I’ll be going through Dave Harvey’s “Polity” booklet soon. This is part of Sovereign Grace Ministries “Perspectives” series, and should be considered their official statement on their position.
You can download a copy here
Many are aware of recent changes to the SGM leadership structure, and many are not. It seems that each SGC has handled this is a different way. I recently spoke with one cgl who was completely unaware, while one SGC posted the changes on their website. I’ve spoken with a SGC pastor who informed his cgl’s of the changes as soon as they were final. The new structure can be found below.
Leadership Team
* C.J. Mahaney
* Dave Harvey
* Jeff Purswell
* Pat Ennis
* Joshua Harris
Apostolic Team – providing care to our pastors and churches
* Dave Harvey (Team Leader)
* Aron Osborne (Northeast & Eastern Canada)
* Kenneth Maresco (Maryland, Virginia)
* Gene Emerson (Mid-Atlantic)
* Danny Jones (South)
* Rick Gamache (Midwest)
* Craig Cabaniss (Midwest & Southwest)
* Steve Shank (West and Western Canada)
* Pete Greasely (International)
* Regional Team Leaders (RTLs) help apostolic team members provide care to a smaller set of churches.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I know that there are plenty of ways that the following analogy breaks down, so this is more comedy than anything. But every bit of humor has a grain of truth, no?
This sure looks like:
Pope (CJ)
Cardinals (Leadership Team)
Bishops (Apostles)
Senior Pastor (Monsignor)
July 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Looks pretty accurate to me, EA!
July 15th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
That’s about right EA.
Except the Pope is elected….
July 15th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Does anyone know why Brent D. is no longer on either leadership team? That is very surprising. He was really in thick with the head guys. What happened?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
It would be interesting to see much of the movement of all the pastors, etc. How their children were strategically placed in churches etc. I think if more people were aware of the movement, they would see it isn’t the Spirit of God acting at all, but man serving man.
I’m not an old timer (PDI days) and have not been in the SGM loop as long as many of you (thanks the LOrd!) but I have seen a pattern emerge since reading these blogs in March. It does seem that the movements of pastors, displacement of pastors, etc IS strategic and well thought out.
Now some may take no issue with this if they believe it’s OK for SGM leadership to do what they will. But I think most would take offense to their pastor being ripped away from them with little or no explanation. I see it coming in my own former SGM church where the pastor has been for years. With this new guy coming in next year after Pastor college (they have already decided where he is going and he hasn’t even BEGUN pastor’s college!) I think that is quite presumptuous on their part. Very man-centered and Spirit quenching.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I see what you’re saying. In the PDI days, CJ spread this saying around to the churches: “Constant change is here to stay.” I think they were getting us ready for all the strategic moves that would happen. There was no concern given to relationships that would be broken up. We just had to obey and trust their decisions.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
spreading phrases…yeah, classic SGM tactic.
How long do you think they will sit back and read these blogs? I’m so glad Kris, Guy, Travis, Jim and Carole had the courage to start them and keep them going. Lord willing, more people will find them. I am amazed at how many already have. And even if the word isn’t getting out to SGM members, it is to others, and SGM’s name is becoming synonymous with “shepherding”..
someone call Al Mohler, Piper, Ligon, and Mark Dever and inform them, since they don’t have a clue yet, or choose not to accept it.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Well, someone is doing some censoring. I guess there is a full time PR team. I found this while googling:
http://209.85.215.104/search?q.....&gl=us
When I went to the original, it was GONE. Here’s the original below in case they censor the cache. That’s pitiful how they try to erase any criticisms!
…………………………………………………………..
Cornerstone Church – Knoxville Cult?
Filed under: CCK, Church, Religion, Theology by SVD
You never know what you are going to find when you search the Keywords on your Google Analytics page, but I was a little surprised to find the phrase
July 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ellie,
That’s pretty funny. They left a portion of their post up (May 9 entry), but the post itself, and those oh so dangerous comments have been deleted.
I’m assuming the blog host did this on his own. They opened a door, and didn’t like what came in.
This stuff is not for the faint of heart, folks. Imagine if CJ’s blog allowed comments.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Aw, CJ couldn’t handle it. ROFL!
July 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Ellie,
That was interesting reading.
The thing that stood out to me was that the explanation of why these churches are called “cults” isn’t really why they are called cults.
In the Oxford English Dictionary, a cult is defined as: a system of religious worship directed towards a particular person or object. If you want we can go general, and say that all authoritarian type churches who have the kind of set-up where one man is at the top, where church members are told to obey and submit without room to disagree, that they need a mediator (in place of Jesus), men who “stand in the very stead of God) are cult-like. It is not necessarily the practices such as having lots of kids or women not working outside the home that makes a church cult-like. It is the control aspects, and the temptation because of this control that cause members to idolize their leaders. Let’s face it, if you can’t make your own life decisions without gaining “permission”, as has happened in some SGM churches, their is some serious mind control going on.
I say it again – if you sign a membership contract with a church like this, you are signing away your freedom in Christ.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
If I might add:
I have two personal experiences that underline what I’ve said above.
Both were during a PDI Celebration event, shortly after the Refreshing that went through the churches. I remember seeing Larry T. in the audience, so it was just after he’d been demoted. The room was full of believers worshipping the Lord. Suddenly, a sense of something deeper seemed to wash over us all. I could tell in my own spirit that the Lord was calling for something from us, maybe repentance. There was a definite soberness that came upon us. To my surprise and dismay, CJ came to the mic and said that we were not going to go there. He obviously sensed what was happening. However, he discouraged us from our soberness by saying that now wasn’t the time to be sad. He wanted us to go in a different direction, or words to that effect. Immediately, the Spirit of the Lord lifted. Whatever He was about to give us was lost.
The second thing happened minutes later. CJ said to us all: “I’m tired of being told I’m in the way. I’m not afraid to lead.”
I wonder to this day what the Lord would have done if a man had not decided to “stand in the very stead of God” for us.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I am curious as to who had been telling CJ that he was in the way…
July 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Me, too. I suppose he’d been told that by other leaders or members. Honest, those were his exact words. I remember because they shocked me so (not to mention the fact that’d he’d basically shooed the Holy Spirit away – it was the first time I realized that PDI leadership was choosing to end the Refreshing – later it happened in the Charolotte church). I was naive at the time. I thought the leaders I followed welcomed the Lord’s leading of His people. Boy, was I wrong. I guess they really do think they “stand in the very stead of God”.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Canary, your story sent chills up and down my spine.
Just in whose way was CJ?
And, if I think about it, things went from questionable to just plain bad when CJ scored his coup in the 1990’s.
July 16th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Okay, this is just a theory. I’ve wondered about it for a while. I don’t think it is good to put a generally prophetic man in charge. CJ use to be able to express what was on the Lord’s heart with genuine love and quite a bit of humor. I would go away from his teachings with a newly envisioned heart for the Lord. CJ was a teacher who could grab you and make you really think about the Real and Living God. I could even imagine that the Lord had such affection for CJ, who could make even God laugh with pleasure. But CJ could also tell us what was on the Lord’s heart with such fervency. We couldn’t help but be moved.
Anyway, the reason I think that a prophetic man should not be in charge is because, if you see clearly what is on God’s heart for the people, the temptation to enforce obedience to this is too great. A prophet (as CJ used to be called) is to share the heart of the Lord, not force people into compliance. That is where Larry did so well in balancing the PDI ministry. He and CJ worked so well together. Of course, there can be control problems in other aspects of the church. I’m not excluding those. It is just that a prophetic ministry should not lead the church. There is an order to protect God’s people from the misuse of authortiy we see today. When a propet sees how things should be, his vision becomes black and white. It should be this way, he thinks. If he is given ultimate power to make his vision happen, there is a problem with balance and, ultimately, the desire to control the outcome.
I don’t know that CJ is recognized as being prophetic anymore, but I remember when he was.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Canary said:
” have two personal experiences that underline what I’ve said above.
Both were during a PDI Celebration event, shortly after the Refreshing that went through the churches. I remember seeing Larry T. in the audience, so it was just after he’d been demoted. The room was full of believers worshipping the Lord. Suddenly, a sense of something deeper seemed to wash over us all. I could tell in my own spirit that the Lord was calling for something from us, maybe repentance. There was a definite soberness that came over the people. To my surprise and dismay, CJ came to the mic and said that we were not going to go there. He obviously sensed what was happening. However, he discouraged us from our soberness by saying that now wasn’t the time to be sad. He wanted us to go in a different direction, or words to that effect. Immediately, the Spirit of the Lord lifted. Whatever He was about to give us was lost.
The second thing happened minutes later. CJ said to us all: “I’m tired of being told I’m in the way. I’m not afraid to lead.”
I wonder to this day what the Lord would have done if a man had not decided to “stand in the very stead of God” for us.”
Canary
This sounds really bad that Mahaney would do this. It seems like SGM has reaped the consequences of this quenching the Spirit ever since.
With regard to your more recent post, Mahaney is a much better exhorter/motivator vs. a teacher of the Scripture. He is also more a reader of books than a reader of The Book.
I think you are right that someone in a prophetic call might not be the best to be in a leadership position.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Thanks Steve240,
It’s something I’ve thought for a while. Just not sure CJ can be called “prophetic” anymore, which is a shame, because he had a true gift.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Canary,
I think we’re seeing the same thing in retrospect regarding the Larry/CJ balance. Yes, there were problems within the PDI org., I guess there are always problems within a large org. But the good outweighed the bad (at least that’s the way we perceived it.)
When Larry’s presence in that diad was lost, CJ filled the vacume. Any mechanism for checks and balances was lost. I didn’t see it at the time, but that was when things really went bad in PDI land.
I’m still somewhat shocked by the events you mention at the Celebration service.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
It’s probably still on tape somewhere. I used to have some Celebration tapes, but they’re long gone now. :/
July 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
What surprised me about the comments CJ made at this Celebration was that I heard no one else speaking about the oddness of it, although my husband and I, and two of our friends did discuss it. If people in the audience disagreed, they didn’t show it. Maybe not everybody understood what was happening, but CJ certainly did. Did any other leaders step forward? Nope. I have to add to this that I always had high regard for CJ’s love of the Lord. You could tell there was an intimacy between them. Where has that gone? I don’t know him personally so I can only speculate, but as John Imel said here once, the ministy reflects the man. To me it’s very sad, because CJ was once truly a man passionate for the Lord (instead of doctrine or church building). We need men and women to have that passion, or first love for the Lord in the Body today, especially in leadership. Maybe if there had been women leaders allowed, the move into a corporate, less loving-like organization could have been avoided. Women would have added a balance. Remember, when the men were hiding away after Jesus’ death, mourning the end of a vision, the women were down at the tomb mourning the death of the Lord. I will add that I mean no offense to men, nor am I a feminist. I just see that there is a need for a balance in the church on gifting and in gender so that the totallity of who God is can be shown to the world.
Ellie, I can’t remember the exact year of that Celebration. It was somewhere between 1995 – 1997. Since it was during worship, it might not even be on a tape. Oh well, that would have been great evidence. Maybe others reading this will remember and add their voice to mine.
DB,
I agree that when Larry was ousted, any remaining balance was lost, and the swing towards what we see today began. I will also add that the loss of Evangelists such as Larry, Che Ahn, and others left PDI off kilter. It really does help to have that history with the organization to look back on. The changes happened so slowly and almost silently. At least we can see the mistakes, and prayerfully avoid them in our personal lives. That’s a blessing. But it still saddens me when I remember what use to be, and compare it to what it is today. Although others will disagree, I still don’t think SGM abuses are intentional. Something has blinded most of these men, something terrible. And in their blindness, they are harming the sheep. I understand there are exceptions, and I pray God will use these men to influence SGM.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Ok…. Ellie… you are the Queen o’the Web. I humbly bow to your googling skills. So what other gems of the blogisphere have you found?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
My lips are sealed.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
““I’m tired of being told I’m in the way. I’m not afraid to lead.””
Since when has anyone every accused CJ of being afraid to lead? Though, now that I think about it, maybe he oughta have more fear so he’d be more careful with those he leads.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I have been reading and watching SGM Refuge and SGM Survivors for three months now. I am a current member at Sovereign Grace Church in Gilbert, AZ. Yes I go back to the PDI days.
One question begs to be asked, How is this site and what your doing furthering the Gospel? All I read seems to add up to a lot of complaining, jealousy, resentment, gossip, slander, and anger. I do see a lot of scripture being passed back and forth but nothing about the Gospel. Where is the love, forgiveness and understanding? I must add that there are some posts that are real concerns, “Esther” is one of those.
To close my post I just ask that one question, where is the Gospel and where is it in your lives?
I do understand if you do not put my post online.
Matthew Geesling
January 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Hi Matthew and welcome.
I don’t know if this post I am writing will answer your question or not. But I hope it does.
It might not make a lot of sense from where you are coming from, but God has been using this and the other site in a big way, both to bring me healing and to point me more to Jesus. It has also giving others a place to encourage one another. I understand if you can’t see it that way. That’s ok. I just wanted to answer your question and not have you ignored in case no one else sees your post.
Have a good day,
Stunned
January 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I don’t want to speak for Jim, but personally I would say this site is doing other Christians a service by shedding light on sins and injustices that would otherwise remain hidden behind closed doors. Covering up for untrustworthy, authoritarian shepherds neither serves the church nor furthers the gospel.
WIP (also from the PDI days)
January 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Matthew,
“Where is the love, forgiveness and understanding? To close my post I just ask that one question, where is the Gospel and where is it in your lives?”
It’s being directed toward the hurt, abused and confused in our midst. Maybe you don’t see it because you’re expecting it to be directed toward the strong, the privileged, the powerful, those in authority. Instead, who did Jesus proclaim the good news (gospel) to?
January 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Matthew,
Thanks for posting. As a site for Christians, the assumption is made that our readers are familiar with the Gospel.
I can’t answer for anyone who comments here, but as the guy who pays the rent, I’ll answer for myself. I have no idea what in the world I would have to be jealous of. If exposing SGM’s manipulative practices is complaining, I’m guilty. Sometimes I’m angry, sometimes not. SGM usually does exactly what I expect them to do, so I’m rarely surprised or angry. There are of course situations that should make one angry, rather than “concerned”. Since you referenced survivors, I’d say that if Noel’s situation doesn’t make you angry, you might want to check your pulse.
Gossip and slander are of course a common accusation. This has been addressed many times.
Please read here, here, and here.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Good point Jim.
Mathew
One thing I would ask you is that don’t you realize just how vulnerable people are in groups where so much of what is done is kept hidden from the majority of the members. It gives the leaders no accountability for what they are doing.
Teaching against gossip and slander might work well when you have men who are “perfect” or don’t have “indwelling sin” as is the SGM term.
One thing again I don’t think SGM members realize is how set up they can be when they buy into the way SGM defines what “gossip” and “slander” is.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
This random quote just came up:
— Gracie
January 26th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Matthew,
Welcome. If you read in Galations, there is such a thing called a “false gospel”. This occurs when the good news is preached right along with legalism. Paul was very vehement about protecting the purity of the gospel. He even, in Philippians, called legalists “you dogs”.
So, what we wish to see is the purity of the gospel preached. I do not believe that you can do this if you include even a little leaven of the Pharasees. All the control and expectations which PDI/SG forced and is forcing on its members does not equal the pure gospel. It is legalism.
I would, for your sake, make sure you are understanding the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Read Galations and Hebrews. Read Phillipians. The things that happened then are happening today. Controlling churches steal our freedom in Christ, making us slaves again to the law. Don’t look at what they preach, look at how they live. You will see. Also, read the “my story” site. It is not gossip to speak the truth and to carry one another’s burden. If it was, then Jesus, the disciples, later on Paul, were also guilty of gossip when they confronted the early church on sin that was happening within. God bless you as you seek for answers.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Canary,
I do understand the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.
You told me “Don’t look at what they preach, look at how they live.”
I have and I have known my Sr. Pastor for 35 years and our one of our associate pastors for over 40 years now. I have looked, seen, been apart of and lived with these men inside and out the church for all these years. I know them and yes I see that the Gospel is the center of there lives.
Now as for me, if I where to layout my testimony it would curl your hair and most would be glad they never encountered me. God and our Lord Jesus Christ rescued me and called me by name 22 years ago. I thank God for the Men/Pastors at SGC in Gilbert Arizona for what they have endured with me. Legalism is where these men have taken us out from. Canary please tries to find the Gospel in your own life so that you maybe free from the bitterness you’re showing here.
One last thing to all who do read these posts, I use my real name and these are my comments.
Anonymity has no place in my life as a man in Christ.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Matthew G.,
Wow. Didn’t see that coming. I wrote from no bitterness within. My peeps who know me on this blog will tell you that. They are my witnesses.
My husband asked me in the very beginning of posting on this blog, if I would remain anonmous. He is merely trying to protect me from things that happened to us in the past. I must say, you sound a bit sanctimonious.
If you are a man of Christ, where is the love in your last post? How about courtesy to a woman? Just wondering. I was certainly not discourteous to you. I only encouraged you to read some scriptures about legalism. Oh well, believe what you will. God bless. Canary
January 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about anonymity on the internet one way or the other. Using one’s name is not necessarily a virtue – especially if one has nothing to lose by using it – and being anonymous is not necessarily a vice. Red herring.
For example, the stories posted here and at the survivors site have included accounts of spousal abuse, child abuse, and molestation. I think any reasonable person can understand why victims of such abuse and their families might wish to remain anonymous.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Matthew
“One last thing to all who do read these posts, I use my real name and these are my comments. Anonymity has no place in my life as a man in Christ.”
>This is me nodding< I can appreciate the sentiment. That sets you apart… marginally … everything else is SGM SOP.
Many remain anonymous because of their fear. Most voicing their objections are women. (A telling detail in my mind) Whatever its source, the fear is potent and hard to get out from under. When they get healthy, I’m betting most will be bold in person. But the real leading difference betwixt yourself and most all on this blog (and others) have a vested interest. I’m thinking maybe you don’t.
As this drama unfolds, I’m betting that readers, like you, will have an Aha! moment. Maybe to be followed by an OH #$@$ moment. The nature of that moment will be determined by what kind of man in Christ you really are.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
John Immel,
You’re back! And saying stuff with your usual pointed clarity. Thanks for defending the women who post anonymously. Fear is a real issue with some of us. I’d like to think I’ve grown in that, but my hubby is watching out for me. Others just don’t want to deal with “men” like Matthew G., who come on attacking instead of listening. We had enough of that when we tried talking to pastors. I finally threw that t-shirt away.
Work-in-Progress,
Red herring…I didn’t see it until you said something. Our sweet man of Christ, Matthew G., didn’t address the content of my post, which was how Paul thought of legalism. Did he do the reading I suggested? Nope. Just jumped to the usual “bitterness” accusation. I would ask MG, as I have others who come on here speaking but not listening, have you read the stories on the “my story” site? Funny, I never get a postive answer to that question. Ah well, one can only try…
January 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
canary,
At least Matthew will talk to you.
As a “man in Christ”, I guess he’d rather call women bitter than respond to me.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Matthew,
While I admire your courage to come here with your real name, I must also respect those who wish to keep their anonymity.
I believe this webpage serves as a forum for people to voice their concerns and have their stories told.
I believe there is a conspiracy of silence in the SGM org that has created an imbalance that has resulted in stories like Noel’s and Esther’s. I think even their stories would fester in obscurity if not for venues like this one in which people have been able to share.
How is the Gospel furthered? All these good people that SGM has chosen to shun, abuse, or throw away like so much spiritual garbage have been aided in their healing through discussion and prayer. Some of us have even continued in Bible study and fellowshipping in other churches (something that isn’t easy to do when one has been dismembered, trust me.)
I have had people respond to my story by saying if she has the heart to go to church and trust in God after all the crap she’s gone through, I’ll give it a shot. That furthers the Gospel, at least potentially.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“As this drama unfolds, I’m betting that readers, like you, will have an Aha! moment. Maybe to be followed by an OH #$@$ moment. The nature of that moment will be determined by what kind of man in Christ you really are.”
Statements like these are the reason I wanted to give John this blog.
But noooo…he had to start his own blog.
I guess Matthew’s right-I’m jealous of John’s mind.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Jim,
Your above comment was a homerunner, and made me smile. Matthew G. huwt my whittle tweety feewings.
But I bounced back. Sure is frustrating when an honest probing results in insults and the ole’ “you’re bitter” routine. A new song-and-dance would be a refreshing change. Oh well, on with the show…
January 26th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
DB,
Good insights, as usual!
January 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Canary,
I did not know if you where a woman, man or child.
As far as Anonymity, my point is that I will be responsible for what I write here.
“When casting stones at one’s brother or sister just don’t do it in the dark.”
January 26th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The lights are on Brother…. Batter up!
>snicker<
January 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Matthew G.,
Who is casting stones? I’m certainly not. Jim, do you think he’ll explain that to you?
Oh, and I do take responsibility for my words, before God. I have no idea who you are, only that you have come on here with big words and little understanding of what we are trying to do. Hang around a while, read a bit. Have you read “my story”, yet? Somehow, I think not. It would really be helpful for you to understand people’s hearts, here. My story is there, too.
And it doesn’t matter whether I am a man, woman, or child, you should still be courteous when you post for the first time. People here try very hard to welcome new comers, even those who disagree. Jim makes sure of that. So, welcome, Matthew G. Come, let us reason together.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Matthew said,
“Canary please tries to find the Gospel in your own life so that you maybe free from the bitterness you’re showing here.”
I am honored to stand up for canary and say, her comments, whether they have been public or private emails to me, have ALWAYS demonstrated the reality and beauty of the Gospel of grace. NEVER have I known her to be bitter. You are WAY off here, Matthew.
Reminds me of the guy who came on here and patronizingly called me “sweetie,” telling me if I had better things to do, I oughta be doing them. (Actually, that was canary as well, but he got the two of us confused.)
January 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Hi Matthew, and welcome!
My brother, you don’t know about casting stones, or you would know why many of us do not use our names. We are still reeling from the last stone casting session(s).
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
January 26th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Gracie,
I don’t remember that. How condescending. Now, if I call you a sweetie, it has a whole different meaning. ‘Cause you are sweet, my friend.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
(am I being talked around..)
January 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Jim,
(I think so…)
Matthew G.,
Batter up!
January 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Matthew,
Welcome.
As one of Canary’s newer peeps, I have not seen any bitterness.
I also concur with what RT said. Some of us are still reeling and have a few bruises.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Jim, when you said, “am i being talked around” did you mean, are we ignoring you?
If we are, it’s probably due to our socialization in SGM. We’re not used to men speaking to us and actually wanting an answer.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
STUNNED,
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Stunned,
January 26th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I don’t know what’s funnier Stunned or Canary calling us peeps.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
THAT was funny…
January 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Stunned, I darn near fell off my chair laughing. Thanks.
Jim–we are not ignoring you. You forced us into the position of not responding to you.
Your last comment alluded to the fact that John I is smarter than you.
So:
1. We agree with you that he is smarter than you. Then we look like SHRILL women who are trying to not be submissive.
2. If we say that indeed, you are as smart as John, then we look like peace fakers. Also, it tacitly acknowledges the more than obvious fact that you want us to tell you how smart you are. Then, we look dominating and manipulative.
3. If we argue that you are much smarter than John, then we abuse our dumb brother, John, who is your guest and that is not using our feminine gifts of hospitality.
Also, we would be lying.
So….we are quiet.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
RT,
SHRILL women? SHRILL women?!!!! WHO’S SHRILL!!!????
I like your point #3 – I don’t think John has been called dumb before.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
DB,
Don’t you think it fits that a canary would have peeps?
January 26th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
INC,
Oh, ouch. Hee-hee-hee.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
INC,
HA HA HA ! Canary has peeps!
January 26th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
What did you expect a canary to have, Gracie, puppies?
January 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
ROTFLMBO!!!!
January 26th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
RT-that’s awesome. You’re smarter than me too.
It’s not that great of a complement.
I was referring to Matthew, who ignored my response and went after canary.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Stunned, you, out of nowhere, capsulated something that bothered me from the git-go at my SGM church. At the church where we came from I had conversations and fellowship with many men. I felt like a sister. Immediately upon arriving @ SGM I noticed men did not want to look me in the eye or want to have conversations with me. I am married with children. I wasn’t flirting or looking for anything other than wanting to get to know my brothers and sisters around me. (Which we had moved from out of state to become a part of their church and “fellowship” with) I began to feel “dirty” for initiating conversation. I eventually just ended up in the corner with the women talking about homeschooling. (Which I HATED because I did this ALL day! I did not want to spend my free time with ladies talking only about this.) Sorry, that is my “men and women” rant. – burn.gif
January 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Wow what a response I got and so fast. Sorry I did not get back to all the zingers that where thrown to me but I work for a living and I don’t normally post to blogs due to the fact that my employer pays me to do my job not monitor blogs.
Jim, As far as to responding to you…. Sorry but I felt like I was being pounced upon by everyone here. It was like I was a fresh trout being thrown to a bunch of feral cats.
Noel’s situation is very very tragic I agree but I do not need to check my pulse. How many years ago did this happen? What is the update today? With regards to Noel’s child and family. How did God resolve this in there hearts towards the boy and mother that did this? I ask these questions out of real concern. As I read the account my heart sank.
I know about forgiveness, at the age of 17 I had 3 men try to murder me during a robbery attempt. I was shot 3 times. While God saved my life, he also put people in my life that showed me what forgiveness means and how it would change me and my life and others around me. See I have 4 sons and forgiveness is a main staple in our lives. God forgave me (all my sins) so I MUST forgive others no matter what sin has been done against me.
Bitterness comes when there is no forgiveness and it spreads like an infection through out the body. Believe me that when true forgiveness is given everyone knows it. And NO I am not saying that everyone here is harboring un-forgiveness but it is like when a unbeliever comes in to a church and everyone is babbling in tongues he walks away saying these people are crazy and out of there heads. I walked in to this and asked questions. I am just a plain talker and call it like I see it. Sometimes I need think more before I respond and I ask for forgiveness if I did offend anyone here especially Canary. I did not come here to put out zingers.
Forgive me
Matthew Geesling
January 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Matthew,
You’re a good guy. Your opening comment is obviously something that has been stated on here many times. I attempted to answer you, and hoped that you would interact with me.
I hope you understand why many here would find your opening comment, along with telling canary that she’s bitter, offensive statements.
I certainly forgive you, and would ask you to forgive me of my snarky tone. I Really don’t like it when men pick on women here. I’ve since discovered that you were unaware of her gender.
Someone who knows you sent me an email about you. It was very complementary.
Thank you for posting.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Matthew,
Welcome!
I have a question to ask if you don’t mind
I’ve been interested in hearing other’s thoughts on this as I am still contemplating this myself. What do you believe is the difference between gossip/slander and warning other believers of wrong teachings?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“Jim, when you said, “am i being talked around” did you mean, are we ignoring you?
If we are, it’s probably due to our socialization in SGM. We’re not used to men speaking to us and actually wanting an answer.”
ROFL, Stunned!!
….personally, I think Jim just wanted to be called a “sweetie”, too.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Bethany,
Slander
A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media — for example, over the radio or on TV — it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience
Gossip
Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
Trivial, chatty talk or writing.
I pulled those definitions from a Dictionary.
As to warning other believers of wrong teachings?
I am no theologian but all things can be twisted to mean whatever one wishes it to mean.
Example: “Name it and Claim it”. No where in the bible can you find it but scripture has been twisted by others and doctrines have been formed from this very concept and churches formed from this man made doctrine.
The warning is that you will be responsible for how you lead people. Ether towards God or Away from God. That’s why everyone who is or thinks they are a teacher must be careful. I my self am not a teacher. Take that back, I am but not a teacher in the biblical since of a congregation. I am a teacher to my wife and sons and I do take that very seriously.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Matthew,
Did you ever read my initial response to you, and would you like to comment?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Ellie,
Truth be told, I was raised in the South with very Southern Traditions. To this day I will not walk in to a woman’s home if invited with out her husband there or my wife there with me. In church I will not engage in a conversation with a woman with out her husband there or my wife being there with me. This is my personal convection and nothing I have ever learned in a SGC.
It just doesn’t feel right to me.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Matthew,
Thanks for your response.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Jim,
I can’t believe you’re being dissed on your own blog. The audacity is exquisite.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Jim,
I am not a biblical scholar or theologian but I do find all the answers to what ails a person in the Gospel. While I do look for the leaders in my church for direction, correction and help I must compare all things with how they line up to the Gospel. I do question things that are said, done, and happen with in the church. I also believe that all people that have a church membership should do the same and be able to do so.
My response to you would be, as the man paying the rent here is, are you doing all that you can to get these people help with additional resources? Or is this just another sight to air dirty laundry? If someone where to, for lack of a better word “Google” SGM, pastors name, or a church name would they pull up your sight? Do you think that maybe this sight or others like it might just push people away from the Gospel? I am not saying it does push people away.
For all of SGM and churches problems I have yet to see one service that the Gospel has not been preached.
I not looking for you to respond to at all.
Just look.
I am really just a very simple man and I know that my life is just a wisp of smoke in a big wind. In the end all I want to hear is the word “Welcome” from Jesus.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Dear Matthew,
you sound like a true gentleman and I mean you no disrespect. Most of the Southern men that I have met in years past have been most courteous and protective of women in general.
It’s curious to me how these “husbands” have so shamefully treated their wives and children for YEARS and their brothers in the church have allowed such behavior to continue.
The Southern men that I have had the honor to know (non-Christian as well as Christian) would not hesitate to make those husbands who mistreated their families *truly* regret their actions and they certainly wouldn’t let someone who called themselves a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and condoned such abominable behavior be entrusted with the spiritual care of their own loved ones. It’s very disconcerting. Truly.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Matthew,
Thank you for responding. We talk to people offline. I talk to guys, Carole likes to type, and has an “email relationship” with many women she’s met online. I hope our conversations are helpful.
One of our goals here is to see reform within SGM. If that’s what you mean by airing dirty laundry, them I’m guilty. My response to this charge is contained in my first response to you.
Ultimately, you and I have the same goal, and the same assurance that we will one day hear those wonderful words.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Mathew Geesling said:
“My response to you would be, as the man paying the rent here is, are you doing all that you can to get these people help with additional resources? Or is this just another sight to air dirty laundry? If someone where to, for lack of a better word “Google” SGM, pastors name, or a church name would they pull up your sight? Do you think that maybe this sight or others like it might just push people away from the Gospel? ”
I guess you aren’t aware of the Calvinistic belief (sovereign grace means about the same thing) that SGM has moved to?
This belief teaches that God will save those he chooses to save when he decides to save them. It also teaches that man’s effort doesn’t matter. Additionally, it teaches that those that God doesn’t elect to salvation have no chance of being saved.
Thus according to what SGM says they believe, what is posted here would not effect a person’s salvation. I don’t agree with this belief but see a big contradiction here in what you are saying vs. what SGM says they believe.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Matthew -
Please note that slander is defined as *untruthful* speech. You may not believe the stories recounted here, but that does not make them untrue. Unless you can prove the stories recounted here false, you can’t know that they are slanderous.
As for the label of gossip, most of us are recounting *our own* “personal, sensational, or intimate” stories (quoting from the definition you cite). I hardly see how one could be considered a gossip for recounting a story that involves one’s own self.
I’m not bitter. But I do want people to approach SGM with their eyes open.
Steve240 makes an excellent point. According to Reformed doctrine, there is nothing any of us here can do to keep anyone from believing the Gospel if they have been called (unconditional election and irresistible grace, remember?) nor is there anything we could do to thwart God’s will for SGM. In fact by SGM’s own teaching, it is God’s will that their dirty laundry be aired (though I don’t see why it would ever be good for abusive church practices *not* to be exposed).
January 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Dear Work in progress,
I thank you for your response to my response.
But as human nature shows us, what we re account what happened in a momentor an exchange might not be all that we say it is. I my self have been caught up in it too. I do not want to be seen in a bad light. Just the other day I was talking to my wife about something that happened at work, I omitted some facts about an encounter I had. My wife was talking to me about it and asked more deeper questions until I told her the complete story. If I had that person right in front of me at the time I was talking to my wife I would have relayed the whole story and probablyhad more of there input to bring the whole thing together.
I know you have heard it before ” there is always two sides of a story”.
I am not trying to diminish anything that has happened.
So what I am saying is that sometimes the truth is being told, just not all of it.
Truly I am not trying to offend any here by that statement.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Ellie said,
“The Southern men that I have had the honor to know (non-Christian as well as Christian) would not hesitate to make those husbands who mistreated their families *truly* regret their actions and they certainly wouldn’t let someone who called themselves a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and condoned such abominable behavior be entrusted with the spiritual care of their own loved ones. It’s very disconcerting. Truly. ”
Very excellent point. I have to add that, the separation of men and women (such as Matthew G. seems to ascribe to) is something I’m so glad to be free from. When a man treats a woman as though she is a piria, that is not very honoring. Men who espouse the controlling church factor, including their own authority/reign in their own families, personally, make me feel weird. Something about it is not right.
I was reading at the end of Romans, today. Notice all the women Paul greets, or asks to be remembered to. They were his friends and coworkers. Jesus had women friends. Mary washed his feet with her hair, for goodness sakes! There is something very odd in how some men behave towards females, almost like women are this huge temptation, meant to be avoided at all costs. Is it respectful to ignore a woman because her husband is not with her? Is it honoring to ignore her because she is female? I dare say, many women here could tell their own experiences in this department. I know this is off subject, but it has bothered me for a while…
January 27th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Matthew, I know you’re not addressing me, but if I may, I’d like to respond to your comment, “Do you think that maybe this sight or others like it might just push people away from the Gospel?”
I imagine that it is not the reports of what is going on that would push people away, but the actual abuses themselves.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Singing Cook said, “Immediately upon arriving @ SGM I noticed men did not want to look me in the eye or want to have conversations with me. I am married with children. I wasn’t flirting or looking for anything other than wanting to get to know my brothers and sisters around me. (Which we had moved from out of state to become a part of their church and “fellowship” with) I began to feel “dirty” for initiating conversation.”
Singing Cook, your comment above opened my eyes to a situation that has bothered me for the past 15 years, wondering what I had done wrong. There was one couple in my homegroup that I got along great with. They left the church before I did, but we remain friends. The wife and I were closer than the husband and I were, but the husband and I got along well, too. (This is a good thing, right?) Because of my husband’s cheating, I was always very careful not to ever cross any lines whatsoever. Yet I still believed brothers were/are… well, brothers in Christ.
At one homegroup social I was joking around with this brother, we were both laughing as we often did. This particular social was combined with one of the single’s groups in our church so as I walked away from him, I went to sit beside a single woman who I was wanting to get to know a bit more. After talking to her for a minute or two she said somethig about my husband then gestured over toward this brother. I was stunned (even then, I guess I haven’t changed much). I explained he wasnt’ my husband and her reaction was somehow… don’t know how to explain it, but not good.
Right away (given the way I had come to adopt the SGM mentality), I began to question myself, if I had done anything “wrong” to make her think that. I decided then and there to pull away from my brother. I mean, heaven forbid I ever do anything that would be inappropriate (yes, and at this moment, those of you who have come to know me simply as stunned the poster, realize that in that regard i have changed. Drastically.)
This incident has always stayed with me. Now I realize it is for good reason.
I have always condemned myself for somehow, unknowingly having done something wrong. NOW, after your post, I realized, I hadn’t done anything wrong! It was this sister who had her own skewed view of male/female relationships. Her (was it disgust I was seeing in her face… some sort of disapproval to be sure)… the disapproval I saw in her face had nothing to do with any inappropriateness on my part. It was HER issue. HER problem.
To think I have been carrying around that condemnation for years without even realizing it.
PRAISE God! He has set me free. Thank you Lord.
And thank you Carole and Jim for this venue, and for the many posters here who have the patience to stick with their brothers and sisters as we work our way through these old issues. Thank you.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Stunned}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!
January 27th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Stunned,
I’m so glad to hear that!
It’s wonderful God used Singing Cook’s comment to set you free!
January 27th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Matthew,
What you’ve described is subjectivity or poor memory, maybe even unintentional lying, but it is not slander. Slander is a deliberate untruth. Secondly, if you truly believe even part of what is written here and at the survivors site is true, it should raise a lot of questions for you about SGM and its practices.
It’s true that there are always at least two sides to a story. That doesn’t mean that one side isn’t wrong – if one side is involved in covering up the molestation of a child, for example, then that side is wrong. Again, this is a red herring. And also again, it’s something that SGM church members who have not experienced problems in their churches often say in response to the stories recounted here and at the survivors site. I take you at your word that you don’t mean to diminish anything that has happened, but that is effectively what you are doing.
I am not offended in the least and I doubt anyone else is, either. It’s the same old story of deflection and not engaging with the actual content of these stories. I suspect most of us have gotten used to it. And I mean no offense by that, either.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Stunned,
So it WASN”T my imagination that the man/woman separation happened. Thanks for requoting Singing Cook. I’d forgotten that comment. That is what I saw happening often in the controlling church I was in. It is so nice to be free of that nonsense.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
michael, you don’t speak to a woman unless her husband is present? That is messed up, man! up here in the north, we ain’t afraid of each other or the magical sexual power of attraction we bring to the table. we respect it, but don’t fear it so much.
btw, my granddaddy was a true southern gentleman. he would never in a million years treat a woman that poorly.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Stunned,
I, too, thought that Matthew’s idea of how to treat women was off. It sounded so sanctimonious. I just don’t understand the mentality. Honoring women by ignoring them if their husband isn’t present? Saw that alot. It felt like I was something less than human, especially when leaders acted that way. It was not a way to honor a woman. It was devaluing. My husband treats me like a princess, and treats other women with great respect and gentleness. No weirdness there! We trust God in each other. I am good friends with one of his guy friends, but this guy is like my brother. This is not meant to be a judgement of Matthew G. It is just that his post about women hit a sore spot for me and some others here. We’ve experienced that type of “honoring” women, and it was not a blessing.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:28 am
thank you all for you hugs and for rejoicing with me. how nice. thank you.
canary said “less than human” and “devaluing”.
I agree with how it made me feel. I wonder if these men who practice this have any idea how they make a woman feel when they do that. It’s funny, my cheating ex husband never had much interaction with women at all. less than almost any man i know. yet he still cheated more than once and for long periods of time. the lovely, kind man I am dating now, on the other hand, interacts with women all day long, at work, in his personal life, at church, at homegroup. He hugs them and chats with them, he hangs out with them even when I am not around, he walks them to their car at night (heaven forbid, but I actually TRUST him to be alone with them in fact, I ADMIRE him for giving up his comfort to take care of them), when they get out of his car he gives them his hand after he has opened their door, etc. (A catch or what?!) yet he has never in his life been unfaithful, nor does he view women as objects at all. Maybe because he merely sees them as fellow humans and not “others”.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Matthew-
Who wrote Hebrews? Who wrote First Kings?
January 28th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Matthew-
Can you please post your phone number and social security number on the blog? That way we can all verify that you are truly Matthew Geesling and not an imposter. We’ve had SG men pretending to be women, in the past, and I want to verify your gender before I engage you further….
I hope you realize I’m kidding (about you posting your info), but I find your desire to have us post our names and gender before taking us seriously, as a deflection from real conversation.
Welcome to the board
January 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Musicman,
I never asked anyone to post gender… Ever.
As far as names being posted, “Anonymity” is the key word.
Anonymity may reduce the accountability one perceives to have for their actions, and removes the impact these actions might otherwise have on their reputation. This can have dramatic effects, both useful and harmful.
Tell me do you believe everything you read on the Internet?
Is the Sovereign Grace Ministries Mafia going to come to your home?
It’s just a joke.
Now to deal with taking people here seriously.
I do take all of this seriously and soberly.
I know what sin I am capable of in my life so I know what other people are capable of. Nothing surprises me about how far in to sin one can go and could go even if both sides claims to be Christians.
You Musicman, on the other hand are trying to read between the lines instead of reading the lines. I have never deflected from a REAL conversation.
But I will tell you this I will not engage in pointless talk or chatter.
Your question about “Who wrote Hebrews? Who wrote First Kings”?
This I can not take seriously.
I am not here to put out zingers.
But again, I am here as a person just asking questions and responding to questions being asked of me, I still feel as I posted earlier
“It was like I was a fresh trout being thrown to a bunch of Feral Cats”.
Matthew
January 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Matthew Said: “Jim, As far as to responding to you…. Sorry but I felt like I was being pounced upon by everyone here. It was like I was a fresh trout being thrown to a bunch of feral cats.”
You know what… when the commentary is fishy… what can one expect? OH… wait was that a zinger?
Matthew, I’m thinking you have no idea how—almost identical –your commentary is to so many others who comment here and other blogs of note. The progression is profoundly similar.
A stiff rebuke.
The standard this is Gossip and slander.
The appeal to harming the body of Christ.
The cautious repentance for some “attitude” failure, yet never recant erroneous commentary.
Followed by the broad appeal for one an all to check our hearts implying or advocating that any failure of pure motivation is a disqualifying trait.
A profound lack of proportion.
The very apparent lack of familiarity with the details of the varied stories.
When called to account for ignorance … crying about mistreatment or harsh response yet never ever concedes that the commentary is ignorant.
The ongoing oblique advocacy that no matter what anyone says SGM leaders should not be openly scrutinized for their actions or conduct.
An endless effort to demagogue the moral high ground.
The ongoing anecdotal defense of SGM because YOUR experience is so very different than those who post.
And a glaring inability to answer directly the counter arguments to the standard broad brush of dismissal.
>Sigh<
I marvel at your commentary on so many levels. I marvel that you can emulate the standard Sovereign Grace Ministries dismissal with stunning clarity and in the next breath advocate that sites like this somehow have ANYTHING to do with leading people towards or away from God. What Steve said is dead on. When your pastors were preaching the “gospel” did you miss the T.U.L.I.P part, particularly the limited atonement and the Perseverance of the Saints parts?
I marvel that you can type out a comment like: “I am no theologian but all things can be twisted to mean whatever one wishes it to mean.” And not realize that ridiculous subjectivism INCLUDES what you and your SGM pastors say. Or imply that because there are two sides to every conversation that means that content of the stories on this site and others are just one big misunderstanding.
These rebuttals are such a stunning trivialization that I struggle to know where to start. The existence of two or ten or a hundred sides does not mean that they are all equally right or wrong. This is a disastrous intellectual slight of hand that SGM and her defenders exploit relentlessly. They are quick to raise the “objective” standard of Gossip and slander—which is really defined to be any derogatory comment about anything they deem off limits—but appeal to a whole world of moral relativism by insisting that we are all flawed creatures in need of abundant grace when THEY are held to account by a standard they dismiss.
Being a plain talker is not about being blunt. (Which you are not. You are a circular subjective talker) to truly be a plain talker one must first believe there is a standard of judgment, an objective standard of values. And then one must develop the character to live to those values. An ongoing advocacy of subjectivism as a primary standard of judgment (which you have demonstrated repeatedly) speaks to a stunning lack of character—of intellectual integrity. Just because you have chosen to not be a thinker—by your own admission—doesn’t absolve you the responsibility.
If a man cannot judge the implications—the cause and effect of his own ideas and how they fuel and guide his actions—how can he EVER hope to master the conduct of his body? He cannot. Your intellectual passivity is what is really at issue here. This is what your post and the posts of other SGM defenders really show: a catastrophic inability to evaluate, to judge effectively, to discern correctly.
This is precisely the mentality that Jesus addressed with the Pharisees. When the Pharisees demanded that Jesus justify his AUTHORITY, His words (in paraphrase) were: “You can look at the sky and know when it is going to storm, but yet you cannot tell that the Kingdom of God is at hand?” This comparative statement reveals that Jesus fully expected that the powers of human observation should be equal to the task of determining Divine will, and acting accordingly, yet the Pharisees were blind. This blindness Jesus equated with broad function of Leaven. It was this leaven that Jesus repeatedly warned his disciples to beware. With stunning regularity Jesus told the Pharisees they were blind. In context the blindness was an utter failure of judgment and a misunderstanding of justice.
To read the Noel story and walk away with anything but outrage at the content of SGM’s catastrophic demonstration of justice and judgment …. To even hint that because that story was long ago and therefore … what? The statute of limitations has run out on telling people the truth? They should have “gotten over it?” The story really says Noel and Grizzly haven’t forgiven and the focus of the issue is really in their hearts? ??????
This tells me that you—like the leaders of SGM have a profound lack of judgment. It tells me that for all your moral posturing you are really a moral relativists, painting the broad brush of depravity large so that you are not responsible for any real standard of conduct. That you are blind, pursuing some vague notion of doctrinal precision and failing to understand that the doctrines were for PEOPLE: their freedom, their health, their blessing, NOT as tools of recrimination, or power, or authority, or consumption. You are infected with Leaven.
Matthew… this is to what this site is really dedicated—revealing the stunning lack of judgment and the corresponding practice SGM is responsible for perpetrating.
I hope you keep posting amongst us feral cats—at least this feral cat—because the more you do the more people will see how profoundly ill-informed, how intellectually passive, how stunning blind, the members of this organization really are. That institutional blindness Matthew, is very revealing.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Matthew,
I believe you are being rather condescending to others here. I believe SGM has taught you well in your behavior towards others that don’t agree with your defense of SGM. Sorry, but that’s my take on it. I pray for you and wish you well.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
John Immel,
I am so amazed at your words, and glad you are posting here. How well you explain what we all try so ineptly to say ourselves. Thank you!
Matthew G.,
I’m a canary, not a cat. Notice that the cat is in in my cage. Feral or not, he’s caught.
That’s how I feel about the legalism in SGM. But, I am only a mere woman, supposedly devoid of opinion apart from my husband. Oh wait, he’s the one who suggested I post on this site and survivors, so I guess I’m being the obedient, little wife, after all.
I’m sorry if this sounds bitter. It was meant to be sarcastic. You are a prime example of the male attitude in controlling churches. Hope you go over John Immel’s post really carefully, because he is speaking some heavy truth to you, brother. Really, he is! There is more to knowing Jesus than what SG teaches. Much more! Those of us posting have found our freedom in Christ. We no longer allow ourselves to be enslaved by the leaven of the Pharisees. We love Jesus, and walk with Him and live for Him. There is more, brother, than what you have been taught! I hope you take John I’s words very seriously.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
John, just as Matthew’s comments don’t reflect all the people sitting in the pews at SG churches, various comments here that Matthew has deemed “feral” don’t represent all. I hesitate to encourage his belief that ANY of the comments on here are like feral cats in any way, but people in pain and agony do sometimes bite. We have all at times been bitter or sarcastic. I know I was for quite some time. It’s a normal reaction when bad things happen for no apparent reason and you are singled out and demonized when innocent. I don’t see how the tone of these posts changes the facts about Sovereign Grace Ministries. They remain the same. That is the real issue. Don’t try to sidestep it by saying our comments are slanderous. Truth is truth.
I don’t think we need to fight against Matthew. We were all just like him at one point or another. What we need to do is pray that the Holy Spirit will remove the blinders from his eyes so that he can stop judging the messengers and start looking critically at the message here — which I think we can all safely say is a warning.
What I hope you hear, Matthew, when I say we were all like you at some point is that you could so easily be next on the list. I was just talking to someone via email about this. I think it was Stein. I was not a lunatic who needed to be disfellowshipped. I’m quite ordinary. If it could happen to me or Stunned or Esther or Misled or anyone else here at Refuge, it could very well happen to you. Those very men you grew up in the Lord with over the past ten years could turn you in to the SGM Gestapo for something as small as what I did — starting a neighborhood Bible study for my cul-de-sac friends that wasn’t PDI-sanctioned. We chose to leave of our own volition and with the CGL’s blessing. SGM wasn’t what we believed God wanted for His church to be. Others disagree with us and that’s totally their prerogative. But Matthew, we’re worried about you. We want God’s best for you and for you to be free from any sort of bondage to the authority of a sinful human rather than Jesus Christ, your master and Savior. It’s a theological difference of opinion that could alter the course of your life and destiny, so we’re pretty serious about it. But ultimately, where you choose to worship is between you and your God. If He says to stay, stay. But consider what we’ve said and keep your eyes wide open, okay?
(Listen to me, I’ve become my mother with all this advice. Oy! My Jewish side is coming out!!)
January 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Stunned, are you “dating” or “courting” hahahahaaha! got-cha!
January 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Stunned,
Sounds like you are seeing a “winner”! Trust is so important in a relationship.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Ladies…
Canary, Stunned, Singing Cook. (I think you are all ladies and I am sorry if I missed anyone who contributed to the conversation… it was really good) I know this part of the conversation isn’t on point but I thought how you all commented on the treatment of women fascinating.
I never thought the division of the sexes to be disrespectful. But the more I think about it the more I think you are correct. I think this a profoundly dehumanizing standard of interaction. To marginalize someone merely because of their gender and the potential threat or potential perceived impropriety? This is cannot be a God standard.
And what is more, I think this preoccupation is a manifestation of profound weakness.
This whole, women over here and men over there—unless they are heavily chaperoned—practice is offered up as a virtue, as an extra righteous display. But what does it really say about the character of a man who can not engage in a social conversation without sinning? As if a few minutes spent alone with the opposite sex is tantamount to heading to the storage closet and ripping off each others cloths? Or maybe, in a man’s case, heading to the restroom to… oh never mind.
What does that necessitate? What does this presume? That NO one has the capacity of self control? That all people have zero values?
Even more insidious, this mindset presumes that married men and women can never REALLY trust their mate, and encouraging them to be threatened by the most innocuous social interaction.
Can you imagine the pressure these men and women must live under? Endlessly suspicious of their partner if they are out of sight and within arms reach of the opposite sex. The pathology of this whole dynamic takes my breath away. Women have a DUTY to service their men on demand and a doctrinal expectation that every other woman represents a REAL threat to the marriage. Women who feel no DUTY but raw sexual energy too service their paramours. Who can compete with that?
OMG!!! It is no wonder SGM must forever preach masculinity. Imagine having to arouse your partner with DUTY, and in the next breath admit that I am … uh … inches … errr…. away from fornication with any an all comers in the immediate vicinity.
What that really says is this: “Dear, I love you but I find you sexually boring. Do your duty, because that woman over there is HOT. Keep me from sinning. Get your cloths off.”
Hahahah…. WOW!
The elements of this whole dynamic take my breath away. The dynamic encompasses presumptions about Holiness, trust, the driving force of Character, what sex amounts to… This is so warped that it takes my breath away.
A profound misunderstanding of holiness. (Holiness is not the ABSENCE of temptation but the power to stand in the face of temptation and not succumb.)
An unmitigated suspicion of ones mate. (If I really didn’t believe that my mate was WITH me… I will never live under that pressure again)
Character is a function of group participation. (Change is impossible, the group enforces all conduct.)
A stunning misunderstanding of what sex really amounts too. (The moment when two people get to see a reflection of INDIVIDUL value in the face of their partner; a partner who GETS exactly what that value is and wants to celebrate it.)
>this is me shaking my head<
Part of me feels for these little boys with such a lack of self mastery. Then the other part of me remembers that it is mostly their fault.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Matt Geesling wrote:
“One last thing to all who do read these posts, I use my real name and these are my comments.
Anonymity has no place in my life as a man in Christ.
So what I am saying is that sometimes the truth is being told, just not all of it.”
Matt,
I wonder if you might be persuaded, for the sake of clarity for all reading, and not just those in Gilbert who know you, to reduce your “anonymity” and to tell “all of the truth” regarding your identity as it pertains to church leadership.
Just Wondering
January 28th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
John, the way sex/marriage and gender roles play out in SGM is indeed very twisted. The whole modesty checklist becomes this monstrous tool of judgement in the hands of women ( I was one) who bought into the whole thing hook, line and sinker. Whenever a woman was unwilling to follow the rules, I viewed her pretty much as enemy #1. She was dressing in an attractive way in front of my husband’s eyes, dressing in a way that I was not allowed to. I felt so completely unattractive to him, but then when you’re trying to be a doormat you shouldn’t be surprised when your man doesn’t start drooling at the sight of you. So SGM has a plan…strip women of any shred of self-respect and then beat men over the head when they mysteriously don’t find their help-meet up to their level of intelligence and therefore unattractive. Sex becomes animalistic, a mere physical act done as if we were all in some breeding program. We were told how and when, how often , seduction methods, what tools to have on hand in our ‘pleasure box’, what our husband would prefer, how to shop for lingerie (that this was one thing our husbands would approve our spending money on), how being tired or sick or having been sexually abused in the past was NOT a biblical reason to refuse our husband. God would bless us if we just were good little girls and did whatever our husbands little hearts desired. Trouble is, my life felt more like cursed. Of course I was a miserable failure at all this, try as I might (my husband still doesn’t think I tried that hard! that’s how bad I was at it haha). It’s funny but the harder I tried the more angry and disatisfied my husband was. Though SGM told him what he wanted in a wife, deep down he wanted a real woman. And that’s exactly what he’s got now, and we are both much much happier both in the bedroom and out. And might I add I now have a real man! He doesn’t scamper around at the foot of any man with his tail between his legs anymore. He certainly doesn’t defend ‘manly’ leaders against injured women and children.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Canary…
Thank you for your kinds words, before and now. I haven’t been but a click away following along and talking to folk on the phone since this whole thing got rolling. You all are far from inept at commentating on the content of SGM treatment. If you were… they would still be ignoring what is coming off the blogs. They are not ignoring the blogs precisely because so many people are voicing the same commentary in their own unique way.
And what is more… it is the very individual human factor that is actually starting to unravel the bondage that so many folk have lived in. As this thread and sundry posts attest… did not one of our own have major breakthrough in her thinking because of a side conversation? That is very powerful in my mind. Each contribution to this conversation has served to unravel this entire Gordian knot.
For heaven sake…. I took this cause to the forefront years ago… and suffered the same “Am I crazy! Is it just me?” syndrome. Hearing the stories and realizing the truth has been essential to my own sanity and health. So whatever my particular skill set… never forget you all have done great work in bearing your soul and your mind to public scrutiny. Trust me… this has major implications for the future. I contend that SGM is the warm up round for this spiritual tyranny.
(I will be posting more about this on my site (maybe somewhere else) soon)
January 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Just Wondering,
Well my name is Matthew not Matt.
I have never been a Care Grope Leader or even sat in for one at a care group.
I and my wife have been leaders for childcare, nursery – 4 year olds and I also was the sound team leader for a couple of years.
I have no aspirations to ever be in leadership.
We have been attending our Church for 16 years now.
Now “Just Wondering” would you like to open up your agenda?
But please start by telling us/me who you Realy are.
Just for clarity.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Julie… you are soooooo right. Brialliant. I have more to offer but I want to get to Freedom Fighter … give me a minute and i’ll get back to you
January 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I’d be happy to open up about my agenda, if I had one. However, I wasn’t specifically referring to your leadership positions within the church, but more inquiring about whether you would be willing to share the totality of the truth regarding your RELATIONSHIP with leadership. I think it would give all who post/read here a bit more clarity on where you stand.
Again,
Just Wondering
January 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Matt:
“Care Grope Leader” is probably the funniest, most unfortunate typo I have ever laughed my head off over!
January 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
John said, “Can you imagine the pressure these men and women must live under? Endlessly suspicious of their partner if they are out of sight and within arms reach of the opposite sex. The pathology of this whole dynamic takes my breath away. Women have a DUTY to service their men on demand and a doctrinal expectation that every other woman represents a REAL threat to the marriage. Women who feel no DUTY but raw sexual energy too service their paramours. Who can compete with that?”
There is a passage from Gary and Betsy Ricucci’s book on marriage that basically says JUST that – that wives have to keep themselves attractive and service their husbands because there are women out there on the prowl trying to snare them with their looks, etc. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Freedom Fighter
Dis-fellowshiped for staring a bible study… how rich is that? Hahahah. Yeah… imagine that … kicked out of church for encouraging folk to read the bible. I do soooo love irony!
I think you are right… some folk are sarcastic, or bitter, or angry, or fat, or skinny, or lustful, or whatever… That changes the commentary how exactly?
I love satire… I’m ironic (some folk call it sarcastic) on purpose. I am absurd to illustrate absurdity.
I think Matthews comments about feral cats is a smoke screen. And I couldn’t care less… I’ve been called worse and have come to relish the adjectives.
Matthew is the one who crawled in to the pool, then he wants to cry foul when he gets dunked. Kiddie pool is over by the slides… this is the deep end, and you are swimming (this) shark. These issues are FAR too serous and important for detractors to be able to dismiss with the wave of the magic “You are too mean and bitter” wand. No one compelled him to write his comments. (And I suspect that if his pastor found out that he posted they’d not be too pleased.)
Even if that isn’t true it doesn’t matter. I refuse to let THEM determine offence and defense.
Freedom Figher, you said is exactly correct: “Truth is truth and the attitudes of the critic do NOT mitigate that truth.” SGM and sundry defenders use this Ad Hominem argument with relentless precision. I refuse to let them.
FF said: “I don’t think we need to fight against Matthew. We were all just like him at one point or another. What we need to do is pray that the Holy Spirit will remove the blinders from his eyes so that he can stop judging the messengers and start looking critically at the message here — which I think we can all safely say is a warning.”
Hummm…. Fighting against Matthew… Pray…. Ok… I’m not trying to trivialize the sentiment. And I respect what you are advocating. Is there a spiritual element to this ongoing saga? Of course. By all means… pray. I’m a faith man and can join the intercessions with the best of them.
But here is the thing. The whole of the New Testament was written to influence that very Holy Ghost inspired revelation to the minds of men. Every book (This is me talking off the top of my head but I’m pretty sure I can make this scholastic case) was written in response to—some kind of–thinking.
If the Holy Spirit was some magic fairy dust to correct bad human thinking… then why write the books? Praying is not sufficient to the task, and in my Never-to-be-humble-opinion usually an excuse for intellectual passivity, and an unwillingness to make effective arguments. (Not an accusation to you Freedom Fighter, but a general observation)
Whatever, men have been charged with the intellectual defense of the Anointed Jesus and the Kingdom of God.
The Holy Spirit is a SOURCE of knowledge (like the senses are a source of knowledge) But the mind is the point of integration of said knowledge. Logic is the practice of intellectual discipline, the exercise of intellectual Character. Without it Men are lost.
(I have a lot to say about his particular subject so it would be easy for me to Geek out on this conversation… )
Let me sum by saying the very battle we are in is a battle for the minds of men. There is only one way to deal with men in this lifetime: Force—Ideas or Violence.
So when I fight I am aiming an argument at people’s head. What I have no patience for is folk who want to aim an argument at MY head and then absolve themselves of thinking when they are responded to.
This is so VERY SGM. The Rank and Filers of the movement will bring out their intellectual pitch forks and pop guns in defense of these “Great men of Character,” and then get all squeamish when they are confronted when someone responds with a Pershing missile. “Oh you hit too hard. Oh you are bitter. Oh, you play to rough! Oh, I’m to tired. Oh, I’m too busy.” Which is really code for “Oh #$@! I have no clue what I’m talking about!”
And here is the thing. They have an obligation to know what they are talking about—every single last one of them. They don’t get to say: “I was just following orders.” That didn’t work at Nuremburg and it won’t work on that last day.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Found it:
(Betsy Ricucci writes) Before I was married, I never left the house looking bad . . . but you should have seen me in the house! I didn’t bother freshening up, wearing makeup, or fixing my hair. And I’m afraid I took those habits with me into marriage. It took a close friend’s example and encouragement to help me change. If I want my husband to desire me, I need to look desirable. These things have become important to me because I want to treat Gary with real respect.
Women often pay less attention to their appearance after they get married. Yet our appearance is more important now than ever. Most of our husbands work in an environment where they are surrounded by women striving to look attractive. We need to look attractive when they leave for work and when they come home. Attractive undergarments and nightwear are also important. It takes effort to look good, especially if you have small children. There will inevitably be those crazy days when you barely get out of your robe. But on the whole we need to attend to our appearance. This is a tangible and meaningful way to express love and respect for our husbands. – Love That Lasts, p. 149 (emphasis mine)
There are a lot of red flags in that passage – and in the entire book – but I was particularly struck by the comment about attractive women working with husbands in the workplace. As though it’s some sort of competition to keep one’s husband’s attention. You must be sexier than the women your husband work with, otherwise . . . it’s never said explicitly, but the obvious implication is that he will stray if you don’t keep your appearance up.
The lines about wearing attractive “underwear and nightwear” line up with what Julie said about how wives were told to shop for lingerie, etc. And the passage clearly implies that wearing makeup around the house is the godly thing to do. Ugh. It really is a 50s fantasy.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
John,
Thanks. You are a true gentleman in how you post. It is also encouraging to know that any of us had some small part in helping even one person recognize the controlling leadership they were under. I also, as a woman, appreciated the presepective you showed us in your post about how women are treated. It is nice to have a man voice the things we women have been saying for a while. The treatment we were subject to made me feel “dirty”, without understanding why. It as quite a horrible feeling.
Julie said, “Though SGM told him what he wanted in a wife, deep down he wanted a real woman. And that’s exactly what he’s got now, and we are both much much happier both in the bedroom and out. And might I add I now have a real man! He doesn’t scamper around at the foot of any man with his tail between his legs anymore. He certainly doesn’t defend ‘manly’ leaders against injured women and children.”
Right on, sister! I had the same experience with my husband. It finally “clicked” on what he really needed in me, and vice versa. That only happened after we left the controlling influences we were under.
I LOVE being married to him, 25 years in April. We have true companionship based on love and respect for each other. I find we do not have to discuss “authority” or “submission”. We spend alot more time talking about God, having fun together. Why, he is such a blessed man because I love to watch football with him.
Last night, I was even watching a bit of UFC wrestling with him. He was explaining what the moves were, who was winning, etc. Of course, I was getting a back rub during the show, so I probably would have watched anything at that point. But it was really fun. There is such a balance, and we enjoy each other. So different from the old days in our controlling church (I will add, to be fair, that we learned some good things about marriage and child-rearing, back before things got too controlling. For that, I am grateful).
January 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Same here with regard to satisfaction with what I have now compared to the past when we had roles to fill.
I don’t make a good SGM wife, sorry, I’m not quiet demure, freshened up, and I don’t service my husband nor does he want to be serviced. Just the term is ikky.
And, do caregroup leaders just pick bad books. I remember in the 80’s reading a wretched rag entitled, “Creative Counterpart,” by Linda Dillow. She couldn’t even tell the reader (in the first edition,) that if her husband orders her to have an abortion to say no. No, she goes on and on ad tedium about how you could just please him more, give him attnetion, and this is almost if not a direct quote, “we can be creative if we try hard enough.”
Just trust me when I say the bile rises in my throat.
But it’s a reflection of women in the eyes of patrists. Equal in worth and different in roles rings true like separate but equal in the Jim Crow south. Yeah, would you want to send your kids to a “colored,” school or take a dump in the “colored,” bathroom? I seriously doubt it well, what have the women been offered when the men get to have all the fun? (crickets chirping………)
January 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Work in progress…
Interesting quote. The funny thing is … absent the other doctrinal over head this would actually be good advice … sort of.
Julie… your evaluation and your experience is both heart breaking and illustrative. You are exactly right… your husband was looking for a real woman. Maybe better said, He was looking for you to be FREE to be that Real woman. Which you were never allowed to be.
Let me back up and add a few comments before I proceed. Here is my take on Sex. Sex is an end not a means. Sex requires a man and a woman to stand physically naked to be sure, but more importantly it requires them to stand spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually naked. Sex is a function of EGO, an absolute barometer of individual identity.
If a man beds and endless string of sluts. I can tell you immediately what he really thinks of himself. If a man merges himself with a woman of profound moral, intellectual and physiological power I can tell you what he thinks of himself. If a man is willing to pay for sex, I can tell you what he really thinks of himself. Whatever a man feels he needs to do to acquire sex is a direct reflection of what he really feels of himself.
As a result sexual attraction reflects our deepest vision of ourselves and our most potent sense of self esteem.
And here in are most all sexual issues played out. Men and women surrender to one another to ANNOUNCE a sense of self OR to COUNTERFEIT a sense of self.
Why do men who sleep with a string of low women eventually say they found it empty? The sex may have been fun but not satisfying. This is no real mystery. Those men went looking for something to affirm their value. The believed that female attention would be an effective measure of that value, only to crawl out of bed and realize they found none. How is that possible? Easy … their partner had no value to reflect. The very thing that made her take off her cloths (her lack of personal value) is the very thing that made it impossible for her to reflect value back to the man.
Or notice the converse… the man who has no value inside himself and hits a place in life where he realizes such value important but can’t get those values for himself. He goes to a church and finds a “good church girl” assuming that by bedding her, he will take on the substance of her virtue. Only to find in short order that he is board with her and goes to a prostitute to find release.
Of course this is why so many men get all fussy about good looking women, particularly if they are married to them. They don’t honestly believe they present enough value to keep the woman occupied. They become threatened by her beauty, so they must control every expression of her individuality. The corresponding condemnation crushes the woman into systematic defacement. And then one day, the man looks around and says: “you are not beautiful to me anymore… I’m leaving.”
Idiot! It is your own fault. You made her utterly despise her beauty, her attractiveness, her desirability and when she finally crushes it out of herself you feel cheated.
Idiot! Idiot! Idiioooootttt!
God made women beautiful. But more importantly he made them desirable and even more important that than He made them to WANT to be desired. There was a commercial some years ago (Hair Care I think) that said: “you don’t flirt when he looks good… you flirt when you think YOU look good.” This is sooo true. Energizing a marriage with sexual energy is directly proportional to freeing a woman to be confident in HER. HER EGO. HER SELF. HER VALUE. HER DESIRABILITY.
Start foreplay in the kitchen. Get out the candles. Turn on the music. BOOOM!
And this is the true tragedy in the SGM body of doctrine they set out to make this God Given, God breathed desire … to make it a manifest evil of selfish desire. And the moment they do they create the very vacuum that causes marital disaster. Women will naturally seek to be desirable to their man … all he has to do is affirm to them that he values who they are and have fun, fun, fun showing the affirmation. Cindy Lopper had it sooo right. “Girls just wanna have fun!” And a few dozen orgasms doesn’t hurt.
Oppps… wrong crowd???
Julie… you were (past tense) were robbed of your desirability, all in the name of motivational purity. They made beauty a curse and desirably a selfish ambition and the result was catastrophic. Because sexuality is an absolute reflection of self, it can’t be done out of duty. Drop the duty bomb in the bedroom and I grantee impotence and frigidity. Make is a celebration of Ego… and you won’t be able to keep your hands of each other.
All of the catastrophe is based on the premise that MEN can’t control themselves and need their masculine inferiority fed, bandaged and coddled.
Ridiculous, I’m so heterosexual it hurts. If I can get it done. EVERYBODY else can. If nothing else I absolve all woman of MY LUST and MY Masculine inferiority. Its mine… Wear what you want. I will applaud your beauty and the Glory you reflect for your mate match and partner in life, and deal with my own pressure thank you very much.
Anyway … that is my 1.05 cents worth.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
You go, John!
January 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
John,
Wow John…that was wonderful! From a woman who use to be under “duty” and I dont know how I will ever getting over the feeling of filthiness. I bowed to my disgusting husband, thinking I was being a dutiful, serving, godly wife…but there is hope as a man like you “Cowboy’s Up” to the truth and abuses.
I praise God you are here brother. Please continue to be an advocate. Coming from a man means alot more to other men than it coming from a woman. Sad but true…
January 28th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“I don’t make a good SGM wife, sorry, I’m not quiet demure, freshened up, and I don’t service my husband nor does he want to be serviced. Just the term is ikky.”
DB, it is IKKY!! I think of a mechanic’s garage when I hear that term – “servicing” is for CARS….
Yayyyyyyyyyyyy, John!! Whatta guy!!!
January 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I remember a friend in my PDI days talking with me about having relations with her husband (not me, her – hee-hee – that didn’t sound right). There were times she didn’t feel like it, but she said she learned this: she could spend alot of time arguing with him about how tired she was, or she could submit and it would be over in 15 minutes.
That, dear friends, is what “duty” is…ugh.
John, hearing a man take up for us is so refreshing. Like Ellie said, whatta guy!