Hello Beloved:
I wanted to include a brief snippet of the last post on missiology, so I guess I can introduce it like a television series:
PREVIOUSLY ON MISSIOLOGY:
In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), Professor Arthur F. Glasser attempted not so much to define what he believes missiology should be as he does documenting what it has been and what five ”Major Issues” have surrounded it and shaped it over the last two millennia and beyond: (1) Apostolic Practice, (2) Church Structure and Mission, (3) The Gospel and the Religions, (4) Salvation and Non-Christians, and (5) Christianity and Culture. (Elwell, 725)
I think this would be a good template in guiding our series on this subject, which launches us immediately into topic number one: Apostolic Practice. Glasser’s entry on missiology briefly elaborates on this subject that provides a solid framing in our approach:
Apostolic Practice. How is the apostolicity of the church to be expressed if it is conceived as embracing the evangelistic practice of the apostles as well as their “received” teaching? What is the church’s collective responsibility touching the sending forth of laborers to “bring about the obedience of faith…among all the nations” (Romans 1:5)? (Elwell, 725)
So what does [Dave] Harvey have to say about the “apostolicity” of the church? A lot. We barely get through page four of Harvey’s booklet when he makes a particular item bluntly clear:
Early in the history of this ministry [Sovereign Grace Ministries] it became apparent that the churches needed to be linked by more than a name and an essentially common vision. A leadership team of gifted and proven leaders was formed and given a dual responsibility: serving the local churches and establishing strategies for future missions direction. (When referring to the overall ministry, “leadership team” is for us synonymous with “apostolic team,” a phrase defined in the following pages.) (Harvey, 4; emphasis in bold mine)
So whatever name change takes place with the apostolic/leadership/whatever team, it’s still synonymous with “business as usual.”
——————–
AND NOW, PART TWO:
Before we go any further, let’s remember the Great Commission from our Lord Jesus Christ:
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:16-20. New American Standard Bible [NASB]).
To be fair to Harvey, let’s take a look at his words in explaining exactly what the “purpose” of the Missiology booklet is:
The purpose of this booklet is twofold: to explain how Sovereign Grace Ministries understands the New Testament teaching on missiology, and to describe how we have sought to apply that teaching in response to the Great Commission. But first let us emphasize the obvious: this is far from the last word on the subject. We are a young family of churches and have much more to learn about missiology than we have to teach. Our gains have been modest and our mistakes memorable. Our understanding and practice of missiology (and indeed of every area) is semper reformanda—always being reformed. Yet, for reasons mystifying to us, there is growing interest in our doctrine and practice of missions. So here in these pages is an attempt to express and explain briefly our position and practice. (Harvey, Missiology, 3; emphasis mine)
So, after three decades, we are still getting the cop-out phrases to justify past, present and future mistakes that are, by Harvey’s admission, “memorable.” Is this careful humility? Others, like myself, wonder if Sovereign Grace Ministries -who has had roughly three and a half decades from its inception to make a stronger announcement on its missiology- will step up to the plate to say anything substantive rather than publish an ambiguous missiology that flies apostolic authority under the radar (barely).
The flexibility of this ”semper reformanda,” used in this context, allows -I believe- for the same mistakes, a.k.a. sin, to be made over and over again with very little to no accountability to the congregation. This results in nothing being in place to put the church back on track in regard to obedience of the Matthew 28:16-20 directive.
This is a command, and not a suggestion or good idea. When Christ says “Go,” He is not speaking in a way that allows whimsy or convenience to dictate our witness. The record of Scripture reveals a transformation of our souls that gives us a desire to share this Hope with the lost, and Christ is commanding us to run with it. He is not speaking exclusively to the apostles, whom in this passage He addresses as disciples. The Sovereign Grace Ministries Apostolic Team cannot lay exclusive claim to this passage. But the implications of their actions as testified by many here and in their literature (i.e., church planting teams bear a sole witness in terms of a radical spreading of the Gospel) is that they do have the corner on the evangelism market. This implies that unless your evangelistic efforts are directed by their apostolic leadership, your fruit will be minimal at best and sinful at worst.
If there is any doubt to my observations, read pp. 16-17 of Harvey’s Missiology, where he proceeds to lambaste Christian media as being inadequate and producing disciples of a lesser “quality.” I believe many Christians, especially those in Third World countries, would disagree with Harvey and thank God for the trickle of media that can bust through the airwaves and underground pipelines when missionaries’ passports are denied; in these places, Harvey’s concept of the “local church” is stomped out harshly by murderous dictators and their regimes, and media combined with the underground church are the only way these precious brethren receive the Gospel.
Additionally, there are many in our own country that are invalid and/or disabled who have been abandoned by their own “local church.” Where do they get their preaching and teaching? Christian media.
I also find it amazing that statements like this can be uttered with a straight face when SGM has a veritable department store of music, books, video, and audio-message media available online. Can Harvey honestly say to the permanently hospitalized quadriplegic that their consumption of SGM media isn’t enough? Must they be wheeled into the local church and made to sign a member’s contract/agreement/blood oath to get the full benefit of the Gospel?
The arrogance of such statements and the audacity that Harvey has in claiming to know how to better spend $15,000-$17,000 a week (Harvey, 16-17) by planting churches can only make the blood boil of those who work hard in the media to spread the Gospel in this country and the rest of the world. Do efforts legitimize a doctrinal stance? Of course not. But that’s not what we are talking about here, and Harvey makes no doctrinal distinctions when it comes to his approval of Christian media. He views it as a supplement, at best, and nothing more. In my case, I simply shake my head in shame that a leader of our organization can make such pride-filled, unbiblical, man-centered statements as these. Folks, Harvey’s words are there; this is not a simplistic assignation of motives.
Harvey tries to soften the business end of his baseball bat that has been inscribed with his New Testament “local church” observations by adding the following:
Especially in cross-cultural application, added obstacles will surely arise, from seasons of persecution to the enactment of strict government policies that declare a country “closed.” But let us remember that the New Testament depicts a world in which persecution, suffering, and martyrdom were not unusual for Christians obeying the Great Commission. Despite such severe challenges, local churches were continually planted and strengthened. We must not abandon our commitment to church planting simply because a nation appears hostile or closed. (Harvey, 17-18)
The above statement is not necessarily inaccurate, but it is cheapened by the high-nosed we-know-better-than-y’all Phariseeism it is prefaced by! This is like throwing a bucket of water on a house they have already torched. This is not Scripture or the Spirit of the Gospel by any stretch of the imagination.
And notice the word exchange and cross-definitions going on? “Missions,” “Missiology,” “Apostolic Ministry” and “Church Planting” all become the same thing by such encompassing, generic statements. Here’s an example (and these types of statements are littered throughout Missiology):
Apostolic ministry, so often missing from modern missions work, is nevertheless integral to the way of biblical missiology; it goes hand in hand with church planting. (Harvey, 19)
The above statement could have the underlined words rotated around like a volleyball team (try it), and to its core it would be saying the same thing every time. Even George Orwell couldn’t have dreamed this up. No wonder there have been outside “observations” on our “unbiblical” SGM-speak that is not “Gospel-centered” or “God-Glorifying,” particularly “in the context of the local church.” All of this word-exchange and lexicon-building is patent nonsense, doesn’t come close to the heart of an honest treatment of missions, and it needs to stop. I’ve been guilty of it, and God forgive me.
God forgive all of us in Sovereign Grace Ministries for ever thinking we could have an exclusive language, and build a tower to the heavens with our rulebooks as bricks and a mortar made of a pulverized flock.
Wayne Grudem describes the Purposes of the Church as follows:
We can understand the purposes of the church in terms of ministry to God, ministry to believers, and ministry to the world. (Grudem, 867)
He further breaks this down into categories he elaborates on: (1) Ministry to God: Worship, (2) Ministry to Believers: Nurture, (3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy, and (4) Keeping These Purposes in Balance. (Grudem, 867-869)
So what is the elaboration behind Grudem’s (3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy? Stay tuned. It’s a goldmine.
But let’s end on this note: Re-read the Great Commission. It’s very clear, it’s very Gospel-centered, it’s very biblical, it’s very God-glorifying: Christ commands you, Brothers and Sisters. That means all of us, the saved, the transformed, the born again, the regenerated, the rescued and the called are commanded to go into all the world with the Gospel. There is no parenthetical reference that excludes the flock from the command and defers it solely to a man-made “apostolic authority.” Harvey even admits that the Great Commission is to the church universal (Harvey, 12-13), but then goes on to contradict this point when in the remaining pages he hammers home again and again the “apostolic oversight” that must be in place over churches.
Christ did provide apostolic oversight and His guidance: their names are the Gospels and the Epistles. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, there is no stopping them.
Go into all the world, because Christ your Savior, your Lord, your Everything, commands you to go.
…pk
——————–
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A. (Editor). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, Great Britain: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, HarperCollins, 1994.
Harvey, Dave. Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord (Number 4 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2006.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
What a marvelous post. I read it out loud so as to hear every word, my husband also profited from it.
So, PK, how will this change? Of course, the Lord, jealous for his bride, will correct her, but do you see areas of hope?
One of my dearest students, a beloved friend and brilliant scholar, was explaining SGM’s missions strategy in class the other day: planting local churches in the US, and sending pastors to encourage other pastors overseas.
Oh dear. No connection with the huge network of saints pouring their lives out to reach the untouched? No stories of conversions? No support of scholars who spend their careers hunched over computers, struggling to translate the scriptures into a language without the written word? You don’t have missionaries come to your church, their sending church, to tell stories of glory and discouragement and hope and hard work and weird food and love for their new neighbors?
So sad. Again, a disconnection from the Bride of Christ is not going to ever come out well…for the disconnected. The Bride will carry on without them. I feel so sad for my young SGM friends sometimes.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“Our understanding and practice of missiology (and indeed of every area) is semper reformanda—always being reformed.”
Is this the upgraded version of “change is here to stay”?
GREAT post, pk, thanks!!
October 9th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Them’s strong words, PK! I’m provoked. Looking forward to Grudem’s take on ministry to the world- evangelism and mercy.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Reformed Teacher:
Thank you for that undeserved compliment.
I believe this situation (the missiology + SGM apostolic authority’s maddening mathematics) can only change by (a) calling onto the carpet every instance where para-church ministries are poo-pooed, (b) prayer, (c) asking leadership if the Great Commission can only be defined by them, (d) prayer and (e) a baptism of boldness on the part of the individual sheep, the corporate flock, and the leadership themselves. Boldness for the flock to forth, and boldness for the leaders to not only let us go, but pray and support us in doing so.
Ellie:
Thank you, as well, for that undeserved compliment, and yes, semper reformanda is most definitely an “upgrade” for change is here to stay, which in turn has all of the moral aptitude of a picture I saw of Jack Nicholson on a magazine I saw recently that had the caption “Jack: I DO WHAT I WANT.” Paste a picture of SG leadership in place of Jack’s face, and replace “Jack” with “SGM Leadership.” They do what they want with zero input from or accountability to the flock, and it’s as simple as that. If God has told them to, then it would square with scripture, and being that Polity and Missiology are a different animal from the dove of scripture, I think we are hugging Jack Nicholson more than we are Jesus Christ.
…pk
October 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
DH wrote, “A leadership team of gifted and proven leaders was formed and given a dual responsibility: serving the local churches and establishing strategies for future missions direction”
That’s bull baloney! They did not get together in order to establish strategies for future missions direction! For a very long time they were against missions. I do not believe for one cotton pickin’ minute that when they formed themselves they were given a dual responsibility which included “establishing strategies for future missions direction”. Does no one in Christendom call a “big time” leader when they lie in print like that?!?! Do you know how many people at DH’s church were told to “repent” for even believing God calls people to missions? DH’s statement (above) must be researched and if it’s a lie NEEDS to be called out, not only here, but in other places as well- every where that his words go forth. That is baloney and it’s not OK.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“We are a young family of churches and have much more to learn about missiology than we have to teach.”
Wow. Wow. Then why write about it?
“Yet, for reasons mystifying to us, there is growing interest in our doctrine and practice of missions.”
Really? And they just couldn’t have told them, “We are a young family of churches and have much more to learn about missiology than we have to teach”? Are they serious? I know how to put a bandaid on a cut. I even know how to clean it, put anti biotic ointment on it and can guess whether the patient needs to go see a doctor or not. But I am horrible with doctoring/nursing stuff. Horrible. As DH says in regards to their mission vision, “Our gains have been modest and our mistakes memorable.” I strongly echo that when it comes to medical things in my life. My gains have been modest and my mistakes memorable. I have learned about the human body, health, sickness, etc. (modest gain). And my mistake have been memorable (passing out when my daughter got a needle, having my parents have to come take care of me when my son was bleeding profusely from the eye area, the Red Cross insisting I never come back to give blood again).
So you know what? I don’t take it on myself to write books giving medical advice. It doesn’t matter if someone shows interest in my thoughts on how to give medical care or on medicine in general. If I truly believed my statement that my gains have been modest and my mistakes memorable, I sure as heck would NOT be writing a book on it. Is there some bit of logic I am missing here?!?!?! Anyone think this is a might bit crazy?
If not, then after I finish my book entitled, “How to Perform Brain Surgery in Five Easy Steps”, I’ll begin my next tome, “Who Needs Mechanics: Repairing Your Own Car From Engine to Tailpipe”. (I recommend staying off the roads when that one comes out.)
October 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Stunned:
They were told to repent??
October 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Good thoughts, Stunned. I was also impressed by Harvey’s self-description of “gifted and proven.”
DH wrote, “A leadership team of gifted and proven leaders was formed and given a dual responsibility: serving the local churches and establishing strategies for future missions direction.”
[Reformed Teacher, I need your help fixing the following sylogism if needed:]
If we go by Dave’s quote, it can be reduced to:
Dave Harvey is a member of the leadership team.
Members of the leadership team are gifted and proven.
Therefore, Dave Harvey is gifted and proven.
Thanks for the humble orthodoxy, Dave. Hopefully this is a “memorable mistake” rather than a “modest gain.”
…pk
October 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“lambaste Christian media as being inadequate and producing disciples of a lesser “quality.” ”
Quality? There go them fruit inspectors again. (If you could see the steam coming out of my ears right now by this sickeningly arrogant statement!!!!!)
“I believe many Christians, especially those in Third World countries, would disagree with Harvey and thank God for the trickle of media that can bust through the airwaves and underground when missionaries’ passports are denied; in these places, Harvey’s concept of the “local church” is stomped out harshly by murderous dictators and regimes, and media combined with the underground church are the only way these precious brethren receive the Gospel.”
I think of the precious elderly sister in a formerly USSR controlled country, who resisted the “party”, who has more fruit of the spirit in her life than i ever saw in 15 years at SGM, who…. errr, I am so enraged…. who lived off of the teachings she had to receive over the airwaves and the illegal Christian books that were smuggled into her country and she labored on her old typerwriter to convert into her language for others to read. This was in a country that it was ILLEGAL to have TWO people in your home who were not related to you. TWO. Enough to be arrested, put in prison, tortured and forgotten. TWO. Don’t you think people there would KILL to have a church family, fellowship and teaching from the pulpit? But many of them had to subsist for months, nay years, on the airwaves which brought them the Holy Word of God. Do they not deserve it because they couldn’t get themselves into a church building? ARGH! I am so angry at the crudy attitude of us stupid, spoilt, comfortable, “sleek and fat”, American Christians.
And I don’t want to let this one go either, “lambaste Christian media as being inadequate and producing disciples of a lesser “quality.” Errr, hmm, by virtue of the fact that DH is writing a book on theology HE IS PART OF THE CHRISTIAN MEDIA that is inadequate and producing disciples of a lesser quality. Hmmm, maybe he’s on to something this time….
And how about those in prison in our own country?! ah, they ain’t worth it. (?!?!?)
October 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
yes, they were told to repent. mind boggling aint it?
Unbelievably gifted and proven through the fire, gorgeous, stunning, modest, brilliant and always right,
Stunned
(hey, if they can do it, so can I)
October 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Stunned:
LOL!!!
…pk
October 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Dave Harvey has never even planted a church, let alone led cross cultural missions.
How can he be expected to give practical and scriptural insight on this matter?
October 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
musicman:
You stated (and asked):
I am not disagreeing with you, but the implication made in Missiology on p.4 was that Dave did participate in the Covenant Fellowship church plant. I have no idea if he was a leader at that time (someone please fill in the missing gaps of info.; I am not even positive of the year and age, etc; but let’s be sure all info. stated here is accurate to the best of our knowledge).
Here’s the lowdown from Dave’s bio (regarding missiology):
The above is available at this link:
http://www.sovereigngraceminis.....veBio.aspx
One would hope that with Dave’s massive education in Missiology that somewhere along the line this included cross-cultural missions. I am assuming this, but one would probably have to review Westminster’s degree requirements at the time and have more extensive knowledge of Dave’s testimony before a definitive statement could be made.
As I have stated before, I have nothing against Dave personally. I specifically wanted to address the Sovereign Grace Perspectives series, and Dave authors several of those booklets.
I don’t care how many letters anybody has behind their name, I still believe that some of the conclusions Dave reached about apostolic ministry (i.e., the creation of this big “A” and little “a” offices of apostle, even if it is figurative, is patent nonsense) and the resulting missiology from this are erroneous.
Then again, I have a tech school 2-year degree that has nothing to do with the field of theology, let alone missiology. What do I know?
…pk
October 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
LOL, perfect syllogism, middle term dropping, absolutely flawless.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:39 am
PK-I’m aware that Dave has studied it (missiology/ church planting). But he was not the founding pastor at Covenant and has never led a church planting team. I find it odd that the man responsible for the doctrine and practice of church planting has never led such an endeavor. I know he has sent out a few church plants-but it is not the same by a long shot (IMO) as actually pulling up stakes and going out to actually do the stuff.
If you were planning to move to China for a long period of time, who would you rather have perpare you for the experience? A doctorate in China studies who has only been their on a few short vacations-or an average Joe who actually lived abroad for a few years in China?
October 10th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Hi musicman:
Please understand I wasn’t disagreeing with you by any means, I was agreeing with you. I was just quoting what was cited as Dave’s pedigree… I agree with your conclusions 100%. Dave could learn from you regarding missiology, as far as I am concerned.
Another reason I cited Dave’s education is that it is bound to come up in this discussion, and I wanted to head it off sooner rather than later.
…pk
October 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
“Dave did participate in the Covenant Fellowship church plant. I have no idea if he was a leader at that time (someone please fill in the missing gaps of info.; I am not even positive of the year and age, etc; but let’s be sure all info. stated here is accurate to the best of our knowledge).”
NO. NO. NO, Dave was NOT part of the church plant of Cov. Fel. In 1984 Cov Fel was started by 12 adults and their children, who came up from the church around DC. I believe the month was November. The pastor was Bill Patton. Here are the 12 adults. I will not name each of their children, but I know the children all well.
1. Fred- single man at the time- no kids at that time- later married a sweet woman and had children- not at Cov Fel any more or wasn’t last I checked- I think they moved
2. Cindy- single woman- no kids at that time- returned to DC area (I’m 95% sure)
3. Martin – single guy at the time (his wedding was fun!)- he often led worship- really skilled musician- moved back to DC area after marrying a quality woman
4. Tall, attractive, thin, brunette single woman- no children at the time- she moved as well
5. Linda – 4 kids
6. Alan – Linda’s husband-Alan went on to become the second pastor of the church- he is a GREAT guy in many ways- when Bill Patton stepped down from senior pastor, Alan took over for a while, then DH was made SP- Alan stepped down from pastoral ministry in either the late 90’s or very early 00’s-for me it was a sad day for the church when Alan stepped down- I’ll be hanging them in a few days and really looking forward to it
7. Bob – church office started and ran in his office for quite a while
8. Val - Bob’s wife- they also had the first of a gajillion home groups and prayer cells in their home in 1984- incredibly hospitable, generous and huge servants- I don’t envision a day when I don’t love them deeply- they had one child with them at the time
9. Chuck- father of one daughter at that time
10, Sharon- Chuck’s wife- another ditto on never being able to envision a day I don’t love them and their kids
11. Bill Patton- father of 3 at that time, started the church as the pastor- now in business and no longer in full time ministry
12. Sue- Bill’s wife
I came at the one year mark. Volunteered at the church office weekly beginning at the beginning of 1986 when it was in Bob’s office. At that time the staff was Bill, Alan and Cindy. Dave was not on staff at that time but was by 1987, possibly 1986.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:20 am
ACK! I won’t be hanging Linda and Alan in a few days! I’ll be hanging OUT WITH them. Ackk! That was awful!!!!!!!!
October 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Folks: Please read all my comments carefully regarding the Missiology part 2 post, and don’t skim.
Stunned:
As I told musicman, I am just basing this on what Dave has stated in his Missiology booklet. On page 4 implies -at least he CLAIMS- he was part of the church plant. I appreciate everyone, like you Stunned, for shedding more light on it. Please don’t take my citations from Missiology as support for Dave’s theological claims, I am citing them only because they WILL be cited -quite rabidly so- by those who support Dave. I didn’t want to arbitrarily disagree with Dave’s testimony as it might be deemed a personal attack on him, and that is simply not the function and purposes of my comments here. That’s the only reason I cite Dave’s comments.
Whenever Dave arrived onto the scene, it doesn’t change what I believe are serious lapses in the justification of erroneous conclusions in Missiology and Polity.
…pk
October 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Dave Harvey most certainly did *not* participate in the CF church plant.
How, inquiring minds may want to know, do I know this with such certainty that I would bet the house?
Because *I* attended CF’s very first meeting. We (DH and I) are considered to be their very first local members.
Yes, and they still took a big theological dump on us, but I digress.
That was in October of 1984. Dave Harvey was a member of the church in Indianna, PA.
He came to the Philadelphia church in, I believe, 1986 and first served as a care group leader. (although they were called home groups at the time. He lived in Conshohocken, PA and led a care group in his home and the care group was later moved to another couple’s home in Conshocoken.
He was rather quickly elevated to Jr. (Unmarried people’s) pastor. (circa 1986-87.)
There was a big hullabaloo in which the senior pastor, Bill Patton resigned as senior pastor and Dave Harvey was elevated to the position of senior pastor (I always wondered what happened to Alan Redrup who was one of the planting pastors,) but, again, I digress.
About the time he became senior pastor, he started going to the cemetary…I mean Seminary for some real eddycation.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
And, stunned, do dish as to the details of a social time with the Redrups, you are made of stronger mettle than me, that’s for sure.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Are Alan and Linda still in SG?
PK-No worries-I wasn’t offended or trying to contradict your quotes-just trying to voice my concerns over Dave’s experience to be leading and setting doctrine for the 20,000 plus folks who look to him for their doctrine.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Dear PK, I read every word. Sorry if I was confusing. I was not meaning to sound as if I were responding to you but to DH’s implications. I didn’t think you were supporting that claim at all. You made it really clear that you did not know the details so I was trying to share what I knew. I totally get what you’re saying and why you’re saying it. I did not make myself clear at all. I’m sorry for that one.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“mortar made of a pulverized flock.”
PK, that is so true, and it makes me want to cry.
I would not want to be the “leadership team” on judgment day…that’s all I have to say about that.
I’m convinced after today, yet again, that redefining everything is key to SGM’s “success”. I asked a friend of mine today who attends the SGM church I used to go to after she threw out a few SGM phrases (speak truth into their lives, “gospel focused” and “Cross centered” to be exact)
In my frustration I point blank asked her: Do you actually KNOW what those phrases mean? Because you hear them thrown around alot since SMG adopted the church, and I for one never had them properly defined. It seems everyone has their own definition of what it means to be “speaking truth into one another’s lives”. And do we truly realize the implications of everyone having their own interpretation of how that works? Sure, there is biblical support for such a practice, but in the context of one being fully submitted to Christ first. Submit to one another, IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD. Again, not what SGM says, but what they DO NOT SAY.
She was taken aback at first, and I pressed on asking what would “speaking truth” look like? And what is it not? And what then is the role of the Holy Spirit if the church speaks truth? And if we are “Cross Centered” then that would, in my estimation, imply we are pointing people to Christ, not the church, for their needs. And I said that if the church I attended was truly Cross Centered, how in the world did I attend for three years and miss Jesus Christ completely and end up a Pharisee?? She could not answer that of course.
It’s time to start speaking up more than just on blogs in relatively anonymity. People need to hear the hard questions asked…if we don’t ask them, who will? I think just voicing out loud what the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly speaking to them (or has in the past anyway) would be glorifying to God. REALLY speaking the truth…
funny now that I think of it – you can speak the truth, but not when it’s the truth. I spoke the truth today, it was not received. I asked her if she didn’t receive truth from someone in care group, what would their response be? Would they label her as rebellious and in sin, with a hard heart? Just kept asking questions, trying to make her think…
a reasonable doubt is all it takes…
she’s questioning, but also is being deceived at the same time, that much is clear.
October 11th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Juli:
Good thoughts and comments, as always.
Stunned and musicman:
The disadvantage to the net is my jumping to conclusions based on text. My fault, and no worries on this end, either!
…pk
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Hi. I am new to SGM. I currently serve with a para-church organization and have recently been trying to develop more clear thoughts on the issue of missiology. I am grateful to God for SGM and my wife and I have both benefited greatly from SGM.
As a full-time missionary with a well-known para-church organization, I must be clear when I say that Matthew 28:18-20 cannot be holistically carried out in a non-church context. I know this from experience. However I cannot be unclear on the fact that God has blessed our ministry efforts with the para-church organization. The church, though, is not part of the equation when entering the harvest. And I believe that because of this we are hindered from being effective in many ways.
Another concern is that I am currently building ministries that are not churches, and are ultimately not contexts by which all of scripture can be applied.
These are thoughts that I am trying to better understand in light of Scripture.
Another thought I would like to share, if I may be so bold, is to point out the harshness shown towards Dave Harvey on this blog. My goodness. I’m curious if anybody here has actually approached Dave to share with him your concerns, which are valid and need to be voiced. I just think we could go about it a better way.
One question I have is why did this blog ever begin? I think if it is to help us better understand missiology then let me be the first to thank you for serving. But if it is just to talk harshly about SGM and Dave Harvey’s thoughts then it seems a bit bias and immature.
Any response that would be beneficial would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for reading and please pray for me as I seek to better understand How Jesus would have my family carry out the Great Commission.
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Newtosgm
I suggest you click on “About Us” that is on the top of all their web pages. That might answer a lot of your questions. You also might look at some of the other tabs before making other comments.
Though I am sure you meant well, a lot of people here on this site have experienced hurt at the hands of SGM. It would be good if you read about some of this on this blog before posting remarks critical of this blog. This might also answer your question about going to someone in private first; most say that hasn’t done any good or they get the SGM leadership “spotlighting.”
You might also want to look at another blog:
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com
November 24th, 2008 at 1:01 am
NewtoSGM-
welcome-I’d second Steve’s response. You might want to read a little more about us-then maybe you’d understand the “harshness” in a different light.
Peace-MM
PS-Which para church ministry do you currently serve?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:18 am
ok steve240
November 24th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Newtosgm
Thanks for understanding and for doing some reading on the purpose of this blog and the other one. After you have better understanding, please feel free to come back and post. We welcome your comments and discussion.
Realize that people in SGM typically don’t experience what many of us have shared here until they start questioning things. The leadership can appear the way you see them and only show their more “ugly” side when one starts to question or disagree.
As one person put it, SGM seems to have a number of people that follow the Catholic model of “our leaders have spoken” mentality (kind of like what the Pope says goes unquestioned). I am sure they both attract this type of person as well as ingrain it in others. This mentality is where they don’t want to be questioned; if the leadership says something then it must be followed.
Welcome to the blog and I am looking forward to seeing your posts and questions.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Steve240,
You are such a gentleman. Thanks from us all for the gentle defense. I wonder if NewtoSGM understands how little support he will get from his church with his para-church activities, unless he is part of one of the “exceptions”. One can only hope!:)
November 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Canary
Thanks for your compliment.
It was my obervation that NewtoSGM was a gentleman (assuming this person is a man). He posted questions asking etc. vs. some of the “bulls in a china shop” drive by posts we have unfortunately seen from other SGM people.
I do hope he returns and posts and dialogs with us.
That is a good question about his being in a parachurch ministry. From the posts I have read especially on the SGM Survivor blog, SGM doesn’t seem to support para church groups or at least that is what a number of posters have indicated. I would think it might be hard to be in a SGM church in that situation.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Steve’s response was perfect.
I understand in the blog world that people read one post and comment.
We are a bit of a different animal, and we’ve done our best not only to clearly state our motives, but have also made it very easy for first time visitors to learn who we are, and why we exist.
newtosgm-welcome!
We’re glad you’re here.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Steve240,
I would be surprised if newtosgm doesn’t find difficulties in juggling church activities with his para-church ministry. The way leaders use to preach about para-church organizations almost made it seem like a sin to be a part of it. Yet, if the ministry should come from the local church, as they say, why doesn’t it? Good question to ponder.
Jim,
Where have you been? Hope everything is okay. Hi to Carole!
November 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Hi NewtoSGM, you will find a great group of the brethren here! They love SGMers dearly, and pray for them frequently.
I’m not an SMGer, but am tied to an SGM community in several ways–I spend five days a week with SGM kids, which is a privilege and a joy. My family worships in a PCA congregation.
One thing I love about our current body of believers is that almost every week one of our missionaries comes in to give us an update on their ministry. Most churches, of course, do this. Navigators, CCC, IV, YWAM, RUF, etc., as well as many other mission agencies are represented. Our kids go on missions trips with all sorts of sending agencies–MTW, our own agency, included.
I bet you are used to being in a church like this, too. But SGM is, by their own admittance, very different.
So, (honest question, I have no personal investment in SGM–this is pure curiosity) do you find it weird to be in a church that will never support your ministry financially, or have you report to the body what God has been doing in and through you? (or, if they do, they will be acting outside the guidelines of SGM to do so?) Or that you will hear the leadership warn students from being involved in ministries like the one in which you serve? Or that you may be the only missionaries in the congregation? Thanks for considering this, I truly would like to hear your opinion.
Anway, welcome to the site, I am sure you will add much to the discussion! This is the most amazing place: honesty and grace abound.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Hi NewtoSGM:
Welcome! I appreciate your honesty, curiosity and concerns about the site. It is rare that one communicates this even semi-politely. Most just drop bombs and leave, so thank you for not doing that.
My first response was very similar to yours (almost word for word) when I stumbled upon these sites in the past year. As I read more, took people at their word and did some digging (as the NT commands me to do), I began to see many disturbing patterns confirmed, realized I wasn’t crazy, and took a unique approach; I decided to remain in SGM and cultivate the much-needed seeds of change. I also try to dispel any SGM-bashing for the sake of bashing. In fact, there will come a day when I feel I have addressed the core issues and concerns I have, and at that time I will stop re-hashing topics and simply respond to comments.
There are good folks here who don’t want to see SGM crash and burn… they simply want the Gospel to shine its line in its purest form on SGM.
Again, welcome, God bless your missions work, and I look forward to more posts.
…pk