she met Mahaney at a “Christian organization” in Florida. This organization would have been one associated with the work of Gerald Derstine, an ex-Mennonite who claimed prophetic gifts and charismatic authority. This was in the 1960s, when this was dubbed “neo-Pentecostalism.”
Grant Layman, another leader in the SGM community, is Carolyn’s younger brother. Carolyn and Grant are the two youngest children of their family. (Some of the leaked documents also mention a “Roger Layman” and “Rhonda Layman”; as far as I can tell from my genealogical sources, they are not related.) Carolyn’s and Grant’s father was active in this neo-Pentecostalist community. My father always gave me the impression that he thought my uncle had “gone off the deep end.”
Two of Mahaney’s sons (a small pic of the family can be found here: http://www.girltalkhome.com/about ) were ministers in the SGM, before they resigned over the Joshua Harris’ handling of the leaked material (http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/08/09/brian-and-mr-b/ ).
The relevance of this information is that Mahaney, his wife Carolyn, and brother-in-law Grant, have deep roots in schismatic charismatic ecclesiology, which claims authority based on allegedly supernatural giftings. Mahaney’s mentor (Derstine) abandoned the authority of the Mennonite church when it became clear that that community would not accept his own claims to authority. Although Mahaney has moved in a Calvinistic direction, I doubt he has adequately thought about the theological implications of his religious shifts. He wants authority, but in my judgment lacks a clear foundation for it. That is why his own authority claims have become arbitrary. (One of the major claims of the leaked documents is that Mahaney refused to live by the same standards that he set for everyone else, especially in confessing sins in a specific manner.)
Even worse, it’s not clear if he has the *equipment* to think it through: his education is listed as one year of college. I’m not saying that college (much less seminary) is necessary for ministry (my own pastor doesn’t have it). However, for a leader of Mahaney’s stature, one would think people attracted to his teaching would expect more solid credentials. Rigorous theological education provides historical and logical tools to think through the implications of the one’s beliefs, to recognize when one is making changes that require careful and self-critical adjustment. One cannot change one set of concepts without affecting the consistency and coherence of one’s beliefs in another area.
So we have a left-over bit of Mennonite legalism, neo-Pentecostal arrogation of a ministry and authority, a need (neo-Puritan?) to constantly evaluate one’s moral condition, all jerry-built on a bed of unfocused spirituality and undisciplined theology. Is it any wonder that it turned out bad?
August 19th, 2011 | 9:24 am | #20
Brian – this is probably a case where we can agree to disagree. The point of Challies’ post was to help people think through (via scripture) how to process OPC (other people’s crap) when it’s NYB (not your beez-waxies). The context is irrelevant.
Again – I don’t fully disagree with your observations. (Trust me – it’s been a very, very hard year for my SGM church.) I just disagree that you have seemingly defined Detwiler as a whistleblower. A person can’t help create the “system” and then blow the whistle on their own system. Many of your observations about SGM churches can be as much directly attributed to Detwiler’s leadership as others.
August 19th, 2011 | 9:29 am | #21
Hi Brian
I have been in the work force for 34 years. Even in the healthiest of environments, someone holds a grudge against the boss. It is not a stretch for me to believe the documents would be leaked even IF the conditions your describe in points a, b, c, and d did not exist.
I don’t believe you can create a factual argument for your position unless you can interview the person that leaked the documents and have them disclose their intent. And even if you did, and the “whistle-blower” revealed their intent was SGM reform, then their manner of accomplishing it is specious.
I’ll posit my own hypothetical in an effort to try and find some common ground. If SGM reform was the true goal, and attempts to reform through church relationship channels had broken down, then a “Wittenburg Door” type blog that addressed the systemic problems of the movement (NOT the personal sin failures of Mahaney) would have been appropriate. But that’s not what happened.
The fallout of the SGM wikileaks documents has been discussion about reform. And maybe we’ll see some positive things come out of this by the grace of God. But the ends do not justify the means.
August 19th, 2011 | 11:09 am | #22
@nkob – you said “A person can’t help create the “system” and then blow the whistle on their own system.”
Not trying to be offensive but why not? Why can’t someone create the system and realize after becoming a “victim” of a flawed system. Also, this isn’t about Brent’s culpability – If you’re right, then he’s culpable and he needs to take care of his own business. You should reach out and speak to him about it.
@MarkCrater – I’ve been in workplace for many years too and I’ve also been the boss for some of those years. Here’s what I know – sometimes I might not like the way my faults are highlighted publicly but there is something good at play that’s bigger than my immediate comfort. I’m not interested in defending Brent at all but I can understand how from his potentially flawed perspective, he is merely expanding the circle of accountability since there is no other documented way to raise grievances against the leadership structure. In a corporate environment, you have Human Resources department or sometimes Corporate Ethics Committees that function in that role.
August 19th, 2011 | 11:36 am | #23
@SGMNation – Reach out to Brent?! If this situation weren’t so sad, that statement would almost be funny. Herein lies the problem: I can not guarantee that any email I would send to Brent (even the most benign) wouldn’t be used against me (at some point) in a public forum. Brent has lost all credibility with the stroke of a “send” button.
And this is what is so personally difficult here: That someone I have respected and loved for many years has acted poorly (at best) and detrimentally (at worst) by using someone’s personal emails against them. This whole thing is quite tragic, indeed. What is most tragic is that Brent had a fruitful ministry (not perfect, yes flawed but fruitful). I don’t even know how he can ever recover from this.
August 19th, 2011 | 12:00 pm | #24
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
(Romans 8:28, NASB)
August 19th, 2011 | 1:56 pm | #25
Brian,
Thanks for clearly articulating what I have observed but could not put into words!! (I think Challies was merely addressing the documents as opposed to the larger issues within SGM churches.) I appreciate your thoughts on what this means for the wider conservative evangelical crowd in the near term but am left contemplating how we who are committed to the “purity and unity” of the church (to borrow language from Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology”) are to serve our churches in growing. For starters, we are all praying desperately that God will use this for great good within our congregations. Is there anything else we can/should be doing?
Thanks again!
Warmly,
Elizabeth
August 19th, 2011 | 4:13 pm | #26
Um… who authorized this random and, in my view, imprudent guest post?
August 19th, 2011 | 7:43 pm | #27
Extremely impressed with the spot on statements and observations you’ve made. I very much agree with everything stated! Thank you for your positive overall feelings while still being very pointed with your thoughts about structural flaws. A very helpful read! Will be passing this on.
August 24th, 2011 | 1:10 am | #28
[...] 4 – Brian Auten’s insider’s view of the Sovereign Grace controversy. [...]
August 24th, 2011 | 5:33 pm | #29
Again, very appreciated. One of my concerns about Challie’s piece (besides the allusion that most conflict is “personal” and therefore ‘no one else’s business’ unless it breaks a civil law) is that it does not distinguish between people who are rightly and responsibly concerned and people who may be scandal-mongers.
It’s possible that some, even many, reading Brent’s documents have no good reason to do so. Challies may be one of those people himself – though he offers his blogging pursuits as a reason why he may have been justified in reading. However, those who are SGM family and friends may have a responsibility to consider these things soberly and prayerfully. Those who do so are not furthering gossip and slander or being scandal-mongers but are fulfilling their responsibilities as members of local churches that are under the leadership of a group of men whose integrity as leaders of God’s church is being called into question by one who shared close fellowship with them not so long ago. We who are in SGM need to know who we are being led by, need to be Bereans, need to ascertain whether we are in faith to follow these men as they follow Christ; and, if we are, what changes we may still be convicted to advocate and appeal for within our local churches.
Challies does not make this distinction and neither do the SGM pastors who would push Challies interpretation as the final word for SGM members on this subject.
As an SGM member, I am involved: I am family and this is family business.
August 26th, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #30
@EMSoliDeoGloria: From Challies’ words: “All I want to do is do what I do—to think this through and to try to consider how we, the majority of us who are outside of the churches and ministry involved—can think about this in a biblical way.”
1) His post isn’t directed to folks who are primarily apart of SGM. It is to non-SGMers. So, in this regard, these documents are most certainly gossip & slander.
2) In an organization of churches that are comprised of probably 50,000, do you really believe it is the responsibility of all 50,000 of us to adjudicate this matter? If so, where do you find that in the bible?
3) Would you want 50,000 people to read your personal emails between you and a friend, that dates back nearly 12-15 years ago? What were you doing 12 years ago? What sins were your confessing over email? Are you okay with your emails being published by someone who is in conflict with you and questioning your role as a leader (work, church or home)? If you wouldn’t want it done to you, then you probably shouldn’t have a different standard for someone else.
September 1st, 2011 | 6:12 pm | #31
nkob –
1) ok
2) I didn’t say “adjudicate”… I’m neither mediator nor a personal friend nor member of the Board, so, no I don’t bear responsibility to “adjudicate” that way, but neither does my pastor or most pastors in SGM; in fact, due to deficient polity, we have no idea who bears responsibility to adjudicate. However, we are all
3) I’d have problems with the analogy. My work emails are subject to examination by my employer, and, if I work for the government, are potentially subject to FOIA. My personal emails are different. I’ve no indication that Brent used personal emails or private conversations unconnected with official duties to compose his documents. Really, I care most about CJ and the board’s response to them though… I care about apparent intransigence and a different standard for some people than others… I care when apologies given are so vague that they would never be accepted as apologies by any SGM pastor I’ve interacted with… that is most revealing… I’m not aware of harboring a double standard. I’m not arguing that someone should have uploaded the documents to wikileaks (I’d rather they hadn’t been but in God’s providence they were). Now that they are there, as a member of the SGM family, should I do due diligence to understand some of the sin patterns that have affected my family of churches, to consider where I may have been part of the problem or can be part of the solution in some – in any way – or if I’m in faith to remain under the leadership of these men at all. I think so.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact