Hello Beloved:
I sort of dreaded writing this post, as this subject is truly one of those where I believe the debate has no end in sight, as many have their firm convictions and minds settled to a degree that won’t be moved by any natural means. It’s a subject that has to be addressed before we go any further through the minefield of missiology in regard to SGM. I can’t talk about SGM’s witness to world religions without tackling it.
So, with caution and prayer, here we go…
Once upon a time in PK’s life, back in the day -before Christ- I used to be somewhat of a film buff… well, okay… addict. Having extensive employment in all facets of the home video industry didn’t help this addiction. During this time I regularly read film criticism -some of it being required for my profession- and I was not so much guided by their reviews as being amused by them. However, I remember reading one particular video review in the 1990’s of The Exorcist that I never forgot (unfortunately I forgot the reviewer himself, whether it was Ebert or Maltin). In one sentence, the reviewer summed it up well: The Exorcist was a once-powerful film, but its impact has been significantly cheapened over the decades by bad imitators. He was dead-on correct.
I share this story not to tie in Regan McNeil’s head-spinning snarls accompanied by pea-soup hurling into my article for carnal appeal; quite the opposite, in fact. I share it analogously as I believe this:
“Cult” is a once-powerful word that has been cheapened over the decades by bad imitators. I would further add to this that the problem, unlike the Exorcist, has cult’s imitators all going by the same name: CULT.
This is an issue that goes beyond the whole evolution-of-language, post-modern nonsensical explanation that tries to marry Charles Darwin and Noah Webster. By believing that language is ever-growing and goes through some sort of cartoonish survival of the fittest independent of God’s providence is not only erroneous, but it leads to the very issue at hand in this post: the history and cheapening of the words, namely ”cult.”
What, in fact, does the word “cult” mean in terms of classic, evangelical Christian theology? Is it a word that we let the world outside the church modify and determine for us in the faith, or do we raise our own standard in regard to it? I would support the latter, and I do not do so in a vacuum, by any means.
I’ve spent many, many hours these past weeks reading posts and comments regarding the issue of whether or not Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) should be classified as a cult.
Before I can write about missiology in regard to witnessing to (a) cult members, (b) those wrapped up in the occult, and (c) other flocks belonging to non-Christian religions, this is a very obvious hurdle to jump.
As I surf sites that have miscellaneous posters and commentators -every one of them entitled to their opinion- who write about the ills of SGM, these are some of the observations and statements of individuals I have gleaned after countless hours of reading:
(1) Some individuals fire a Patriot missile and directly accuse Sovereign Grace Ministries of being a “cult.”
(2) Some individuals fire a bazooka, taking it down half-a-notch from number (1) and directly accuse Sovereign Grace Ministries of exhibiting “cult-like behavior.”
(3) Some individuals fire a sawed-off shotgun, taking it down three-quarters of a notch from number (1), and hint at SGM of demanding “cult-like adherence” to particular doctrinal distinctives, teachings, lifestyles, fads, etc.
(4) Some individuals have fired really loud cap-guns by making the it’s-not-a-cult-but-it-sure-is-scary comments.
What all four of the above have in common is that the word CULT has been thrown into the SGM conversational arena, and there’s no going back. I knew that by even doing this post I would only contribute to this.
I have a problem with this, in that I believe people need to be very careful before slapping this four-letter word onto SGM.
In my opinion, numbers (2) and (3) above are not just related to number (1)… the first three are practically triplets in terms of forcefulness. While number (4) may be the red-headed step-brother of this bunch (no offense, red-headed step-brothers), he’s a relative, nonetheless, and can cause as much damage as the triplets.
I don’t think the weapons and sibling analogies can quite capture the concern I have about this word “cult.” Many will presume I have an issue with it because I’m a member of an SGM church, as in “PK must abhor it because he’s been (gasp) taken captive by them.”
My response is that if you believe this, you haven’t been reading my posts and comments in regard to reform here at SGM Refuge; posts and comments highly critical of my own organization. I just recently got a bomb in my e-mail’s inbox chastising me for daring to post an R.C. Sproul You-tube clip, claiming that I am duplicitous in supporting Sproul because he supposedly patently supports anything and everything regarding C.J. Mahaney. This is completely erroneous, and this is a separate issue that can be discussed later, but my point is I take a lot of heat from both sides, and I never take pleasure in it. SGM needs reform, and that’s where my flag is planted.
One area I feel the need to defend SGM is in this use of the word “cult” as many feel it applies to us.
The reason I have a problem with throwing the word “cult” around is because I am very familiar with the word “cult,” for better and for worse. I spent the first quarter of my life in a cult, and many of my own family members spent much longer; I know how a cult feels, looks, sounds, smells and tastes. While I have no formal degrees regarding it, I’ve studied cults, the occult and non-Christian religions for the better part of three decades. I’ve spent hours and hours with ex-cult members, spent just as many hours witnessing to cult members, and spent even more hours on my knees before God regarding all of the above.
This is where I part company with many folks who post or comment and include “cult” in the same sentence along with Sovereign Grace Ministries in a scathing, derogatory or less-than-flattering way. In the heat of experiencing grief within my own ministry, I may have even uttered these words myself. Carrying it beyond an emotional response needs to be seriously reviewed and considered. Beloved, I believe that SGM on its worst day doesn’t even tread the same ground that a “cult” does if we are to apply any type of meaningful standard to the word “cult.”
I know for many reading this, that last sentence felt like salt on your open wounds and many of those wounds were inflicted by SGM. And I know many who are reading this went through abominable situations due to the neglectful, offensive and sinful behavior of many SGMers, those in leadership and those in the flock. Please understand that I haven’t gone temporarily insane and forgotten this. Others are taking exception to my words because you thought SGM was wrapped up snugly in a Sociology 101 textbook definition of a cult.
Prayerfully consider holstering any six-shooter comment retorts before reading the rest of this post; in other words, hear me out.
Many men have given their lives or at the very least significant chunks of their ministry in researching, affirming and developing a detailed Evangelical Christian apologetic in regard to the study of cults. Among them on a very short list are Jan Karl van Baalen, Walter Martin, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler and Ravi Zacharias. There are of course many more, and please don’t be offended if I didn’t list your favorite cult-buster here.
In all of the above individuals’ bodies of work (and many more that were not listed) that includes articles, books, and audio messages detailing their take on the subject of cults, there is an unswerving lane of consistency they maintain before stamping the word “cult” onto any organization. This lane, I am convinced, distilled down to the nitty-gritty, includes essentials of the Christian faith, one or more of which must be mangled to the point of being utterly outside orthodoxy before the word “cult” ever comes into the picture (these are enumerated, but not listed in order of importance; one could argue they are all on the same plane of profundity):
(1) His Word is Truth, or the Infallibility/Inerrancy of Holy Scripture.
(2) God in Three Persons, or the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
(3) The Gospel of the Deity of Jesus Christ.
(4) The Gospel of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.
(5) The Gospel of Christ in His Dying for our sins, or the Doctrine of Salvation, or the Doctrine of the Atonement (its counterpart would include salvation PLUS works formulae and the error of universal salvation). Included in this nearly-unfathomable subject is the truth that human works are a natural outpouring of one’s salvation status, but contribute absolute zero to that same salvation status.
(6) The Gospel of Christ in the triumph over death in His bodily resurrection.
(7) The Gospel of Christ in His Return, or Second Advent (not when He is coming again, but that He is coming again).
Staunch Hyper-Calvinists would whip out TULIP at this point, but I think it obfuscates the issue at hand, which is defining a cult. In numbers one through seven above, there are solid lines of agreement, however slim one may think they are, between Arminians and Calvinists and everyone in between.
Others believe that items such as (a) Spiritual Gifts and their manifestations, (b) a correct understanding of the offices of the church (a subject close to my heart) (c) the roles of gender in relationship to marriage and church leadership, etc. should be in the above list. Subjects like this, while hotly debated and contested (some by me on a regular basis) I still believe fall within the periphery of theology, and not the soul-saving essentials. As Wayne Grudem would say, a church can be more or less pure in these areas.
I think I’ve said enough in the two paragraphs above to expect an inbox full of grenades. So be it. My only prayer is that individuals see the heart of what I am saying. Are there psychological games, abuse and general mayhem with the minds of the sheep in cults? Of course there is. Are there similar psychosomatics and attempts at conditioning within orthodox churches? Sadly, yes. But regardless of one’s personal experience in an SGM church and their take on what they or a loved one went through, all I ask is that you really consider or re-consider the use of the word cult. Don’t let the world define this word for you, or you may quickly find that they will call any body of believers you set up camp with a cult. There are some very generic definitions of “cult” bouncing around out there. Many so-called experts, with one broad sweep of a word-processor’s clickety-clack, dust all of Christianity into their basin labeled CULTS. The Roman Empire called Christianity at one time a “cult.” It made them feel better about serving up “cult” members to lions.
Here’s some thoughts from Irving Hexham, which I believe are helpful in governing our mouths (mine being first) in regard to this word:
Cults. Defining a cult is far more difficult than is often appreciated. Many evangelical Christians support the activities of Jews for Jesus and see them as a legitimate missionary group. But members of the Jewish community regard them as an evil and deceptive cult, a fact that well illustrates the problems surrounding the word. (Elwell, 289)
Hexham goes on to describe the history of the word “cult,” it’s usage, and how cult-busting, while necessary in the evangelical sense, is a difficult ministry to administer (f.y.i., Hexham’s entry is in a book published in 1984, so this thought is all the more relevant in the present tense):
In the last twenty years a large number of evangelical books dealing with cults have appeared. Over the course of time these have increasingly concentrated on the allegedly fraudulent claims of the cults, the immoralities of their leaders, and the ways in which their followers are deceived. As a result, in many cases a transition has occurred from a theological argument refuting the claims of various religious groups to a reliance upon the psychological arguments which suggest that members of these groups are in some way brainwashed. This development poses a great danger for evangelical Christianity as can be seen from William Sargent’s The Battle for the Mind (1957). In this book Sargent takes evangelical conversion as a classic example of brainwashing. More recently this argument has been developed by Jim Siegelman and Flo Conway in their popular book Snapping (1979), where the experience of born-again Christians is compared to the process by which people join groups like the Moonies. (Elwell, 289)
Hexham elaborates on the legal quandary this has put evangelicals in with anti-conversion laws, such as the state of New York’s Lasher Amendment (11122-A, March 25, 1980) which have had a whiplash effect in Christendom’s relationship with the state, to put it mildly. He then finishes the entry with a cold splash of water on our faces:
Today the real problem of cults is the propaganda value of the word “cult” in a secular society. Although there are reliable statistics to show that the total membership of groups like the Children of God, the Unification Church (Moonies), and Hare Krishna is less than 35,000 in the United States and even fewer in other Western countries, these groups are presented as a major threat to society [1984 statistics]. As a result secularists are able to urge the acceptance of laws which replace religious freedom by a grudgingly granted religious toleration. Rather than persisting with the use of a word which has now become a propaganda weapon, the academic practice of calling such groups “new religious movements” should be followed [Josh McDowell appears to have done this in quite a bit of his work, referring to them as "today's religions," among others]. An alternative to this neutral terminology available for Christians who oppose such groups on theological grounds would be to revive the usage of “heretic” or simply call such groups “spiritual counterfeits.” Such a procedure would move the debate away from psychological theories that can be used by secularists against Christianity to the arena of theological discussion and religious argument. (Elwell, 289)
Years ago I would have disagreed with Hexham, but I strongly agree with him now as I have seen over the decades how society wants to litigate Christianity into either extreme, innocuous liberalism or mythological non-existence.
Many will read what they want in this post and fire away, but I pray that is not the case. Many will interpret my statements such as my belief that gender roles -in relationship with leadership and polity- falls ultimately into the periphery of theology as code for “gays can believe one through seven and they’ll be saved or can be pastors,” when that is not at all what I am saying. I believe the marrow of theology, the rock solid core, to which all of the arms of theology originate from, can be found in the essentials above. If one must use the word “cult,” it has classically fallen into the category of being blatantly heretical in relationship with one of the above seven essentials of Evangelical Christianity -regardless of psychological systems employed and their devastating effects. The fact that the church universal -not just SGM- has goons that employ such psychological tactics does not relegate their existence into heresy, pure and simple.
Call it my opinion, print it up and burn it if you want to. But my final answer to the question of whether or not Sovereign Grace Ministries is a “cult” will always be the same unless something radically changes:
No, we are not a cult.
How in the world can this make me heartless in regard to those who have suffered at the hands of SGM? Beloved, these things occur in mainline denominations and non-denominations, and if we call everyone a cult, then we’ve moved into the realm of the atheistic psychoanalyst. You know the one. He’s the guy with the bells on his hat, tricycling ice cream through your neighborhood and parroting his college professor, who in turn was parroting his college professor who taught him:
“There is no God! There is no God! Squwak!”
He needs the Gospel, and Christ is sufficient.
…pk
——————-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A. (Editor). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Dearest PK–
I grew up in Mormonism. So I know a cult. To speak quite simply, a cult is a religious group with aberrrant theology, as well as aberrant social restrictons.
The chief sign of a cult is denial of the divinity of Christ, and the insistence that salvation is by works.
Therefore, I totally agree with you: SGM is many things, but a cult it is not.
Excellent brave post, my brother.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I dunno… that definition isn’t helpful either, because it renders every religious group outside of “little-O” orthodox Christianity (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc.) a “cult.”
I’ve always considered “religious or quasi-religious group with uncritical devotion to their leader” to be the most helpful (in the sense that it defines something distinct from other terms) usage of the word.
But let’s say you’re right, PK: in that case, what word would you use to define a “religious or quasi-religious group with uncritical devotion to their leader”?
November 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I’m of the ilk that SG has cult-like tendencies.
Yes, the Gospel is preached, but that which causes suffering amongst people here is a direct result of the creepy cultastic behavior.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Hi Travis:
Good to see you.
“religious or quasi-religious group with uncritical devotion to their leader” then puts one in the quandary of someone other than her/his self defining what “uncritical” is. Some would call my devotion to my senior pastor “disrespectful” while the others would say “cultic.” One could also seriously contend that those words are exactly what is at the core with Islam.
“religious or quasi-religious group with uncritical devotion to their leader.” This is how the world, for the most part, views Christianity, because we are to be in fact adherents -uncritically so- to our leader, Jesus Christ. I’d be willing to add what you have in quotes to the definition as long as it accompanied the aberrancy from the 1-7 essentnials list, but I think it more appropriately falls under the “while some groups have these characteristics, the essentials are at the core of their theology.”
Any time the psychological aspects (which includes uncritical devotion to a leader) are included in a cult’s definition, this is ammunition non-Christian groups and individuals use to slap onto Christianity as a whole, and they do it without fail.
This goes back to my tendency to lean toward Hexham’s desire to drop “cult” altogether. “Heresy” works just fine, as well as “non-Christian religions” and “new religions.” “Sect” poses problems, I believe. “Cult” and its Wikipedia 8+ definitions (and growing) is so generic, a high school drama club could be called a cult. Debate from that platform -minus the word cult and it’s many uses, (for me anyway)- would uncloud the issue and put the pursuance of theology in defining a particular group on the forefront.
Hope this makes sense?
Godspeed on project number three, btw.
…pk
November 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
PK,
Excellent post. Very courageous and necessary.
I have always hesitated in calling SGM a cult. At the most, I thought of the controlling aspect of my ex-leaders as creating a cult-like atmosphere. However, it is dangerous to use cult as a description, because the world could then accuse all Christians of being cult-like. After all, we are crazy about our Great Leader, and will die for His cause. Too easy to connect the dots.
We would do well to remember our own responsibility in giving up our freedom in Christ to be ruled over by leadership in a church. It is so much easier, convenient, and seemingly safe to follow a group of people who appear to be mature in the Lord. It requires little faith on our own part, little seeking of the Lord, because the holy man leading the group tells us what to do, where to live, who to marry, etc. So, if we find ourselves enslaved to the rule and traditions of man, I believe it is our own fault. We must repent (as I had to do) of living for the approval of leadership instead of living for the Lord. Any “cult-like” behavior by members of a controlling church has more to do with the heart of the person following than the heart of the person leading, I think. A believer who understands the great value of his/her freedom in Christ would never relinquish it to any man, no matter how wonderful and holy he seems to be.
I agree with you, PK, that SGM should not be defined as a cult. Legalistic would be the word that I would use to describe my own experiences within the church. That is the danger that many Christians face today. Thanks for dealing bravely with such an important topic.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Excellent PK!
Maybe it’s a generational thing. When I became a Christian in the early 80’s, cults were defined by their unorthodox beliefs.
SGM’s statement of faith is completely orthodox.
They certainly have some unBiblical practices, but orthopraxy seems to have died shortly after the death of the Apostles.
SGM is not a cult.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Travis-good to see you here again!
November 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“Legalism,” to me, is not only more accurate, canary, but much more potent than “cult,” considering the post-modernistic interpretation of the word “cult” in our day and age. Legalism is also a subject the bible deals with rather bluntly, as well.
Good thoughts, and thanks.
…pk
November 4th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Thanks Jim, and good to see you (sorry I’ve been a stranger)!
…pk
November 4th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
PK said:
“Legalism,” to me, is not only more accurate, canary, but much more potent than “cult…”
I whole-heartedly agree!
November 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
PK,
Interesting post. I really want to pray about it and read it again. I know each persons story is different, yet shades of the same, and I appreciate you leaving room for the little guy grow, and voice their opinion here, but PK from what I went through It seems right for me to use the work cult, and not church.
I loved the “body of Christ” I really did, tenderly, patiently, praying and serving. Now I am the one “they warn against”….bad things will happen. Its the cold blank stare, the forcing me to repent and to see my sin and again PK the “threats” from the body of Christ, I know it is hard to understand, unless you slip my shoes on and see why it is easy for me to agree with point #1. Maybe your church is not as cultish as the one I left.
I know you address alot in the above post. I think that in my heart, that SG is not a church, but I try really hard not to say that word and cause a weaker brother to stumble, not to mention the children.
I will pray some more. Thanks
November 5th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Charlie:
I appreciate your post, and know it must have been difficult to recall a past experience like that.
It was a very difficult choice for me, as I knew a post like this, no matter where someone stands on the issue, would dredge up less than desirable memories, to say the least, of bad church experiences both personal and corporate.
Please understand that in my not wanting to label SGM a cult -and arguing for that position- I am not minimizing or even trivializing the horrible things people went through in any church, let aone SGM.
Quite the opposite, I have a desire for reform in SGM.
I am praying along with you, Charlie, and please know that I don’t carry any condemnation in my heart for those who felt/feel God led/is leading them or their families out of SGM.
Everyone:
I think we have to concede that some churches in SGM are worse than others. I understand the trickle-down theory of legalism, but I believe some particular individuals, i.e. yes-men, worsen their church depending on their level of maturity, genuine calling and just simply bad to horrible theological practices in their ecclesiology. In other words, they have no business being in or near leadership positions in church.
Just additional food for thought.
…pk
November 5th, 2008 at 1:50 am
RT:
Thank you. Coming from you and your similar history to mine, that means a lot.
God bless.
…pk
November 5th, 2008 at 2:51 am
I think the most important thing is to call it like it is:
a denomination of (mostly) controlling abusive clonish churches:
“First, abusive churches have a control-oriented style of leadership. Second, the leaders of such churches often use manipulation to gain complete submission from their members. Third, there is a rigid, legalistic lifestyle involving numerous requirements and minute details for daily life. Fourth, these churches tend to change their names often, especially once they are exposed by the media. Fifth, denouncing other churches is common because they see themselves as superior to all other churches. Sixth, these churches have a persecution complex and view themselves as being persecuted by the world, the media, and other Christian churches. Seventh, abusive churches specifically target young adults between eighteen and twenty-five years of age. The eighth and final mark of abusive churches is the great difficulty members have in getting out of or leaving these churches, a process often marked by social, psychological, or emotional pain.”
http://www.batteredsheep.com/abusive.html
I would love so much for SGM to change, but somehow I am not too optimistic.
Major changes and scrapping of man’s plans would have to occur.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Hi Ellie:
I appreciate your comments.
The bible, from cover to cover, details God’s scrapping of man’s plans. All I ask is that in the midst of calling it like it is, that you pray for our churches. We need major scrapping of our plans.
…pk
November 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I am a staff member with the Jews for Jesus organization. You quoted a paragraph Elwell saying, “Many evangelical Christians support the activities of Jews for Jesus and see them as a legitimate missionary group. But members of the Jewish community regard them as an evil and deceptive cult, a fact that well illustrates the problems surrounding the word.”
Just to set the record straight concerning Jews for Jesus, please read this:
Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) has been a frontline ministry confronting the occult, the cults, and the New Age movement and explaining why they are making an impact on our society. In the name of truth, sophisticated lies are fed to unwary people who live in and shape our world. Our mandate is to communicate with our generation by creating crossover material that alerts and informs about the very real dangers of the latest deceptions. It is a critical mission at a critical time.
I am told allegations have been made by individuals that the ministry of Jews for Jesus is a cult, or cult-like in its behavior, that the organization is spiritually abusive in practice. These allegations cannot be further from the truth. I have personally known both Moishe Rosen, the organization’s founder, and David Brickner, the current executive director, for many years. I have been impressed with the organization they represent and the care these men have shown in presenting the historic gospel message with clarity and with integrity.
Let me say that knowing a number of Jews for Jesus staff over the years has provided me with added respect for how Jews for Jesus cares for its own staff and encourages individuality and creativity in approaches to their mission goals. People are trusted and given a lot of latitude in their decisions. This is the antithesis of cult-like behavior.
I also believe that Jews for Jesus have held true to the gospel message under pressures that would have broken the backs of most ministries, showing character and resolve under a range of very trying situations, including considerable resistance from the very people they are trying to reach. I am more than pleased to commend this unique and frontline ministry to others as one with high accountability and high achievement in the field of Jewish evangelism.
Tal Brooke, President and Chairman, Spiritual Counterfeits Project
http://www.scp-inc.org
You can also learn about us at http://www.jewsforjesus.org.
Matt Sieger
November 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
You quote Elwell as saying, “Many evangelical Christians support the activities of Jews for Jesus and see them as a legitimate missionary group. But members of the Jewish community regard them as an evil and deceptive cult, a fact that well illustrates the problems surrounding the word.” I am a staff member of the Jews for Jesus organization. Please read the following:
Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) has been a frontline ministry confronting the occult, the cults, and the New Age movement and explaining why they are making an impact on our society. In the name of truth, sophisticated lies are fed to unwary people who live in and shape our world. Our mandate is to communicate with our generation by creating crossover material that alerts and informs about the very real dangers of the latest deceptions. It is a critical mission at a critical time.
I am told allegations have been made by individuals that the ministry of Jews for Jesus is a cult, or cult-like in its behavior, that the organization is spiritually abusive in practice. These allegations cannot be further from the truth. I have personally known both Moishe Rosen, the organization’s founder, and David Brickner, the current executive director, for many years. I have been impressed with the organization they represent and the care these men have shown in presenting the historic gospel message with clarity and with integrity.
Let me say that knowing a number of Jews for Jesus staff over the years has provided me with added respect for how Jews for Jesus cares for its own staff and encourages individuality and creativity in approaches to their mission goals. People are trusted and given a lot of latitude in their decisions. This is the antithesis of cult-like behavior.
I also believe that Jews for Jesus have held true to the gospel message under pressures that would have broken the backs of most ministries, showing character and resolve under a range of very trying situations, including considerable resistance from the very people they are trying to reach. I am more than pleased to commend this unique and frontline ministry to others as one with high accountability and high achievement in the field of Jewish evangelism.
Tal Brooke, President and Chairman, Spiritual Counterfeits Project
http://www.scp-inc.org
You can also read about us at http://www.jewsforjesus.org. Thanks!
Matt Sieger
November 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Mr. Sieger:
You said:
and then you quote Tal Brooke of Spiritual Counterfeits Project as saying:
Mr. Seiger, it is apparent you didn’t read my post, and have decided to take someone’s word for it (or it is your own rapid-fire interpretation after scanning and not reading my post) that I accused your ministry of being a cult. By using Tal Brooke’s quote, you’ve made some ugly charges in that regard toward Irving Hexham, me, the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and SGMrefuge.
While I appreciate your courtesy in how you correspond, I don’t appreciate the discurteous misrepresentation you’ve committed.
The context of the article I quoted (which included segments from Irving Hexham’s entry on Cults in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [EDT]) does not call Jews for Jesus a cult. In fact, Irving Hexham (not Elwell, as you stated… Walter Elwell is the editor of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, as it states clearly in the bibliography section of this post) a volume in no way at all hostile to Jews for Jesus) illustrates how partcular members of the Jewish community calling Jews for Jesus a cult shows the perilousness of the word “cult” when in the hands of non-Christian religions. You’ve not only taken Hexham’s quote out of context, you’ve wrenched it out, misrepresented my article, risked many reading this for misinterpreting my article, an article which isn’t about Jews for Jesus in the first place.
My post in no way or fashion calls Jews for Jesus a cult. Irving Hexham does not call Jews for Jesus a cult. I merely cited Hexham’s words in his very obvious observation that it is asinine to call Jews for Jesus a “cult,” in illustrating how the world has adopted the word “cult” to erroneously describe evangelical Christianity. You’ve landed like a ton of bricks on a post that quoted an article which in fact does the opposite of what you are charging: it defends the integrity and good reputation of your organization!
I would appreciate your response to my reply to your charges here, and I’m also posting every word of Irving Hexham’s I quoted, again, in context, so there is no misunderstanding:
Quote number 1:
That “word” he is referring to is the word “cult,” and his example and context of this is that if the word “cult” can be applied to an evangelical organization like Jews for Jesus, then the word “cult” presents overy obvious problems!
Quote number 2:
Quote number 3:
and they all can be found in, once again:
I appreciate you taking the time to read my post in context, read the quotes in context, and doing a just review of it rather than a rapid-fire drive by critique.
I am hoping this was nothing more than a misunderstanding that resulted from a premature response to my post, a result of this post being obviously only partially examined by you. I bear you no ill will, but I would caution you in how dangerously cavalier you’ve been in completely and utterly misrepresenting me, Irving Hexham, the reputable Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and SGMrefuge.com.
Sincerely in Christ, and as a past, present and future supporter of the mission goals of Jews for Jesus (and my parents and many aunts and uncles were/are too)…
Protestant Knight.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Protestant Knight,
I admit that I did scan through your article and did not read it in its entirety. I also admit that I mistakenly attributed the quoted paragraph to Elwell rather than to Hexham. My concern was that readers might interpret the Hexham paragraph to imply that we were a cult, and I responded with a statement from Tal Brooke dispelling that notion. Now that I have re-read the Hexham paragraph, and have read the blog more closely, I agree with you that the Hexham paragraph was not implying that we are a cult. I apologize for reading a bit too quickly and carelessly. It was not at all my intention to misrepresent you, Hexham, or anyone else. Frankly, I don’t think I did so. I simply quoted Tal Brooke regarding our ministry so that readers would be clear about who we are. If my comments hurt you or anyone else, I apologize for that.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Hi PK and all. I’ve been out of pocket for awhile. Still catching up on the past several posts. PK, I hope your health is improving. I’ll join the others in praying for you.
I’ve never called PDI/SGM a cult either, though I understand those who do. It’s a tough subject. For a group who states their Christian doctrines as clearly as SGM does, they demonstrate, in reality, an appalling lack of grace, a foundational component of Christianity. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that grace was the defining difference between Christianity and other religions. How can SGM be so right on all their listed doctrines, but miss the gem of our faith?
In addition, there is a distinct elitism and exclusivity that gives the feeling of a cult. In the city where I live, the SGMers were so tight that for awhile they were moving into the same neighborhoods to be near one another. Onlookers, some Christian, some not, thought this was odd and called it their cult-de-sac.
I think that some of SGM’s encouraged behaviors are odd and ingrown. They set themselves up to be called a cult, even if it is a watered down version of the original definition of the word.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I’ve called them a cult, plenty of times. And still do. To the same degree as other churches or ministries or organizations? No. Certainly not. Obviously not.
When are we going to talk about what makes certain people drawn to “cults” or “cult-like” churches in the first place? You have to admit, there are some commonalities among those who were members of cults (or abberant churches, or authoritarian churches, whatever word you choose to use - people like me, and hundreds of thousands of others) If you ask them after they left what drew them in and why they stayed, what do you think they would say? Why don’t we ever discuss this? Maybe if we talked about what drew us to SGM in the first place, it would help us identify the strongholds and therefore release us from the bondage and keep us from repeating the behavior yet again.
If leaders don’t have people following them, them don’t have power or control. And if we help people to understand why they are following these leaders in the first place, we can effectively disengage the leadership from abusive power by cutting off the responses. If they truly care about these people, then when the people change and start following the Spirit of God and not idolizing the church or the leaders, these same leaders would praise God for the growth and not feel threatened.
November 5th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
When asked why I have left the CLC, my brief answer is that I found that the extra-biblical mandates and extremely authoritarian structure crowded out the gospel for me.
I would say that cults take varying amounts of truth and twist it to control others–perhaps even from a sincere attempt to help others. SGM has done just this. SGM fits this generally understood definition (denotation) of a “cult”–it may not fit your more specialized understanding (connotation). What term would you use?
November 6th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Good thoughts, all.
acme:
For myself, I wouldn’t use any “term” to classify SGM, as I don’t believe it’s a cult. I’ve noticed many people here have trouble even calling us a ministry, as they feel we do nothing of the sort. Based on the experiences of some (and myself), the shortest answer I could come up with is that SGM is a ministry/organization known to wade in the pools of legalism. Legalism is by no means a wimpy term, and the Apostle Paul would have a lot to say about any ministry being tainted by it in the least; Legalism is a root to all kinds of evil in regard to performance, treatment of the flock and rulebooks that imply adherence for slavation.
To say that SGM meanders regularly into the realm of substituting grossly insufficient human works for the infinitely work of Christ (that is, legalism)… well, for me it’s quite shameful, and the primary cause I seek reform in SGM.
The word “cult” was classically not entrenched in the sociological terminology of psychological abuse systems as it is nowadays. It ["cult"] once meant that from an evangelical perspective, a “cult” was a group that denied one or more of the essential doctrines of the faith (the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc). ”Cult” was put into the psychology and sociology arena by secular camps that now designate Christianity itself as cult. As I said in the post, like Hexham I would favor a return of Christians using terms like “heresy,” or “non-Christian religion,” or “new religion.” Even if one used the term in regard to SGM, and while I may disagree with it, at least there is a launching pad to debate from. “Cult” is way too general nowadays to do any good in contending for the truth.
Just my thoughts.
G’night all… more thoughts tomorow.
…pk
November 6th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Juli:
Excellent thoughts, all of them.
I know I sound like a broken record (apologies for this), but I think before one even begins a discussion about “cults,” there’s the whole issue of scaling the language barrier. There are die-hards like me who after studying the cults for decades, the red flag(s) for me -before stamping it with the name ”cult”- is an aberrancy on the essentials (those big red seven in my post) that scripture lays out for us. If we call an organization a cult solely based on the psychological aspects of it, then, like secualr society, we can begin slapping “cult” onto many, many organizations based on an individual’s subjectivism. I look at the seven essentials as just grounding me in scripture rather than textbooks, for lack of a better description. I don’t criticize secular efforts at analyzing aberrant groups, but given the nature of the subject, I’d rather Scripture, even above and beyondsociety or even ”the local church,” to be my guide.
Please understand this is a personal guideline for me, and I’m not trying to enforce any standards on anyone else. But the term “cult” has all but been stripped of meaning over the decades.
That being said, I am in wholehearted agreement with you in that I do think the issue of controlling groups and/or individuals and the pitfalls that allow us in the flock to be under their thumb should be addressed.
Any of this make any sense, or do I need more coffee?
…pk
November 6th, 2008 at 9:16 am
“I look at the seven essentials as just grounding me in scripture rather than textbooks, for lack of a better description.”
Hmm… in what “family of churches” have I heard that reason given for oh-so-many dogmatic stances? ;-D (I’m just poking fun, PK.)
I see what you’re saying, except that (a) it’s only a “classical” definition of the word in the sense that evangelical (so we’re dealing with what? about 200 years, tops?) cult-watch groups and individuals (how objective were they in setting up the definition(s)?) typically define “cult” in the manner you’ve described.
But if we’re in agreement that SGM is heavy on legalism, and looking at Paul’s letter to the Church in Galatia is all we need to see how seriously “aberrant in the essentials” legalism is to biblical Christianity… why isn’t legalism one of the criteria for defining a “cult”? Could it be that some of these same cult-watchers were in churches which could have been defined as “legalist,” so they watered down the meaning of “cult” to give themselves a free pass?
I’m just saying… “cult” isn’t a canonical term.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I have been so cautious in entering into this discussion. After leaving the liturgical church I was raised in, I did not turn to a cult, but to the OCCULT. There is such a huge difference between the two, yet they are so similar. They both draw one to focus on something other than Christ and the Cross. The cult - you are directed to man; the occult - to yourself, for control over your own life and destiny. I stated earlier in my initial introduction that I have not experienced or seen any of what is written here about SGM. Yet, “out of the mouths of two or more, a thing shall be confirmed,:”, therefore I sit in deference to the Word, and the many broken , wounded people I have seen here.
If I had experienced any of this, in my SG church, I would have run the other way. I guess what I am trying to express is that PK, there are dedicated, God Seeking, Christ directing, men in this ministry. Men who weekly point us to Christ, not themselves, who admonish us to stay in the Word to confirm their teaching, who are open to discussion and questions, who weeky use the word to help us draw closer to HIM and not THEM. It grieves me to see it at times referred to as a cult.
Acme, a cult NEVER refers you to the cross, as your redemptive hope. It will never represent Christ as the sacrificial lamb who ALONE is the saving atonement. If we use the blanket term CULT to refer to those we feel are controlling, then we must look also to most fundamental denominations as cults due to their doctrinal differences…One large denomination refuses to accept the gifts of the spirit. Are they a cult because the DENOMINATION tells everyone that they cannot be a “?” if they believe otherwise? Then there is a denomination that tells us concerning the gifts that you can only receive and operate in one particular way. Are they a cult? See, these restrictions/interpretations of the word are all MAN defined, just as SGM is referred to here. Is the denomination that considers a glass of wine a cult? That is legalism. Is the denomination that requires “holiness”: dressing a cult or in legalism?
All of these denominations point to the cross, to Christ, Resurrection and saving blood of the Redeemer, but they are legalistic. I feel we need to be very careful, as, to choose our words wisely. Regardless of the hurts and wounds experienced in all this, WE are still accountable for our words, ideas, and untruths that we may propagate. Healing & wholeness are hard to grasp when we hold on to misconceptions. The enemy can use those to keep anger and pain alive. When we see a situation for what it really is, then there is room for truth to allow us to walk out of the hurt. Legalistic? YES….CULT……NO!!!
November 6th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I cannot/will not refer to SGM in above post as legalistic, as I have not experienced this. I was referring to the referenced denominaltional differences.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Hi
It has been a while since I posted here but have been following the comments on this blog.
I noticed the following article in the Washington Times about Larry Tomczak and includes a brief mention of his split with SGM:
http://washingtontimes.com/new.....l-a-force/
November 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
For some reason I wasn’t able to insert additional comments.
I prefer to use the words “cultish” or “cult-like” to describe SGM. I wouldn’t go so far as to describe it as a cult.
Steve
November 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“See, these restrictions/interpretations of the word are all MAN defined…”
That’s the whole problem right there: “cult” is never defined in Scripture.
Its original (c. 1600, adopted into English from French, which had picked it up from Latin) meaning was basically orthopraxy: those rites, customs and traditions carried out by “the faithful” in a particular religious group. This was in contrast to the group’s orthodoxy (its doctrines/beliefs). So for any religious group in the time of the Renaissance, the “cult” was collectively their group services, regular prayer times, rites and ceremonies, etc.
(According to Wikipedia, “sections in newspapers giving the schedule of worship at Catholic churches are headed Culte Catholique; the section giving the schedule of Protestant churches is headed culte réformé.”)
In the 1800s, it came to define “devotion to a person or thing.”
It wasn’t until the 1920s that certain evangelical groups began to define the word in the way PK is using it.
So that, PK, is why I’m challenging the claim that your definition of the word is its “classical” usage: it’s actually the most revisionist definition we have of the word.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Yikes, I never finished that middle paragraph! It’s corrected now. =)
November 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Mimi said: Acme, a cult NEVER refers you to the cross, as your redemptive hope. It will never represent Christ as the sacrificial lamb who ALONE is the saving atonement.
I think we are all missing the point here. Legalism IS another gospel - just read Galatians. And another gospel means: NOT Christ. Another gospel means that CHrist is NOT “the sacrificail lamb who alone is the saving atonement.” It does not matter what lip service SGM is giving - they may say and sing all the right things - well so did the Pharisees. Why do you think Jesus put so much emphasis on the fruit, not the words? Paul did as well. As did James.
What is the FRUIT of SGM? We have to get our eyes off the words being said that give the apperance of sound doctrine. IF it were sound doctrine, then the fruit would be in keeping with godliness and righteousness, as the Word teaches. When the fruit doesn’t line up - and it CLEARLY DOES NOT as so many has personally testified to - then we have to stop and ask ourselves why.
SGM is legalistic, and legalism is another gospel. I dont’ care how many times they say their “Solas” and push “grace” books - it is all an illusion! It looks sound on the surface, but in reality, the teachings are another gospel, because they cause SOME people to seek salvation, perfection, joy, peace, hope, everything in either the Church, the pastors, or a variety of other means. It produced idolators and legalists - how can that be sound doctrine??
My original question remains - why don’t we discuss these people (like myself) who were led astray - what was in our hearts to predispose us, (for lack of a better word) to fall into the traps of legalism, idolatry, fear, etc…
clearly there are some without “whatever” in their hearts and they are able to worship in Spirit and in Truth at SGM churches - how, I haven’t a clue. But I won’t go so far as to say every single person in SGM is a legalist or an idolator, but I will say there are MANY MORE than would admit to it. And that is the first step - not just going on an on about what is or isn’t wrong with SGM and the doctrines, but WHY did these doctrines affect us the way they did? And how can we learn from that?
I apologize for perhaps coming across so strongly. I’ve just grown tired of all the talk and want to see people set free. And freedom comes when we take a look inside, and not just around us.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I’m very sorry that so many comments are going into moderation.
I’m back in my home office from traveling, and will clear comments stuck in moderation immediately.
This is an excellent conversation-I’ll do my best to keep it real time.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Travis & co.:
I’m not seeking to be a Walter Martin or Ravi Zacharias. When I use the term “cult,” it’s in my aforementioned way, and it’s simply an alternative. I am fully aware of the word’s origins, and if “classical” sense was inadequate, then let me substitute that with “evangelical usage.”
Once again, I actually don’t like the use of the word, and not just because of its reference to SGM, but I’ve heard atheists use it a LOT toward ALL of Christianity, and not just particular Christian denominations.
Also, there seems to be this continuing theme of trying to sum up SGM in one word, which I believe is completely unnecessary. Should we be examined? Absolutely.
If you want a word for SGM, keep in mind that mainline denominations have churches that are guilty of the same legalistic practices that can be found in SGM. Its frequency in leadership and churches is irrelevant, as the degrees are varying. To use Grudemology, the church can be more or less pure in these areas.
To let the world outside define for us in the church what “cult” means, that’s swimming in the relativistic pool of being able to call anything… well… anything. There’s nothing but grinning cardsharks in that pool; we’re playing their game and they consistently stack the deck in their favor. If my definition is the most revisionist version there is of the word, it cements my point in needing to stay away from it and return to “heresy,” “new religions” and “non-Christian religions.”
Also, if we let “legalism” be a guideline so that we can use the word “cult,” then we’re right back to calling everybody a cult.
…pk
November 6th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Juli:
Once again, good thoughts.
My only disagreement: I’d be careful in characterizing all of SGM as preaching another gospel, because this simply isn’t true, and it’s part of the whole issue here in regard to tossing around the world “cult.” I’ve been in some churches that do park on legalism, and some that don’t and are thriving (and no, I’m not sharing which ones as I don’t want bread crumb trails to my identity… I hope everyone can understand this).
The one I am currently in does expositional preaching that consistently returns again and again to the sufficiency and salvation found in Jesus Christ. I’m not saying this the way, I’m just saying this is the short answer on what’s going on in my church. God has been gracious in that we seem to be able again and again to spit out the bones and retain the meat. I’ve been in other SGM churches that are exactly like the way others here have described: cold, malignant in practice and man-centered. I have been in and visited non-SGM churches like this. This doesn’t scream “cult” to me, it screams “legalism” and/or “heresy” at a minimum on the local church level and very strongly arguable on the hierarchy’s top quarter. This won’t be dealt with effectively until there is a top to bottom (mostly top) change within SGM, which is the whole reason I am here.
We need reform, and you better believe they/we are watching here.
Hope I didn’t get off on a tangent.
…pk
November 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Also, if we let “legalism” be a guideline so that we can use the word “cult,” then we’re right back to calling everybody a cult.
PK, you are abosolutely right. Since being away from SGM, I have seen churches that follow legalism, one in paricular that is even worse than what I experienced. It is everywhere in the body, in one form or another. Thankfully, there are also men and women out there who lead faithfully, full of grace. Cult is a word that could backfire on us one day, as there is a spirit in the world that would really like to classify all Christians as nut-cases.
I never forget the wonderful things I learned during my time at PDI/SGM that helped to give me a sound marriage, a desire to please the Lord, and follow His will above my own. If I didn’t notice the little leaven of legalism in the beginning, it was because I knew so little. As the legalism grew, it began to strangle my relationship with the Lord, to the point that I had to flee the very people who had grounded me in the faith. However, I will always be grateful to the leaders and friends in PDI who helped, in the early years, to build some of my foundation in knowing God.
Juli,
I agree that we must look to ourselves for the reasons why we are drawn to leaglistic churches. I posted that after reading PK’s thoughts about cults. No one commented on it, until you. Yet, it is a very important matter that we understand our own responsibility in allowing ourselves to submit to legalism. This would be helpful for all those who read the posts, here. Why do we allow people to take our freedom in Christ?
A good subject to delve into, I think.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Also, if we let “legalism” be a guideline so that we can use the word “cult,” then we’re right back to calling everybody a cult.
Nope, just the legalists.
Okay, so to make sure I’m tracking with you, PK:
1. You know how “cult” has been traditionally used since its adoption into the English language;
2. You choose to instead adopt a “Christian–ghettoized” definition of the word;
3. Once your esoteric definition is in place, you insist that the word does not apply to SGM.
You know, the key to ending this disagreement is for you to drop #2. You’re one of a very few people here who gauge “cult” by the seven–item list you included in your post. Pretty much everyone else here uses the 19th century definition of the word. In fact, I would venture to say that you’re the one muddying the waters here by presenting your problematic definition.
PK, I was teasing before, but now I’m beginning to think you really are engaging in what cult-watch groups call “bombastic redefinition of the familiar.”
You said it yourself: “heresy” already means what you want “cult” to mean, so your definition of “cult” makes the word redundant. The answer is not to abandon the word, but to abandon the redundant meaning! Classically, the word had a unique meaning, and most folks today still get that meaning; otherwise, “the cult of Jobs” wouldn’t have become a mainstream phrase describing “people with a fanatic devotion to all things Apple (but who nonetheless refrain from performing mass-suicides).”
Classically defined, SGM qualifies as a “cult.” This is not relativistic. This is linguistic. The Bible should be brought to bear in etymological matters, but not for words which never make an appearance in Scripture.
Otherwise, I’d like to see a “Biblical” definition of the following terms, currently chained to the ambiguous relativism that is the English language:
• telephone
• computer
• transatlantic
• intergalactic
• subatomic
• radioactive
• leap year
Perhaps we as Christians have a moral and spiritual obligation to abandon these words, too?
November 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
PK said: This won’t be dealt with effectively until there is a top to bottom (mostly top) change within SGM, which is the whole reason I am here.
I guess that is why you and I are not tracking PK. I don’t see the point in focusing on leadership, the top, or SGM itself to bring about reform. To me it is focusing on the symptoms, and not the heart of the problem.
I think we will find that if we examine the hearts of the people affected by legalism, authoritarian churches, etc we will find common denominators. And those common denominators will also (shock!) be evident in the hearts of leadership. For many of the same reasons we are lured in, they were as well. Only the roles were different, they lead, we followed.
And until we examine the hearts of the sheep, we won’t have insight into the hearts of the leaders. And if we don’t address the hearts of the leaders, then no change will come, we will just be spinning our wheels talking about the symptoms of the “problem” all day long.
Which, incidentally, is exactly what the enemy wants us to do. If we keep biting and devouring each other, no progress is made, and no love evident. We can’t simply point out the behaviors of the leadership and think that will bring change - if we are, then we are no better than them in their attempts to “change” us by telling us what we did wrong. While fruit is helpful in identifying problems it is never the solution to the problem. We gotta get our eyes back on the hearts of the people.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Juli -
I agree with almost all of what you are saying, but to paraphrase some of Travis’ understanding of cult. Many in SG don’t just admire CJ and his teachings-they have a passionate devotion to him that is “cult” like. His basic doctrines may not rise to the level of Evangelical usage of the word cult (denial of the trinity, etc..), but he does enjoy a zealous respect among the faithul SG crowd that is beyond healthy, IMO.
Just recognizing that may help someone to ask themselves why? And you’re right, until we look back at ourselves and why we chose this form of legalism-we will not be able to change.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I’m agree with Travis and would like to add that while defining the word “cult” classically might make some people define all Christians as “cult members”, it doesn’t really matter. If someone is going to come against Christians, definitions don’t matter. Enough of us here have been blindsided by SGM’s “mist-ifying” redefinition of terms enough to know that when you don’t play according to “the rules”, you are out of the game. Even if you follow the rules, they make up new ones.
It’s all a big game of musical chairs, those of us “on the outs” just had the chairs pulled out from under us before those that are still in the game. If you haven’t seen what’s going on in your SGM church, it just means that the ones making up the rules and pulling the chairs haven’t gotten to your part of the circle yet.
We get out of the game by recognizing it for what it is. Simple as that. Some of us don’t see it for awhile and some of us see it right away. Some of us don’t see it till we get the chair yanked out from under us by our friends. Some of us want to be part of the “popular crowd” and knowingly play the game anyway, some of us think we are really are part of “a family” and find out that the rules changed unbeknownst to us. When we find out the truth, we try to be reasonable and convince “those in charge” that that musical chairs isn’t the game that we were supposed to play and people are getting hurt. But those in charge don’t care as long as they’re not the ones left sitting in the dust.
We can help by pulling the dusty ones up and putting salve on their knees and showing them that Jesus has many happy circles of children on His playground. We can help by showing others that “musical chairs” isn’t a very wise game to play, in the long run.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
*that’s supposed to be “I agree with Travis”.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Musicman, of course not everyone looks at CJ or their own pastors in this way, but I think it IS fair to say there is an unusual amount of personal devotion to the churches, the pastors, and SGM as a whole. Because of this fruit (evidence) that is being produced it strongly suggests two things:
1) the hearts of the followers have some common denominators
2) the teachings of the leaders have some common denominators
I think we’ve discussed at length (and depth) the teachings..and at times we’ve even ventured into the motives of the leaders - this is done WITHOUT looking at the motives of the followers, which is not good. It’s time to move our focus to the followers and it begins with each of us personally.
discerning spirits is just part of it, we also have to discern what it is in our own hearts. There are three forces at work (I’m not counting the work of the Spirit of course, which is the positive force at work of course)
1) the work of the spiritual forces (spirits)
2) the condition of the hearts and therefore actions of the leaders
3) the condition of the hearts and therefore the reactions of the followers
Until we do examine these three areas with humility, honesty, and in love, we are simply dancing around the problems and fail to get an accurate picture of things.
I am certainly NOT a scientist nor is Science my strong point, but if we were conducting a scientific experiment, the scientific method which uses a progression of logic is helpful. How do we apply that logic to the above “forces” at work in SGM?
simply, the scientific method is this:
characterizations (observations, research)
hypothesis
predictions
experiments to test the hypothesis
conclusions/findings
When a scientific experiment is conducted, one must take into account all variables in order to accurately test the hypothesis. In fact, all variables should be taken into consideration in order to even make your observations in the first place. Otherwise your findings have been compromised.
Sorry for the Science tangent, but it seems to me we haven’t taken all the variables into consideration (because we’ve not examined the hearts of the followers) when conducting our observations, characterizations, hypothesis, predicitons and conclusions…therefore, our findings in all these areas are inaccurate at least in part, and are compromised.
we (myself included) have made all sorts of statements as to why things are the way they are, we’ve guessed, prophesied, discerned, exhorted, rebuked, disagreed, we’ve done all this and yet we have done it apart from all the facts. I don’t know the hearts of the men in leadership, but I can, through the Holy Spirit, discern what it is my own heart, what drew me into SGM and contributed to me staying there three years, and then I can somehow better understand the deceptiveness of sin, and what contributes to the practices we currently see happening in SGM.
As I have done this in my own heart, it has made me be able to understand how my pastor could align himself with SGM 6 years ago after having been independent for 20 years. What would make someone do that? Why did he fall/walk into an authoritarian structure that will ultimately strip him of all control that he so desperately wanted in the first place? I don’t know exactly of course because I don’t know his heart, but at least my observations and consequently my intercession will be more effective because I have taken the time to look at the heart. I’m not judging him, in fact by looking at my own heart first (taking the plank out) I am able to see more clearly the speck (or plank) in my brother’s eye. And it has grown graciousness in me that I didn’t have 4 months ago, and I am able to pray for him with true love for his welfare and soul.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
PK,
Something interesting to throw into the pot: I just heard on the radio that a media person (?) described President-Elect Obama’s following as “cult-like”. Makes me ponder more about what you are saying.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Juli-
I agree with you-it was when I saw my own failings and how I had done many of the same things, that I started to repent, and then pray for my old friends and church. Even though they didn’t “play nice or by the rules” , as Ellie puts it, I was able to understand why they might be so mean.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Travis:
Wrote a big long post, hit submit, and got schooled in the you-shoulda-saved-it-in-Word university, as that comment is now lost in the cyberspace dead zone. I promise I will respond to your post, and everyone here as well, as time permits. promise this isn’t a copout, folks, life happens, and to God be the glory.
I’ll be at my couch late