Barbaric Yawp said:
…And there have been some posts that tell the truth about very real problems with SGM. Some of that has applied to my own church, and I am rejoicing.
But the truth is, much of this site is devoted to the spread of misinformation and partial truths. XXXX’s post was just a nearby example. I am appealing to you as Christians to stop that aspect of what you do.
My intention is not to hurt anybody or falsely accuse anybody. Just to identify wrong behavior. Our pastors didn’t fire our church administrator over budget issues. He stepped down because he was leaning that way anyway and the budget gave him a timely opportunity. My pastors don’t make a lot of money. They don’t teach against saving money for retirement. Our Creative Arts Director doesn’t do marketing. Our pastors don’t pressure people to work without fair compensation. All those things were alleged here, in a public forum open to the eyes of thousands. That’s not right, and I am objecting to that.
Protestant Knight, in the same thread said-
I’m all for continuing this discussion, but I’d like the tone on both sides, frankly, to take it down a notch or two.
Brothers and Sisters,
Please understand the significance of this pivotal time. Sovereign Grace Ministries has never found themselves in this position before. Two very high traffic sites are punching holes in their boat. They are baling water. Some want the ship to sink. Others, like PK and myself, want to see them change course.
Their main defense against the blogs is that our existence is inherently sinful. I obviously disagree. God will judge.
Their secondary defense is that what we say is not true. We are easily discredited by some pastors who can point to factual inaccuracies here, and therefore calm the minds of those who would bring concerns to them, based on what is read here.
I wrote a post which may be factually inaccurate. That is the position of the pastor named in that post. He won’t respond to my direct attempts to communicate with him, and could very easily settle the matter. I’ve been told that he has used my “inaccurate” post to discredit this blog, even though he is fully aware that I want to tell the truth, and that I will correct the inaccuracy (and beg for forgiveness) if he presents proof of the inaccuracy. If he is withholding the documentation needed to present the truth to accomplish his agenda (discredit the blog), he is practicing the art of war, not the law of love.
But I digress…
Barbaric Yawp, I want you here. I have no idea which “side” is right regarding yesterday’s conversation regarding staff changes in Chesapeake, but it is vital that we hear both sides. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, but you are obviously aware of why people familiar with SGM SOP might be skeptical, given their track record.
Here’s my request-
Could we be careful with speculation? Could we be very cognizant of the fact that some within SGM are practicing the art of war and be very careful not to add arrows to their quiver? Could we take the tone down a notch or two?
February 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Hello Barb Yarp,
In the above post you said…”our Pastors” then went on to defend your pastors. I think
what I am understanding is this is not just about “your Pastors” You could not come
(and neither could our local apostle) and defend my X Sovereign Grace Pastor, for the way he
has hurt many families in the church with specifically
1. Harsh and abusive statements
2. Scattering the sheep (Making saints leave the church they love and served when they
dissagree with polity issues)
3. Other leadership that is without integrity and not properly trained to care for the church.
4. Innappropriate use of church finances with no accountability
And so on and so on. I appreciate the words, the lines written here. I think some time it is
to late to try to fix the suffereing that others experienced, and you just write in defence of
Your pastor.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Barbaric Yawp,
I thank you for your posts you have written.
What you had to say about “spread of misinformation and partial truths” that was exactly what I was trying to say but you said it best and went about it better than I did about my local church.
Jim,
Thank you for allowing me to post on your blog.
It is at this time I will stop posting.
There are other things in my life that need more attention at this time than reading and posting here.
Be Bold,
I still have that invitation for a cup of coffee if you will take it.
My wife gave me this and I would like to share it with you.
“For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.”
Galatians 5:13~15
I’m concerned about whether it is God glorifying or divisive and how it looks to those that are not Christians.
Thank you Deb.
Matthew
February 24th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Matthew-
Bye
February 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Thanks for that, Jim (and PK).
One reason I’m not around so much anymore is that I personally tire of the “bald pastor” jabs, the “chauvinist Calvinist” jabs, the seemingly endless mockery of SGM lingo. I mean, I agree (for the most part) with the points made against those things. That’s not my point. My point is that they’re old… tired… clichéd. I’ve got too much going on to spend my time rehashing the same old jokes over and over, y’know?
When there’s something worth talking about… and when I think I have something of substance to contribute (rather than just adding to the noise)… then I jump in and comment. But sometimes it feels like I’m looking for a needle of discussion in a haystack of “idle chatter.”
Anyway, I’ve been wanting to explain why I’m not around more often, and it seemed like this post was the most appropriate place to do that.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Thanks Travis-
Don’t get me started-when I see the word “bald”, I think-oh great, let’s dance around that tree again.
Here’s the question we need to ask-we have SGM’s attention. What will we do with it?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Thank you for speaking to the issue of speculation. I quit posting several weeks ago when a couple of the regulars responded with harsh speculation to one of my posts. I’m not in the “IN” group on this blog but I know many people in many of the churches and I knew that much of what was being said was by people who had never met or even attended the church in question. Some of the comments were not about overall principles but directly at people the posters didn’t know. I hope your bloggers will heed your advice Jim, or the blog can lose credibility and viewers. I think it caused many to stop posting. I have never posted my story ( yes, I have one) and may never. This is due largely to what I have seen when people get going on someone. The comments made towards SS wife were horrific. I’m sure she could and did offend someone as we all do but that just was not right. It hurt my spirit. I know her. She is a sweet person with a sincere heart for God. I love her children, they are awesome in my eyes, always so engaged with me and others. I know many people in these churches and some things are true and some aren’t. Once something is posted it takes on a cloak of truth so we do need to be careful. Is this blog exposing some obvious weaknesses in SGM? Probably yes, but it is mainly God who shows us anything and I know that is what I want to see.
Matthew, if people knew you they would like you. Good scripture from your wife.
Travis, I agree with you on the negative comments about attributes people can’t do anything about and too much idle chatter. Some of this could go to emails between private parties. People be aware: There are A LOT of people reading your posts. Some of you sound more mean than hurt and wounded. Please don’t attack me for this statement but its true. Be nice guys :) Love your neighbor like Matthew says. We never know what someone is going through……
God bless you all today!!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Jim: Good post, and I know I should take my own advice at times.
Travis: Excellent comments. I for one am glad to see you even if it’s to state why you’re not seen much (lol). I especially appreciated you being able to say concisely what would take me three pages. That is, about not being able to see any genuine conversation or debate taking place because of the massive food fight surrounding it.
Reading Posts: “Some of you sound more mean than hurt and wounded.” It’s true. Words can come off as snarls in short order. Without the benefit of audible dialogue, we should take better care of what words we write.
~pk
February 24th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I’m all for a good conversation, I’m all for honest discussion without name calling or hurtful speculation.
Thanks Jim for the reminder…
February 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Matthew, Bye too.
But curiousity will have you lurking around. I just know it. Am I being prophetic here? 
A little residual from SGM, I guess.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
On a good note, there are quite a few posters here who have a loving heart for the Lord, and do not post about “baldness”. These people should be commended for their patience in answering snarky drive-bys who dump garbage and run. These folks are why the blog continues, because they are reasonable, sensible, and don’t sling arrows. They want to see SGM reform. Just thought they were worth the mention.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Travis Seitler said:
“One reason I’m not around so much anymore is that I personally tire of the “bald pastor” jabs”.
Travis,
I’m fairly new to these blogs, and I had sincere questions about the significance of bald heads among SGM pastors. It seemed like a reasonable thing to ask, and I had no idea it has been discussed so many times before on these blogs. Of course, SGM Survivors has only been around since November 2007 and Jim started SGM Refuge in June of 2008, so it can’t have been discussed that many times.
My questions have now been answered, and I don’t plan to revisit that topic. I hope you will post here more often.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
canary-well said.
I left that part out
February 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Jim, Thanks.
I say, Is that Jean Luc Picard in that second picture (AKA Patrick Stewart)????? And is that a putty cat complaing yet again? I thought I’d take care of him. Hee-hee.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
You can post pictures of Patrick Stewart with my approval any time, any occasion.
Even if he plays CJ in some B movie someday (although I prefer to imagine Jason Alaxendar, but, there I go again, mmeeeeooooowwwww.
=/\=
February 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
DB,.
Guffaw! You’re being a baaaaad putty tat. Do I need to send you to your cage? (Though I must admit I prefer Patrick Stewart to Jason Alexander!). Oh dear, we are talking about bald men. Oops…see, now you got ME into trouble!
February 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I just want to add here that when I was first coming out of my dozen-years experience with SGM and the scales were falling, I was so grateful to have the perspective of how ‘NOT normal’ the SGM oddities were. I had no idea what christianity outside SGM was about, so learning that certain catchprases, leadership similarities and cult-ure things were really weird, was good for me.
Since I would never have time to go back through posts and comments that covered almost a year, I was glad that we were circling wagons again and again on certain topics.
Now I know so much more than I did before and I feel that I am better equipped to be a normal christian. I don’t want some new friend to look at me with a puzzled look when I say something that isn’t normal.
I also think that people come and go. When I first left SGM and found these blogs, I spent hours and hours pouring over them. I felt like I was coming off another planet and coming to a “normal” planet and I wanted ot learn. I also read so many comments and posts that described things I’d seen or experienced…all the way accross the country in a different decade! It was amazing.
But, now that I’m much further out of that “season” (is that a normal word? lol), I don’t need to spend so many hours. I do check back in from time to time to see what’s going on, but I am so grateful that I’ve had the time and the venue to detox.
Travis, I understand and agree with you. I think you carry far more clout than Yawp because 1. he has not left SGM, so the scales have not fallen and 2. you are way further along in your blog attendance than he is. While I do agree with you to a degree, please allow for the newbies who have a lot of detox to have that opportunity.
Now, right…the jabs…calling CJ “ceege” and other stuff…might lose credibility. But, let’s remember that these blogs can be a wonderful place of refuge and healing.
What’s it
February 24th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
What’s it All About,
Good points. There are newbies coming on who need to go through what some us oldies have. I guess it is good to say this: we can be courteous, even with a little anger and sarcasm involved. If someone needs to tone down, someone else can come on and lighten the mood. I do also agree that info that we share should be accurate, not just assumption. Just the facts.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Yippee!
Just the facts.
Where was Steve Shank when all the Pastors at Matthew G’s SGM Gilbert Church was having a Family Meeting? And the the Pastors were talking about pay cuts.
What is Shank’s involvement with his local church? Does that look like a pay cut for him too? Why is the Gilbert church not able to bring on other Pastors when they are sending out TWO? What is a pay cut for a Pastor look like on paper?
Who is able to see the accounting when these kind of issues are discussed?
Help the people of the church understand the short fall.
Well shucks, my church prints the incoming funds in the bulletin for the prior weeks. Why not have a hand out of the accounting for the new year of SGM Gilbert church, when you gather your bros and sisters together in a “Family Meeting” ?
I’m hearing that Twilght Zone music again. Doesn’t the Pastor ask about your “family budget” when you get together for a meeting about your pay cut?
What am I missing here? If you are asked to be accountable, then, by golly, why aren’t the Pastors forthcoming as the “example” they say they is!
Like my Pop used to say: It takes two to Tango! and: Don’t talk out of 2 sides of your mouth.
I’m sayin’ to my buddy, run now! Don’t look back!
February 24th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Good points about the listing the incoming funds in the weekly bulletin, Cowboy- most protestant churches do that. It is not surprising that Gilbert is suffering in this current economy. California, Florida and Phoenix are the cities hardest hit. When I see recpts are down I always make a check…… is my tithe up to date……but cha gotta see the bottom line.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I can understand the bald jokes going to far, I do think it is fair to question why are the PC grads shaving their heads like CJ.
Jim – When I opened the page, I wondered if it was Captain Picard or CJ. When I was still part of SGM, I used to say that CJ looked like Capt Picard.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Hi Folks:
While most of you get my attempts at humor, I thought I would settle an issue so as not to cause others to sin:
The picture I used -as many have pointed out so far- is of Patrick Stewart (he’s the one on the right, btw). There was no intention on my part of assigning any likeness to CJ; Stewart just had a grimace that struck me funny as it sort of matched the grimace on the sleeping cat.
Jim can tell you of my penchant for wanting to add a graphic to blog posts here at the ‘fuge.
There is absolutely no character assassination or personal mockery involved in these meager graphic offerings. Please keep in mind my intention was to give a visual to what Travis Seitler was describing at the 12:10pm entry on 02/24/09 above. I think many times when we get caught up in the foolery of bald heads and never being able to use the phrase “making an observation” ever again as it has been cast into English’s Outer Limits of the SGM lexicon (and I am as guilty as anyone else of participating in this), I think I come off looking either like Stewart or the cat.
Just an observation.
~pk
February 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Thanks for taking credit for the graphic, PK.
I didn’t want the credit
February 25th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Let’s try this again.
To quote myself:
“I agree (for the most part) with the points made against those things. That’s not my point. My point is that they’re old… tired… clichéd. I’ve got too much going on to spend my time rehashing the same old jokes over and over, y’know?”
Yes, it’s fair to question such things. I’m talking about when “regulars” around here (and over at SGM Survivors) turn those fair questions into recurring gags that derail (or at least distract from) entire conversations. If it bugs me, then I’m pretty sure it’ll prove to be a stumbling block for anyone still in the system who comes over and reads the stuff.
In other words, that sort of behavior is only good for when you’re preaching to the converted (like on a political talk radio program). But it’s rarely a good idea to mock those you’re evangelizing.
If this blog and SGM Survivors only exist as “cities of refuge” for those who have already made either an ideological or physical split from SGM (which they may very well, and there’s nothing wrong with that), then okay.
But given that these blogs now have the attention of those still gripped by SGM—and given that Jim & Carole and Kris & Guy aren’t discouraging those SGMers from visiting and reading—it would seem that the time has come to “take it down a notch” and (at the very least) try to relegate the chatter about PC baldies to a comment thread where such discussion is relevant.
Speaking of being careful with speculation, I just went back and corrected a statement I made which, while it may be correct in general, was not true in my personal experience with SGM. Since I had given the impression that I “knew for a fact” that such-and-such was going on, I felt the need to issue a retraction. So… point taken, Jim.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I guess the point, still, is that even if a subject has been discussed by the regulars a hundred times, the lurking readers will likely only read the most recent discussion of that subject. So for them, the repetition is NOT actually repetitious.
And what’s interesting, too, is that SGM as an organization has taken a strong position against its people reading “those blogs.” So officially, our sgmsurvivors site IS intended for “SGM survivors” only, and NOT those currently in SGM.
That’s how I look at it, anyway. I’ve said from the beginning that I have no interest in leading people away from SGM or discouraging them from continuing – IF they’re completely at peace there and IF they’ve never seen any of the problems discussed on the blog. If these folks are offended by what we present on the site – well, relief is just a click away. And what are they doing there anyway? The very system they supposedly find to be the “dearest place on earth” has clearly commanded them to stay away. They need to submit to their leaders with joy and quit reading!
February 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
That’s helpful Kris, and illustrates the fundamental reason there are two blogs. Comments are comments, and people can feel free to talk about their favorite pet if they like.
I launched this site to speak to SGM. I feel that I’ve done a better job at yelling ( I don’t want to be a whisperer-that’s gossip) at SGM than I have at creating a refuge, as the overwhelming majority of the ministry provided to “refugees” happens offline.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I probably should have named this site “The SGM Chronicles”.
Or maybe “Jim’s Big Mouth”…
The main reason for my post was to discourage speculation which could be misconstrued as factual statements, therefore giving SGM cause to discredit “the blogs” as hate sites filled with misinformation.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I think, too, what needs to be acknowledged is that there is a very real, and very necessary process that people go through after coming out of a very real, and very controlling environment that they were told to absolutely trust and submit themselves to. All kinds of mixed emotions are expressed, anywhere from anger and sarcasm to joy and appreciation of truth and freedom. Sometimes those in process, including myself, are going to look and sound a bit silly as we wrestle with the issues, and work through the process.
For some, it’s very similar to grief.
Anyone who has ever lost something, or gone through a break up, knows the stages of grief. Some people were more attached to an organization like SGM, and for various reasons were hurt more than others. To provide a place where those wide range of feelings can be accepted and discussed is a huge big deal for a lot of folks. I am so grateful for the work that both Jim and Carole, Guy and Kris are doing to provide many hurting, disillusioned, disenfranchised believers with a place to work it out.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Jim,
I also think that you and Carole take more flak here because recently you’ve dealt more with specific churches and specific allegations.
Given SGM’s culture, the accusations of “gossip” and “slander” and “speculation” are never going to go away completely. But I do understand and appreciate your reminder to avoid such.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
claireon-good point.
Carole helped me remember last night how helpful survivors was to us during our detox.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Jim
February 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
That’s helpful Kris, and illustrates the fundamental reason there are two blogs. Comments are comments, and people can feel free to talk about their favorite pet if they like.I launched this site to speak to SGM.
Me: I’ve worked through my past pain and bitterness and I’m at this blog because I think it is helpful to offer input FOR change . I’m hoping those still at SGM can SEE how people are SEEING them and make some appropriate changes or at least seek God on these issues.
Travis Seitler
February 25th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Let’s try this again. To quote myself:
. My point is that they’re old… tired…clichéd. I’ve got too much going on to spend my time rehashing the same old jokes over and over, y’know?”
Yes, it’s fair to question such things. I’m talking about when “regulars” around here (and over at SGM Survivors) turn those fair questions into recurring gags that derail (or at least distract from) entire conversations. If it bugs me, then I’m pretty sure it’ll prove to be a stumbling block for anyone still in the system who comes over and reads the stuff.
In other words, that sort of behavior is only good for when you’re preaching to the converted (like on a political talk radio program). But it’s rarely a good idea to mock those you’re evangelizing.
Me: I agree with you Travis. It bugs me. I can understand and overlook a lot of this but mocking and repetition won’t bring changes if that is what the wounded really want to do. Change is the only thing that will stop the same thing happening to more people. ISN”T THAT WHAT THIS BLOG IS ABOUT?? (besides giving compassion and reassurance to those coming out of bad situations of shunning and not being heard?). Maybe repetitious venting might be best done with a close friend and not online. Some of us have had to get counselors.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Kris,
I can’t speak for any other churches, but our pastors have never, to my knowledge, told anyone not to read the blogs. They are aware that I read this one (at least two of them do) and they have not said a word. One even asked me to keep him posted on anything interesting I read here.
The only time they came up at all was indirectly via the article handed out by Gene at our last family meeting. Even then, visiting the blogs was not discouraged. Nor were they mentioned.
Just wondering what other churches are doing to “clearly command them to stay away?”In my 20 years at this church, I can’t recall ever being “commanded” to do or not do anything.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Travis and Jim,
Thank you for your humble retractions.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Barb-
Thank you for bringing this to the forefront. No matter what SGM thinks of me, I have no interest is spreading false information.
I could start another argument with you about sgm’s leaders response to this blog, but I’ll refrain. I know exactly what they are doing. The article is their current primary tool, and it’s distribution is clearly a response to the blogs.
This is not speculation.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Cowboy,
I don’t know which pastors you are referring to, but here a few facts regarding SGC Chesapeake:
We are presented with a detailed financial statement every year at a family meeting.
All budget decisions are run past a three-member financial review team consisting of three laymen (a CPA, an attorney, and a CEO). A recent conversation with one of them confirmed what I had heard for years–that their recommndations are never disregarded.
I have on two occasions asked a pastor about his salary and was told the exact number without hesitation. If I had a question about salaries and pay cuts, I could call our church administrator right now and he’d give me the answer.
In my 20 years here, our church has always practiced full disclosure of financial issues.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Jim,
As long as what you are presenting is verifiable information, I don’t see how it would induce an argument. If you are talking about conjecture regarding SGM’s strategies, then I agree. Let’s not go there.
I am curious about the article and its distribution. Other than handing it out at our family meeting, how is it being distributed more widely among SGM churches?
Oh, and just a preference, but I prefer my pseudonym shortened to Yawp (or BY if you prefer). Barb just seems a little too feminine!
February 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I want to add that I wish more people were willing to come forward and share their stories without feeling at all critical towards the people who post on the blog. SGM, with all their sin sniffing and assumption of spiritual superiority, causes people to read here through rose colored pro-SGM glasses. Many of them are probably sceptical of blogs in general, that is, unless they are CJ’s views from the cheapseats, or the girltalk blog – where, btw, there’s no conversation allowed. You can’t even say boo.
But here, for all it’s worth, people can comment. People can talk. SGM tells people that talking is bad. Talking is wrong. Unless you have something glowing to say about SGM, keep your criticisms private or take it to the leadership. Well, a lot of stories here are written by people who did just that….took it to the leadership and guess what happened? So, the message is, it’s a sin to speak out against SGM, even when you follow their guidelines, it’s still wrong to think they’re wrong. THEY create this problem by forming the impression that they can do no wrong. Blogs such as these are a natural development of an authoritarian organization like SGM. They put people in the position of speaking out against them in venues such as these because they won’t listen to or deal with criticism. So this is for people who can compare their experiences and guess what? Enough of the stories point to the reality that something is really wrong with SGM. We’re not wrong, they are. They need to change, we don’t.
Now that’s not to say that people aren’t going to misspeak and say things they might later regret. But what I hope to see is more people coming forward with a willingness to look past the mixture and share their experiences which speak to the heart of the issues here – that is SGM is off track. We know it and for many of you reading who feel afraid to speak up and talk about your experience, and who might think people here are windbags, I think you should get over it and start talking. Don’t be afraid. I think it will do you and others a lot of good.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
BY (sorry about “barb”)-
I’d refer you to this post.
Can I verify it? Yes. Will I? No. I have people to protect.
The pastors who received the email know exactly what I’m talking about.
You can verify this yourself by calling any Sr Pastor in a far away region.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Yawp (because I love how it sounds) – Do you know how the 3 members of the Financial Review Team were picked? Who picked them? What kind of recommendations do they make? Thanks.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
PK,
I like the visuals. I knew immediately that it was P. Stewart. And the kitty, well, you know how I feel about them cats. So, it was a good laugh to see the pictures – didn’t see any reference to CJ or any insult. I just saw the humor. And let’s face it – we all need to keep our sense of humor fresh during these times. Laughter is good medicine!
Glad you’re back.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I am so grateful for the work that both Jim and Carole, Guy and Kris are doing to provide many hurting, disillusioned, disenfranchised believers with a place to work it out. Clarieon said – me too!
But I will say I understand the confusion, disagreement, whatever that current SGMers have with this healing happening for all the world to see- when you walk through the process of grief publicly (and yes, I agree, it IS a grieving process and involves all the steps) is looks vastly different than walking through this privately, which is typically how any grief is handled.
unfortunately, due to the NATURE of this grief we have experienced in varying degrees, we do not have the option to walk through the process privately – many people who have left SGM have no where to turn, no one to talk to..so that is why the blogs are critical. Is it ideal? Of course not. But many (I’d say the vast majority) attempted to work through these problems with real people, face to face, had numerous personal meetings, phone calls, etc..to no avail.
What is interesting is that many feel the need to have such personal conversations with pastors is diminishing as a result of the blogs – let’s face it – after you’ve read for the hundreth time that the pastors rarely listen, end up cndeming YOU, who would want to meet with them? So many slip out of their churches quietly, via the backdoor, and are forced to deal with things alone, apart from the other party involved, and this is extremely difficult to do. Healing is absolutely proven to excel under the ability to SHARE your feelings, right or wrong, but the ability to just talk it through. We need to stop allowing others to say that talking about how we FEEL is somehow wrong or ungodly. We would have talked about these things privately, and many tried, but it failed. The other parties would often turn the tables on us and instead of it being a meeting half-way it was an attack on the one hurt and a self-justification by the one approached. Not very beneficial to moving on or making peace, is it?
Now, if SGM offered a forum where these griefs, hurts, and concerns could be addressed – none of us would be here. That is a fundamental problem that I am hoping the leaders in SGM would address – the problems and hurts aren’t going away – and a few things need to be done by leaders in SGM:
1) acknowledge the fact that at least SOME (of course not all) who attended SGM churches across the country have indeed been hurt by their experiences in SGM
2) once they have accepted the fact as true, even if they disagree with HOW it happened, they don’t back track and try to make these hurting people feel like everything really was imagined or wrong..that is just plain insensitive and wrong – and is the self-justification by the leader that I spoke of.
3) once they have accepted the fact that people have been hurt, and aren’t trying to change their minds about it being true and not trying to justify themselves, they make the efforts to sit down – with a heart to UNDERSTAND them, sympathize with them, repent (change their minds) when and if necessary. Vague apologies and “I’m sorrys” aren’t repentance. But that is another post.
4) once both parties have had the opportunity to talk personally, then make whatever adjustments need to be made to ensure this won’t happen again in the future, or at least is minimized.
Unfortunately, this is not happening because SGM breaks down at point one..some move to point two..but I have yet to see a single leader (or hear of one) get to step 3. We can’t expect step 4 (reform) to happen when the others are not happening first…
I would think the blogs, and all their faults, would encourage the process – yet because of the inherent flaws in the system (i.e. those hurt being further hurt when they approach leadership with concerns) these blogs have sprung up and will remain, because people NEED to be healed and they will (hopefully) find at least the beginnings of it here.
excellent discussion everyone – good thoughts, and I’m encouraged!
February 25th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Wonder Red,
No, I don’t know how they were picked, I assume they were selected by the pastors. I know why they were picked though–they are three godly, mature men with successful careers and who know how to handle large budgets.
My understanding is that they review the budget quarterly (I can verify that) and make whatever recommendations they feel are necessary.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I just think that it’s interesting that SGM pastors are picked by other SGM pastors, and then those pastors pick the guys who approve their budget. The church body has absolutely no say in how their tithe money is spent or who decides how to spend it. I’m sure all concerned are upstanding individuals. It’s admirable that the church finances are audited. But that just ensures that basically there are receipts for everything that was spent. Not HOW it was spent.
My point is that I’m sure the Committee recommends that there is adequate money in say the fund that pays for the church building’s electricity, but will the guys really challenge the pastors on how much money is set aside for staff salaries, gifts and gift bags and honoraria, business lunches/dinners, retreats, Christmas parties, perhaps a coffee bar in the church lobby, or would they even challenge them on using the money set aside for Church Missions really going to pay off the mortgage?
I recently visited a church where they were considering reconstructing a large portion of the building. A committee (that was elected by the church members) presented a plan to the members to consider for how to go about. There was open discussion at a church meeting. Then they voted on whether or not to proceed, and even voted on whether or not to use money from a church trust fund (diminished from the recent happenings) or to leave it be and take out a loan instead. Wow. That was a thrill to see! Wonderful!
I just don’t get why such big decisions and such large amounts of tithe money are handled by a very few handpicked people (pastors and review committees) in SGM churches. Why do they need to maintain such tight control over these sorts of things?
February 25th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
BY-
Do you think their actions, along with Gene’s and Keith’s, on December 20 were godly and mature?
I think they were reprehensible.
The art of war…
February 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“Barbaric Yawp said:
February 25th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Cowboy,
I don’t know which pastors you are referring to, but here a few facts regarding SGC Chesapeake:
We are presented with a detailed financial statement every year at a family meeting.
All budget decisions are run past a three-member financial review team consisting of three laymen (a CPA, an attorney, and a CEO). A recent conversation with one of them confirmed what I had heard for years–that their recommndations are never disregarded.
I have on two occasions asked a pastor about his salary and was told the exact number without hesitation. If I had a question about salaries and pay cuts, I could call our church administrator right now and he’d give me the answer.
In my 20 years here, our church has always practiced full disclosure of financial issues.”
Don’t mean to cause trouble here, but I would have to question part of this Brother, specifically the openness that you speak of. Never once in all my years at SGC Chesapeake did I see a pastor’s salary published or hear talk of the the actual individual salaries. The salaries were published as a lump sum. Why weren’t they published individually and why would you have to call the church office to find out the specific salaries? Now, your statement about the financial review team -the three laymen: are you telling us that they approved $20,000 for the 20th anniversary celebration in 2007 when the church’s budget was in the red by over $1/4 million and only $1,050 for benevolance that same year?
February 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Yawp - I think ”Yawp” is a fun word to say, too. It’s almost as fun as saying “spatula”, don’t you think? Anyway…
You said: “We are presented with a detailed financial statement every year at a family meeting.” (My emphasis)
In all the years my family was in your church, unless you were given a different financial statement than we were, it was never ‘detailed’ in the sense of giving specific info on what each of your pastors makes per year. It is given as the WHOLE amount that is spent for ALL of the employees of SGCC combined. (Otherwise, as you stated, you wouldn’t have had to ask a pastor on two separate occasions about his salary, since you and everyone else would have known those figures.)
Regarding the Financial Review Team, you said: “No, I don’t know how they were picked, I assume they were selected by the pastors. I know why they were picked though–they are three godly, mature men with successful careers and who know how to handle large budgets.”
Just a reminder to folks reading here, let’s not forget that these are the three men who jumped the gun and sent out the letter to the church regarding the 3 families in Esther’s situation.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
yes-what about their email concerning Esther and the 3couples?
February 25th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Misled,
Thanks for the clarity and discernment. You are right on point. “Godly and mature” depends on what side of the arguement one might be on, I guess. Often the “godly and mature” translates into those who are on my side and agree with what I deam to be true.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
BY, One more question: If any ole Joe called up and asked for specific salaries, would they be given the info or were you given the specifics because of your previous position (if you are who I think you are. Sorry if I am presuming wrongly here.)?
February 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Fred – Good point. I wondered the same thing.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Gratefully – You said: “Often the “godly and mature” translates into those who are on my side and agree with what I deam to be true.”
We definitely found that to be true in our decade in SGland…
February 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Misled said-
Just a reminder to folks reading here, let’s not forget that these are the three men who jumped the gun and sent out the letter to the church regarding the 3 families in Esther’s situation.
This is what I was referring to in my 4:22. I don’t think they jumped the gun-I think they threw the first punch in a very well timed 1-2-3 combo.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
In my old SGM church as well the salaries were all lumped together in the financial report that listed broad categories. The church I joined after I left was a reformed church. As a member, I received a handout that listed very specifically the pastor’s salary, book allowance, continuous study allowance, travel allowance, medical plan cost, medical allotment, retirement account contributions, etc. In short – the exact total the church paid him for every single thing that year. It was mind blowing! I couldn’t believe the transparency. I was floored by it.
The church was located in an upper-middle class area, similar to that of my old SGM church. But the pastor was paid a very average amount for all his years and years of experience and scholarliness (he wrote actual real theological books in addition to his pastoral duties), most of his neighbors probably made more than him; he did not live in a big house, had old oak particle board furniture and some folding chairs in his office for extra seating, and a big monitor computer that sat on his desk (no fancy flat screen, no lap top). He wore the same jacket and shoes each week and when he wasn’t leading the service, sat in the last row in the back with his wife. Such a very different environment.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Wonder Red,
Sounds like transparency and humility. How refreshing!! I, for one, didn’t see that in my SGland.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Grate Dis – to clarify – that was not in an SGM church…
February 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Sorry – I just realized – is that rude of me to call you Grate Dis? Please excuse me.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
For the record – since we’re talking about financial accountability and representation – I’ll add my own two cents regarding my former church for what it is worth.
One of the many changes made post-SGM was the unavailability of the financial statements. I must add here that I never ASKED for it after we were adopted in 2007, but when I joined the church in 2005, the statements were printed out and laid out for anyone and everyone to pick up in the lobby. This included an exact salary of the pastor himself – which, at that time, was a fair and reasonable salary for this area, and given his 25 years pastroal experience.
However, these financial papers disappeared without comment (that I heard anyway, and I was plugged in to everything I could be – as a single woman, anyway) I simply don’t know what would have happened if I had asked how much money was being given to SGM each month before and after the adoption. My guess would be thatit owuld not have been well received and I would have been seen as nosy, or looking for trouble, etc..just my opinion. I do remember hearing annunced from the pulpit that all tithes for that one mission Sunday in October would go to SGM exclusively, they made that clear. This past year, the mission emphasis lasted four Sundays and not just one..I don’t know if the tithes were all given for the entire month or not, or just one Sunday as before.
Also, I hope that Matthew and Mr. Barbaric return to this conversation, as I think the tone has definately come down a bit, and we are having a rational, godly discussion on finances…and yet, no response from the ones who were wanting this type of discussion in the first place…I find that, um, informative and revealing..
I know you have other commitments guys, but when you get a chance, please respond to the questions here – we’re waiting to hear your input! Some good and solid information and reasonable questions have been placed, and you should respond, since this is at your initial request..
February 25th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
that offer to give some input to this discussion would include Stein as well, if you’re still out there
February 25th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Wonder Red,
Regarding your 4:06. My understanding is that they look at everything, including salaries, meal allowances, honoraria, etc. I’ll retract if I’m wrong. They are free to “challenge” anything they want.
It’s pretty well understood that our church is governed by pastor/elders. An oligarchy, if you will. That’s our church polity and always has been. They don’t claim it’s the only biblically viable option, but it’s the one we’ve lived by. There are positves and negatives to it for sure, but that goes for any other system of government. Folks here seem to prefer some kind of Presbyterian or Congregational system–fine. I like what we have. And there’s no way to defend why I like it without entering into a lengthy disussion of the men who lead our church and their decisions over the years.
Anyway, that’s the obvious reason why they “maintain such tight control.” I wouldn’t put it that way, of course. It’s their responsibility. I have very few objections to their decisions over the years.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Fred,
There’s no way I can adequately defend myself on this blog. I’m always going solo against a ten-man tag team. Since you and Misled have me figured out, would you please call me to talk about this stuff? I’ll spring for the cup of coffee. Or you can e-mail me at barbaricyawp43-at-gmail.com.
But, yes, of course they approved the money for the 20th Anniversary. But it was approved the previous year, before the shortfall. By the time they realized the extend of the shortfall, plans were already underway. They all decided it was worth it to take a loss that year. Much of the revenue loss was due to rescheduling the building fund drive too. I played a role in the 20th Anniversary planning and was aware of some of this. I’m glad we did it the way we did. The benevolence fund, in my opinion, is far less of a problem than that number makes it seem. We’d need to talk about it though. I don’t have time to explain it all here, and I definitely don’t have time to fend off the dozen new critiques this post will spawn.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Barbaric, why do you feel the need to defend yourself? Why do you feel people are personally attacking you?
Perhaps it is just your perspective..you know, kind of like how people here feel from their perspectives, like SGM hurt them..it’s simply our perspective.
But, since I have recently said that part of the problem is trying to talk someone OUT of feelingthe way they are..it doesn’t bring peace…I won’t argue with you that your perspective is wrong, just like ours isn’t..but if you honestly feel attacked here, then let’s talk about it. I doubt that is anyone’s intent, and if it is, then we need to continue to take it down a notch..
I apologize for my own words that have in the past seemed like an attack on your personally. I am truly sorry if you felt that way – honestly. Because there are good questions to be asked and discussed here, and lots of potentially wonderful fruit…I certainly don’t want to hinder that by causing my brother to feel like you have said you do.
So I’m in new territory -
what exactly is said that makes you personally feel attacked? Are they comments specifically addressed to you, your character, etc..or are they words addressed to/about people you know and love, or just SGM in general? What is it exactly that makes you feel the way you do?
btw, thanks for popping back on…
February 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
ugh, stuck in moderation, again…I hope you aren’t “attacked” again Barbaric before you have a chance to respond to my questions! If so…give us some grace, and let’s all work on this together, OK?
February 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Jim,
Re: your 5:16 post. Your wrong. It was anything but a well-timed, orchestrated thing. It was a snap decision made in an effort to protect the church (oh boy, here we go).
So much for avoiding speculation.
For the record, I don’t question the motives of Jim or the regular posters on this site. I believe you are doing some good things, and that the things you do that are wrong are typically done with good intentions and a sense of justification. I believe that is a godly way to treat one another. It’s also what I’m asking for from you as it relates to folks in my church. We may disagree about the wisdom of how the situation with the three couples was handled (on some things we would certainly agree); where we part ways is that I believe my pastors are flawed but sincere and godly men who err. You, who do not know them, believe that every word and deed is evidence of their essential malevolence.
I understand you and most of those here have been burned in some way. Again, so have I. I just don’t see how we can ever justify the kind of perpetual cycnicism I see here. Not a flame, not an attack. Just another appeal.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Gotta run, Juli, but I’ll get to your questions some time soon.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Wonder Red
No problem. Yes, I knew that wasn’t in a SGM “church.” Grace to you
February 25th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Sorry about the moderated comments… :-/
I don’t know why Wordpress does that…
February 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
BY – A couple things to address, Jim has already address the article floated around but I am throwing in my 2 cents. The article is SGM’s first punch back at the blogs and it is right inline with the SGM MO on control – they use a passive/agressive approach at first to get people to comply. It’s through comments made by the pastors and cgl’s, it’s by comments made during the “sunday teaching”, things like “bloggers are people who live at home and blog in their underwear in their mother’s basements” or the pimple faced blogger remarks – a way to attack the credibility of the blogger with out attacking the blog. Read the article, it’s all a way to discredit the blogs without attacking the blogs directly (passive-agressive). If that doesn’t work, SGM’s tactics turn more agressive (read the stories on this site and sgmsurvivors.com).
A link to a great article about abusive churchs was posted on survivors:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/pr.....se-ch.html
You should read it – so many similarities between sgm and abusive churches.
On the “godly and mature” men on the financial review team, first read Jim’s comments (they threw the first punch at Esther). Thank you for sharing the truth that they are chosen by the pastors. It is not much different that a CEO/Chairman of the board (someone who does both) picking the members of the board who will let him do what he wants. Those boards never go against what the CEO/COTB wants. We’ve all seen the financial statements – they look nothing like a true disclosure. See Wonder Red’s post about true church disclosure.
As far as asking a pastor their salary, what do you think their answer would be if Esther asked? As several posters have mentioned (and think they know you are), if you are that person, the answers to you would make sense. And if you are that person, then you are a smart person. Take a good, hard, solid, critical look at what SGM does. Look at who people have been treated and handled. Think about it long and hard.
And, please keep coming, discussion is a good thing. The truth is a good thing, but, bs will be called out.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
In my new church, the finances are reviewed and graded by an independant, outside christian financial review organization.
I’d say that one of or the most qualified way to set up your finances is outside of your organization.
The 3 person group that SGC uses is made up of men who trust their pastors and who is unlikely to question their decisions. For example, if they love and honor and revere their leaders, they will never tell them it’s not wise to spend 20 grand on the party. They’d say ‘we need to celebrate! this is a time worthy of celebration and let’s celebrate big! We have lots of money today! Let’s spend it!’
Outside, independant, objective overseers might say ‘Churches have more than one thousand dollars for benevolence because churches, help people. That party is not reaching the lost, it is not helping the orphans and widows, it is not helping that mother of 5 whose husband is in prison.’ They would have an idea of what normal christianity looks like and they’d be able to give objective oversight.
But, alas, SGM does not trust anyone outside their company. They do not need parachurch. They are fully, wholly capable of sustaining in a vacuum and nobody else can offer anything good that they don’t already have inside.
So, I guess as long as the company is run like this, they will be floundering at every turn and every crisis to figure out their next move. That’s how SGM operates. That’s how they’ve always operated in every situation I’ve observed.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Much has been said about the 3 “Financial Men of Renown” down in Chesapeake, VA. They have been described as “three godly, mature men with successful careers and who know how to handle large budgets”. It has also been pointed out that “they approved the money for the 20th Anniversary” and that their letter condeming the three couples who brought issues to the pastors was based on ”a snap decision made in an effort to protect the church”………..that letter can be seen at ://sgmrefuge.com/2009/01/17/sovereign-grace-church-of-chesapeake/ for those that care to see what they actually said.
Time for a quiz…………..
Based on the above, the three “Financial Men of Renown”
A) put the Chesapeake church in a weak financial position
B) were unwise in their planning by not scaling back the 20th Anniversary party
C) attacked the three couples who brought issues to the pastors even though it wasn’t their place to do so
D) misinterpreted Scripture ITi 5:19-21
E) may have contributed to the current cutback on staff and hours at SGCC
F) all of the above
Did you answer F ?………….go to the head of the class.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
so, the Quizzler finally gave us a quiz!
I always hated quizzes, but I passed that one!
February 25th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
So much for toning it down.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
B-Yawp,
I really respect you for being here. I think you might have misjudged my motives and even my view of the leadership at SGCC, but I tend to drip with cynicism, so I understand.
I can’t buy the “snap decision” argument, but I think to continue to dance around that tree would be about as much fun as arguing with an arminian. Life’s too short.
You’ve been very patient in a difficult situation-I’m grateful it’s only 10 on one.
For what it’s worth, I want to thank you for your contribution here. I’d welcome you to endeavor to “keep us honest” even if it’s by private email. You would be one of many current sgm members who tell me when I sound like I’ve lost my mind
I honestly welcome the input. You can call me or send me a note any time.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Howdy –
I am feeling much peace by your discussion on financial accountability. Good stuff!
I hope I don’t step on anyone’s toes here… I want to ask (again) about Shank? Where is this dude on the night of a “Family Meeting”?
February 26th, 2009 at 6:59 am
With all the discussion about the 3 Financial dudes, it should be made clear that Keith Breault instigated the pre-emptive email from these 3 guys (after the secret invite-only meeting on Dec 20) that touched off the SGC Ches powder keg and let quite a few people in the church that something was amiss.
If Keith persuaded these 3 men to do this, how do we know they were nothing more than yes-men when it came to the finances also? Think about it: an attorney, an accountant, and a CEO letting the church budget get $200,000 in the red? “That dog don’t hunt…”
And before it is even brought up, I’m not questioning the integrity of these men, just their exhuberance in their desire to please the pastoral staff.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Barbaric Yawp,
On Feb 25 at 7:10pm you said:
“It’s pretty well understood that our church is governed by pastor/elders. An oligarchy, if you will. That’s our church polity and always has been. They don’t claim it’s the only biblically viable option, but it’s the one we’ve lived by. There are positves and negatives to it for sure, but that goes for any other system of government. ”
I’m not trying to be difficult here, but would you kindly tell us who the Elders are who help govern the church? I am under the assumption that only five men govern the church…KB, TH, BC, CH, and KA with KB having about 99% of the say. Would you agree or disagree? Do you think the CGL’s are the Elders? I’m just curious.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Live Wire,
I believe the Financial Review Team offered to write the letter because they felt strongly about it. In other words, it was not initiated by the pastors. I can double check on that and offer a retraction if I am wrong. We are beating a dead horse here because you believe there is something wrong with them sending that letter. I can think of a couple ways it could have been done better, but given the circumstances, I don’t blame them. Now, all that sounds crazy to you because we have a fundamentally different understanding of the events that led up to it. If you’d like to have a reasonable conversation about it, let’s get together to do that. This is a bad venue for it. My e-mail is barbaricyawp43-at-gmail.com.
And, seriously, you can’t call them yes-men in one paragraph and then claim to not be questioning their integrity in the next.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Live Wire,
I know you’re not being difficult. It’s a good question. I assumed it had been discussed here before. SGM sees the role of pastor and elder as two names for the same position. They don’t see elder as a role distinct from pastor. And they are not the only church organization who sees it that way.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Barbaric Yawp said:
February 26th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Live Wire,
I believe the Financial Review Team offered to write the letter because they felt strongly about it. In other words, it was not initiated by the pastors. I can double check on that and offer a retraction if I am wrong. We are beating a dead horse here because you believe there is something wrong with them sending that letter. I can think of a couple ways it could have been done better, but given the circumstances, I don’t blame them. Now, all that sounds crazy to you because we have a fundamentally different understanding of the events that led up to it. If you’d like to have a reasonable conversation about it, let’s get together to do that. This is a bad venue for it. My e-mail is barbaricyawp43-at-gmail.com.
And, seriously, you can’t call them yes-men in one paragraph and then claim to not be questioning their integrity in the next.
BY, I believe that you are a man of the Word and yet you seem to agree with the Financial Review Team, (FRT), writing and sending their letter to the whole church. You must know that they had not been to the “3 couples” in accordance with Matthew 18 prior to sending out their letter. It’s my understanding that they had not dialogued with the “3 couples” in any way prior to sending it out except at the meeting of Dec. 16. How did this action demonstrate godly and mature behavior on their part? How can you justify and agree with this? Please answer the question. You may know something that others don’t which would help us understand what actually happened.
Thanks BY. I too am thankful that you are on here and respect you for coming on. Maybe you should have called yourself Braveheart.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:49 am
BY–
Dittos from me about feeling so grateful you are continuing on here despite the ratios. I sincerely wish more SMGers like you would engage rationally and honestly like you do. You face not only a sea of disagreement here, but, and of a more volatile nature, a sea of emotion: hurt, anger, confusion, loss. I have been considering my own tone here, and realize I am often flippant and arrogant. Forgive me for that.
I would love examples from you of other mainline evangelical/reformed churches that use the SGM style of polity.
We’ll need to define our terms, I suppose:
–Central control (CLC)–Apostolic team
–Apostolic team assigns its own members to give apostolic oversight/authority over a specific geographic area
–Apostolic team chooses/moves/promotes/demotes/fires pastors
without input from individual church congregants through a voting process.
–Pastors choose and send pastoral candidates to PC
–Churches are led by pastors only, (assigned by the central office) not by godly men chosen to be elders by the congregants themselves through a voting process.
–Congregants have no involvement in the administration of the church, given the fact that they have no representation via session or board.
So, thanks for the examples–you can leave out the Catholic Church, they are obvious, but I have often wondered about any other reformed/evangelical church that follows the Catholic model.
Peace to you, my brother!
February 26th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Jim, I’m trying to email you but clicking on your name only opens the thread article. And I can’t locate your address in any link. Hmmm. Could me a glitch with the borrowed computer I’m using. Would you please email me so that I can get your email address? Thanks!
February 26th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Remnant-you have mail.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Got it. Replied. Thank you.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Barbaric Yawp: You appear to be suffering from the same maledictions you accuse others of: I have personally spoke with Chuck Snader, one of the members of the “3 Member Financial Team”, along with two other witnesses. Mr. Snader indicated to us that the team is merely an oversight committee, which makes recommendations. Beyond that, they have absolutely no authority. In addition, Mr. Snader made it very clear that he DID NOT KNOW THAT THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY IN OCT. of ‘07 COST $20,000, and agreed, in light of the financial situation at the end of ‘07, it might be excessive, if that was what was spent. In addition, he stated that much of what was presented on the yearly financial statement was indeed unclear, (he could not answer questions regarding what was really spent and where) and he did not know what was actually included uder many of the categories. Indeed, he agreed that it needs to be clear where the spending is going, and that much is lumped under very broad categories. Additionally, he did not know the individual salaries of the pastors when asked, but instead, directed us to Bill Orth (the former full time administrator). This paints a very different picture than the one BARBARIC YAWP presents!
By the way, I believe the malediction might be HYPOCRISY: As you are presenting facts that are not correct in their entirety; something you have very openly accused many on this site of doing!
Like a good reporter: CHECK YOUR FACTS!
February 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Sorry, I was trying to ‘revise and extend’ my remarks…but all I accomplished was a deletion….I just want to say that I, too, cringe alittle when someone is snarky or unkind. I would like to see everyone stick to what they experienced, and what they are working through. It’s hard when folks assign motives to other folks. Kris had a great comment yesterday (3:30 pm). What happened to so many of us was real, and really hurtful. It takes time to ‘unpack’ alot of it…It makes ALL the difference when others can come along side you and walk you through to healing on the other side.
It is a grieving process..we have lost a church family that we loved. And pastors that we trusted. Part of the grieving process when someone loses a loved one is almost always anger…who would yell at someone for anger when they have just buried a loved one? Maybe some of those folks could just let alot of the brothers and sisters on this blog go through the process without the name-calling. Those of us who are here to get through the jumble of emotions and conflicting thoughts would do well to just let the foolish, knee-jerk comments die a natural death, and concentrate on one another.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Good comment, Elizabeth. We all need to be sensitive to each other.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Good remarks Elizabeth
February 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
BY – RT brings up some great questions. The next question I would have after it is disclosed which orginazations use the same structure would be how many of them are abusive churchs or bible-based cults? The structure itself leads to abuse. I would disagree that SGM thinks other sturctures are “OK” – SGM wouldn’t use it unless they thought it was “biblical”. SGM doesn’t do anything unless they can somehow justify it in their view of what is “biblical”. If SGM thinks that is the “biblical” structure, what do they really think of other church structures?
Let’s keep the discussion going. I have another suggestion, let’s not keep the discussion in sgm speak, or a framework of an SGM way of discussing thing, looking at things through SGM’s rose coloured glasses. Do you understand what I mean?
GP – good points!!!!! The truth will set you free!!!
February 26th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
So I have been doing a lot of research on a number of things, and I ran across a statement here;
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=.....&gl=us
That statement is:
A.) An Apostle is identified by his spiritual authority.
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12, KJV)
B.) An apostle is called by God, not men.
But from those who seemed to be something–whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man–for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:6-9, NKJV)
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) (Galatians 1:1, KJV).
I have read quite a bit on polity here, any thoughts on appointment?
I guess what I am getting at is if I bought an apple, and was given an orange, I would feel as if I had become the victim of fraudulent representation.
In coming to SGM, I too had the blind acceptance that those in leadership were worthy of their calling. (They all confirmed it in each other.) In time, the realities from my family and frinds experience did not match what was being preached.
The fruit that came from my family and friends experience is truly tragic.
I have not seen signs, wonders, and or mighty deeds. So is SGM full of apostles of men, or misunderstood apostles of God. If this has been brought up in other parts of the blog, could someone point me to it?
Also, what would the fruit of a body look like if they were following apostles of men?
The bible seems to have enough testimony in regard to the Apostles of God.
In the spirit of bringing it down a notch, looking for others opinions from personal understanding and experience.
Thanks
February 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
PFR,
If I might add a question to your list of questions: Why is there very little evangelism going on in SGM? That’s a very bad fruit. Also, I did have similar experiences with seeing a lack of fruit in men who call themselves apostles. It is a very good question – where is their apostolic fruit? And no one can answer that their fruits are the churches they plant. Very little evangelism goes on. They just poach from other churches. We’ve pointed that out, before. Is anything different now? Are new believers flowing into their church plants? Are thousands being saved in a day? Do these apostles themselves bring in, disciple, and nurture any new believers? This is the sort of fruit we should be looking at. Isn’t that right? (I must add that I live this out in my own life – it is fruit that resulted from finding my freedom in Christ).
February 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Beloved:
This is an interjection, and not directed at anyone specific.
I have to put in my two cents on our polity, since that word is floating around here. I’ve sat on my hands long enough.
It can best be summed up this way (and for those who think this is an unfair characterization and oversimplification, I urge you to read Dave Harvey’s Polity if you are seeking a more satisfactory answer; Jim and I have all our chips in that you won’t get it (if I’ve spoken out of turn for you, Jim, let me know):
From our FAQ:
Okay… so let’s go to Polity; when it comes time for soup to nuts (particularly the defense of the office of modern-day apostle), we get the ultimate cop out phrase:
Well beyond the scope of this paper? Doesn’t the Bride of Christ deserve something a little better than an “introductory defense?” Yes, we do!
And we have yet to get it. So on and on around the theological mulberry bush we go. Visitors get sent to the website, the website sends them to Harvey’s Polity, Harvey’s Polity sends them on a wild goose chase to verify “Endnotes” that take up almost half the pages (no joke) of the 54-page Polity, and when you point out discrepancies like why Harvey chose to wrench Wayne Grudem’s quote out of context, then the armwrestling match begins.
You are asked what your motives are, what you’ve been reading, who you are talking to, where your heart is at, etc. etc. etc.
In my opinion (and please take note this is an opinion, so everyone please don’t get your suspenders in a knot over this): Three and half decades and a solid defense and description of our polity you will never get.
I beg our leaders to prove me wrong.
~pk
February 26th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
PK-
You should make your polity comment a post. I have some new thoughts to add to the discussion, and think it’s a nail we should hit again. The trail that leads to nowhere you’ve highlighted above is an excellent observation.
Much better than the post you have saved as a draft
February 26th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
PK
If SGM is not truly led by Apostles, then wouldn’t the Polity simply be another bad fruit from their disappointment and misrepresentations. A bad foundation that stems from a misappropriation of, what does CJ call it, oh yeah, anointing and calling.
Truth is simple, particularly God’s truth, and when properly understood and embraced, it is POWERFUL.
The Apostles in the bible did not hide behind stacks of statements, policies, and legal documents. They did not have a mission statement that was wrought with the thoughts of their “contemporaries.
They saw the risen Christ, and were transformed in a supernatural way.
If SGM is at any degree cessationalist, then how could they be Apostles.
If they are apostles, then where is the fruit??
February 26th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Canary – I think a current SGMer would not agree that there is very litle evangelism – you know as well as I that the problem is they have redefined what the gospel is, and what evangelism is. so by their OWN definitions, evangelism IS taking place. When we say “SGM doesn’t evangelize” they shake their heads and go “Huh?” what do you mean? They honestly are confused because the deinifition is something that they have accepted as truth and don’t take the time to accept God’s definition. It also applies to what the gospel is – I am so tried of the phrases of “living out the gospel” and every other use of the word gospel in SGM, simply because their definition of the gospel, as evidenced by their APPLICATION of this belief, is unbiblical. I know I will get attacked for that opinion, but I stand by it.
For once I’d like someone to actually define for me what SGM means when they say living out the gospel, how they support this Biblically, and a defnition of what the gospel is…no one has yet to do it, but it was always assumed you knew what it meant..my goodness, I would not have been humble enough to ask my pastor – so, what do you mean by that exactly? I wish I had!
Very convenient, being able to make your own definitions..it is actually twisting Scripture to fit your agendas and desires..but that is another story..
February 26th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Jim,
I would say the Polity trail would lead to little in scripture, but in the minds of SGM, it would lead to their Apostles. Who are we to argue with or understand the “divine” appointment of these men? The fact that the trail leads to nothing would simply be refuted as “The trail leads to nothing a member or former member would understand”
I have taken this route with SGM, and been told that I should not seek to understandthings that are “beyond” me.
February 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
This was the scripture quote I was given in defense of their Polity
Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Juli-
I agree that SG does a poor job of simple definitions.
I once asked my pastor to define local church and how they should relate to para-church ministries. I brought it up, because we held an event in which we took money from a para-church ministry and allowed them to have a table at our event. I didn’t have a probelm with it-but weeks later we were reading and studying “Why Small Groups” which was calling para-church ministries, parasites to the local church. He really didn’t have a clear definition of either and I left the study frustrated by this vauge condemnation of parachurch ministries on one hand, but our willingness to partner and receive funds from one on the other.
Not sure if I’m making sense-but the point is, I don’t think many SG leaders can clearly define their positions from scripture and it causes confusion in the church. A confusion that could be easily cleared up, but as PK pointed out, is 35 years and counting for a simple definition of terms.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Wow, Juli. I hadn’t thought of it like that. Redefining evangelism…hmmm.
When my husband and I went to our first church meeting outside of SGM, we saw three or four homeless men sitting in the back of the church. Apparently, they were very cautious, but they were there! We had NEVER seen anything like that in our 16 years in SGM!
We asked ourselves, “Why?” We started thinking for ourselves (which was still a new phenomena at this time). We realized that the homeless, the poor, the prostitutes, etc. would not feel welcome in our old church. We were too clean, and they were too…messy. My husband and I had been reaching out to a man and woman who lived in the poorer section of town. Yet, we realized that they would never feel comfortable in our SGM church! Where to bring them? What a predicament.
It should not have been that way. Jesus ate with the “sinners”, and was comfortable with that. The Pharisees were not. I know who I’d want to be with!
The majority of SGM does not evangelize. They recruit people who are like themselves. Am I wrong? Have things changed in any way since 1997? Someone prove me wrong. I’d really like to be wrong, here.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Three and half decades and a solid defense and description of our polity you will never get.
PK, what you said was very sobering. I also wonder why they never admit to changing polity over the years. I was there in the early 80’s, and saw change happen, albeit slowly. I KNOW there was change in their theology/thinking because I saw it. Why do they deny this?
It is mind numbing.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Juli, from the sgm statement of faith;
The Gospel
Jesus Christ is the gospel. The good news is revealed in his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Christ’s crucifixion is the heart of the gospel, his resurrection is the power of the gospel, and his ascension is the glory of the gospel. Christ’s death is a substitutionary and propitiatory sacrifice to God for our sins. It satisfies the demands of God’s holy justice and appeases his holy wrath. It also demonstrates his mysterious love and reveals his amazing grace. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. There is no other name by which men must be saved. At the heart of all sound doctrine is the cross of Jesus Christ and the infinite privilege that redeemed sinners have of glorifying God because of what he has accomplished. Therefore, we want all that takes place in our hearts, churches, and ministries to proceed from and be related to the cross.
Man’s Response to the Gospel
Man’s response to the gospel is rooted and grounded in the free and unconditional election of God for his own pleasure and glory. It is also true that the message of the gospel is only effectual to those who genuinely repent of their sins and, by God’s grace, put saving faith in Christ. This gospel of grace is to be sincerely preached to all men in all nations. Biblical repentance is characterized by a changed life, and saving faith is evidenced by kingdom service or works. While neither repentance nor works save, unless a person is willing to deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow Christ, he cannot become his disciple.
Lets look at this;
evidenced by kingdom service or works. While neither repentance nor works save, unless a person is willing to deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow Christ, he cannot become his disciple.
The Kingdom in SGM is simply SGM, at least for the membership. More opportunities are out there for the elevated few.
For the rest of us, we are to live our lives in obedience to our SGM leaders, pursue sanctification within the context of the local church, serve the local church, and live lives that are decidedly different.
This is how we are to “Live for the Gospel”.
In regard to the Gospel, it all looks good until; Therefore, we want all that takes place in our hearts, churches, and ministries to proceed from and be related to the cross.
Interesting way to close the statement.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Boy, spell check gets ya sometimes..
If SGM is not truly led by Apostles, then wouldn’t the Polity simply be another bad fruit from their misappointment and misrepresentations. A bad foundation that stems from a misappropriation of, what does CJ call it, oh yeah, anointing and calling.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Jim:
“You should make your polity comment a post. I have some new thoughts to add to the discussion, and think it’s a nail we should hit again. The trail that leads to nowhere you’ve highlighted above is an excellent observation.
Much better than the post you have saved as a draft
”
LOL (re: the abcdef draft; you like that, eh?)
Sounds good; I’ll post it with minor editing; did you want me to save it as a draft so you can add your thoughts to it? Lemme know.
PFR:
Based upon what I gathered from your comments, I have to note my disgust that you were treated this way:
“I have taken this route with SGM, and been told that I should not seek to understand things that are “beyond” me.”
What a reprehensible way to respond to an inquiry from a member of the flock!
And then, to trample on Romans 11:33 in that manner as a defense in regard to questions about polity; I am spitting bullets at my computer monitor right now!
(Okay, PK; take it down a notch or two)
~pk
February 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
When I first began to see areas where I disagreed with SMG I struggled tremendously. Years. I did not discuss it with my most of friends but did remain friends. I had to ignore alot and agree to disagree. God was not doing the same thing in their life as he was in mine so I could deal with that. Some of them left also over the years for various reasons or are now leaving. I’m glad our friendship was based on more that whether or not we agreed or did the same thing. If we REALLY believe the Holy Spirit convicts, teaches and guides us then we will let him do that in other people. Yarp is greatly respected by me and I can truly read his posts and not be disturbed. I think he brings a lot of good discussions about the past events that might be good to go over and is one of the few who will answer some of our legitimate questions. He also has to be true to what he sees and allow God to use him where he is with the knowledge and insight he has at this time. Indeed he is a braveheart on this blog.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
PK-no-please create a post, and I’ll just comment…
Thanks bro..
February 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Might I say that the differences between what BY said about the Financial Team at SGCC and what Green Pastures said are quite typical of what goes on at SGCC. Different answers are given; answers are given in a circular manner (as in beating around the bush); and often, no 2 answers are the same. Here lies part of the problem within SGCC and I imagine in other SGM churches - no one really knows what is going on because so much is hidden and cloaked in secrecy. A friend of mine spoke with someone else on the Financial Team when the budget report first came out. This Financial Team guy (not CS) actually revealed that the party cost $20,000. Wonder why CS who is part of that same team didn’t know?
February 26th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Regarding the request made in your post: thank you, Jim. I’ve been thinking this for a long time.
Regarding your statement that you will ask for forgiveness if the pastor proves your statements were incorrect: I think a simple apology is sufficient. I don’t believe a well-intentioned error, done without malice or evil intent, is a “sin.”
On the other hand – if the pastor has deliberately withheld info that would allow you to correct your error, he might well ask you to forgive him.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Apologies to everyone who has asked me questions. I just don’t have the time, or really the faith, to attempt responses. I’ve spent more time than is wise already. It’s pretty discouraging to face the skepticism and general animosity that results from every post. Thank you to those who have said encouraging things–Reading Posts, Juli, Jim.
This seems to get lost every time, but I’ll say it again. I have had no agenda in coming here other than to defend dear friends who were being misrepresented, and to appeal to folks here to behave in a godly manner during your discussions. My views are my own. I do not represent SGCC or SGM. I have not been interested in trying to defend SGM. Nor even to generically defend my church or its pastors.
But what I have figured out is that my posts tend to do little but provide fodder for increasingly heated discussion. It’s clear I won’t convince folks of my firm conviction: that my church is flawed, and our pastors are error-prone, but so is every other church and pastor on the planet.
My family has been blessed to be a part of this congregation for 20 years. I’ve seen more bad fruit than I’d like, but I’ve seen many times more good fruit. And I am convinced that our leaders are seeing the bad fruit too and are embracing genuine repentence and change. Nothing I have read here has convinced me otherwise (the more ungracious and unkind the comment, the less convincing it becomes).
To those who have been hurt by your experience in my church or a related church, I am very sorry. I will continue to pray that you find comfort and peace for your souls. I find it hard to believe that an environment like this blog will speed you to that place, but many have claimed it is so.
To those who would like to continue a rational and gracious discussion, i invite you to e-mail me (barbaricyawp43-at-gmail.com). I have hope that I can attempt to take on opponents one at a time. Local folks, I’d love to talk face to face.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Barbaric Yawp:
You are a brother and not an opponent. Please know that!
It’s been a long while since we’ve had someone willing to discuss these things for so long a stretch. I know that when everyone descends, it feels like a ton of bricks landing on you; on the whole, you’ve been gracious about it.
As Jim is famous for saying, “be released.”
Feel free to join us any time again, and your invitation by email is gracious as well.
~pk
February 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
God bless you Yawpie. Its people like you that CAN change churches. Keep loving God and trying to “Do the right thing”.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Barbaric,
Thanks for sticking around. Wish you’d answered some of our very reasonable questions instead of avoiding them. However, you’ve given us some things to think on. Take care of yourself. God bless!
February 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Barbaric, I am sad to see you go, and I hope you return or at least continue reading along. I sometimes think that you guys who are just SGM members really do catch the flack from all of us -simply because the leaders themselves are unwilling to come here and address the concerns. We don’t have a problem with you, specifically, or Stein, or whoever..but there certainly can be a transference of anger, and for that I apologize. It especially crops up when the same type of SGM speak is said by your guys, unknowingly, and it is like pushing ALL our buttons at once! And you don’t have a clue what is going on in our hearts and minds..
It is sad that leaders in SGM have chosen to hide behind the few sheep who are brave enough to come on the blogs and defend them and their beloved SGM…and I know you guys really believe you are doing a good thing coming on here, being willing to talk to us…but I keep asking myself, why aren’t the leaders doing this?
Why isn’t Steve Shank responding here instead of sending out emails to everyone saying they shouldn’t visit the blogs? Why is CJ silent? Why don’t these leaders and apostles and pastors call us, email us, whatever..and be peacemakers? All the time that has passed has just made many of us angrier and lose more hope..and then someone like you comes on the blog, and you wonder why you are feeling personally attacked! You stepped into the middle of something you truly don’t understand..
There are a lot of pent up frustrations, unanswered questions, unaddressed hurts..and SGM is saying NOTHING, not repenting, not even acknowledging the hurts..it took a very public and very heated publicity of Noels’ Story for SGM to even do anything to admit they are aware the blogs exist in a public matter. And even then, because they waited too long, and the methods they chose to give the appearance of making peace, were pathetic.
They (via Sande) should have never contacted Kris..she had nothing to do with any of it except to post the story. Talk about involving the wrong people..Kris was truly an uninvolved party in the situation and should have remained out of any potential reconciliation. She is not a mediator nor has she ever claimed to be or claimed she desired to be from my recollections. I know Noel and Griz eventually met with their pastor, which is a good attempt on SGM’s part at least to be willing to meet in person, which is a step…..(I know it didn’t go well, but I was still slightly encouraged by the attempt) If SGM sees the inherent flaws in using blogs to communicate problems, concerns, feelings, etc…then why don’t they simply start making some phone calls and sending out some emails, do ANYTHING to indicate they care at all? Their lack of response is why the blogs still exist, and will continue to exist, with more being added all the time.
The truth is they seem to care more about their image, and that of SGM, than they do about actual people who were at one time “under their care”…it is reprehensible. Ok, I just realized I have long since climbed on my soap box,I will get down now
Barbaric – thank you. Thank you for at least having the courage to come on here and listen, even if your reasons for being here were not because your initially sympathized or cared that we have been deceived and hurt..(you said it was simply to defend your friends more than once) I trust you know more now and therefore any way you look at it, you are better off than your pastors and friends who won’t come on the blog to talk and discuss. You have more knowledge than they about what is going on..and if more in SGM were like you, we’d maybe make some steps forward in all this.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Dang blast it.
Everytime I ask an SGMer to tell me other churches that use this model, apart from Catholic/Episcopals, they bolt. I’m gonna have to break down and research it myself.
PK, it is so nice to have you back.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
RT: “PK, it is so nice to have you back.”
Thanks, RT… it is nice to be back.
~pk
February 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
RT, I think you know why they don’t answer – they don’t know..or because the answer is a bit, well, disturbing, even to them. I was in SGM three years before realizing the model was a heirarchy/Papal/Catholic?Episcopol model…I just liked the increased “order” of things since I came from a Baptist background where the either the deacons ran the show, or the one man pastor did, and I didn’t think either were Biblical.
The polity at first seems Biblical..I read all the stuff I was supposed to..you know, often I find that since I’m not such a smart cookie, it takes things actualyl playing out and fruit being shown before I say “Aha! An APPLE tree, I know because, look! Look! Apples!”
One of these days I will be able to see the seeds and know what kind of fruit it will bear…by that,I mean backing up so far as to see the patterns that always eventually emerge from certain teachings that go underground for a bit, get repackaged, then resurface..nothing new under thesun.
For all the church history I read as part of SGM, and all the church history they claim to be able to teach, somehow they have missed some of the greatest warnings and lessons to believers…they really are there, and you don’t have to look that hard. Even the Catholic church, hundreds of years ago, realized that memebers should not have the same person be both confessor and counselor to them..because of the abuses that resulted. Obviously, SGM has not learned that lesson yet.
If they are going to adopt a feudal system spirituality, then they should say that is what it is – and then members need to be aware of what the serfs went through, and how it felt when you weren’t a noble..and if they decide that in their mind that’s OK, then at least they go in with eyes open. As it is now, the cloaking that happens in SGM before, during and after the adoption process is deception. For cryingout loud, I joined my church and they were “transitionning” to Calvinism and hardly anyone knew it! It was so hush hush..and there was this sense of “well, most people won’t understand..but we will slowy introduce these teachings to them..” that is WRONG.
It’s ironic, their perversion of calvinism/reformed theology is what sucked me in there, and it was also what ultimately killed me there.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
RT said, “Everytime I ask an SGMer to tell me other churches that use this model, apart from Catholic/Episcopals, they bolt. I’m gonna have to break down and research it myself.”
I aim to please–especially since I have forsaken SGM for the Episcopalian church. Here’s a link for the
http://www.edow.org/diocese/go.....cture.html
Notice a few key elements: the vestry (board of elders) is elected by the voting members of the church. The voting members also send lay delegates to the conventions at the regional and national level.
SGMers don’t even get to vote on the kinds of snacks served.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Acme,
I don’t mean that the Episcopal church uses this same model–it is just that there are three main forms of government, most churches can be, more or less, squished into one of these three:
Episcopal (episcopacy)– bishops/apostles who appoint priests who then have control over church
Presbyterian–elders elected by congregants, congregants vote on calling pastors and buying land, but most decisions made by elected elders.
Congregational–each congregant has a vote on most issues, often pastor led, but congregants call pastor through voting.
The Episcopal church is much more a presbyterian form of government than episcopal, which seems counter-intuitive.
Sorry to confuse.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I’m writing a post about this issue (polity) even as it is being discussed here… not that we haven’t before here at the ‘fuge, but this post will be a little… different.
~pk
February 27th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
My note was sweeter the first two times I typed it. Thanks for clarifying, RT–I know you are a smart cookie.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Nah, just a well trained monkey.
Is that a picture of your kid, cuz DANG! That is one cute baby.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:59 am
PK – it will be interesting to see how Round 2 of the polity discussion is received..we’ve all grown since the last time, seen more, heard more, etc…plus, some of the readers here I think will start having their eyes opened to what SGM’s structure really is – and if they want to remain a part of it, their choice. But at least you can inform the sheep what kind of pen they are in.
Personally, I prefer the open pasture with the real Shepherd of my soul…
the grass TRULY is greener there! haha
February 28th, 2009 at 7:34 am
acme-
You’re exactly right. SGM’s govt resembles the episcopal model, but functionally is a different animal altogether.
I’ve wrongly labeled them as episcopal in the past.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:51 am
RT – the baby in my arms in the picture is still very cute now, but now the high school version towers over me most alarmingly and often sports a beard that his college-age friends and relations envy.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Jim, could you remove my redundant postings, because I didn’t know the previous ones made it through. Could you take out the 9:54 and 10:08 – pretty please?
February 28th, 2009 at 8:28 am
acme: “Jim, could you remove my redundant postings, because I didn’t know the previous ones made it through. Could you take out the 9:54 and 10:08 – pretty please?”
Done.
~pk
February 28th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Whoa, wait a dang blamed second.
Acme, you said: ”SGMers don’t even get to vote on the kinds of snacks served.”
There were no snacks the few times we have visited. That would have DEFINITELY affected out opinion. We Presbyterians don’t have SNACKS!! I want SNACKS!
I am going to lobby the session.
Second thought: we do have WINE at communion, though! <brightens considerably>
February 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
PK and Jim–
I am so glad you are going to do another polity session. I remember that readership dipped earlier when you did so, however I always notice a strange crickets chirping sound from other SGM adherents whenever I or anyone else asks them to defend their polity, and I am looking forward to seeing whether the reaction is different this time.
I absolutely believe that that polity is in place because it was what CJ had grown up with in the Catholic Church.
Growing up in the Mormon Church, I was always fascinated by how a new church sprung out of no history at all. If you divorce yourself from the branches of the Church, and simply make up your own denomination, (look it up), I cannot help but believe that the polity will strangely resemble the one with which you are most familiar.
SGMers–please enter the discussion about your church government style. I am always curious if you understand that your church is unlike any other mainline evang/reformed one.
The Catholic church and various house churches/sects use it.
Are you guys sure you are alright with this model? Doesn’t it ever bother you?
Looking forward to the post!
February 28th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Acme, I have a couple of those myself. It’s nice to have peeps that can reach the top shelves and dust the top of the fridge.
Still, looks like a most excellent baby.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Rt-
I have one too-
Carole, who is 3 inches taller than me. Were going to a party tonight, and she’s wearing heels. That’ll make her half a foot taller.
5′7″ and 6′1″.
Can’t wait to see the pics :-/
February 28th, 2009 at 10:25 am
RT,
While in SGland, I once knew a woman who was “in charge” of the snacks and coffee for after the “meeting” activities. At the beginning she actually thought that it was her ministry. BUT OH NO!!! Any changes, ANY, had to be made under the “oversight” of the “pastor” with oversight” over the building and grounds.
She reported that she couldn’t even change the types of creamers without his approval. She even wanted to re-arrange the table layouts to enhance the flow of people in the foyer–BUT NO, not without the endorsement of the oversight “pastor!” At the time I found that kind of odd. Now I see it for what it is–CONTROL to the extreme. This woman finally gave it up and is no longer serving as one of the SG drones; actually she no longer attend the SGM of doing “church.”
February 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
PKR,
In response to your request for opinions and experiences on SGM’s stance with regard to apostles, I have a few comments. (For those who have already heard my story numerous times, please disregard!) Twenty years ago when our church was adopted into PDI and we were introduced to their concept of apostles, the entire atmosphere and direction of our church changed almost immediately. One of the first things we noticed was that our pastor seemed to take his “authority” much more seriously. He began to dictate where and how we were to serve within the church. Previously, there had been an actual relationship, where it was important to draw us out, respecting what we believed the Lord was saying to us personally about desires or abilities to serve. After PDI, he suddenly was the only one who had the gifting to “see” our giftings and the anointing to “know” where we fit in the mix of his local church. It was no longer based on relationship. Instead, we were expected to sit back and wait for his decision, trust his leadership, and then serve where he decided without complaint or hesitancy. When we didn’t cooperate properly due to a lack of peace, the “apostle” was called on. Through some process that was never fully explained to us as we never once spoke to him personally, he determined that we were “divisive” and “we had to go”. There were dreams and visions to substantiate his decision, but no Scripture.
After we recovered from the ordeal to some degree, we began to question more why our church had changed so dramatically and in our opinion, for the worse. Actually, reading the stories here and at survivors has brought me to the conclusions I now believe are true.
I believe that SGM operates on an “appointed by God”, confirmed by men, apostolic belief. They hold the apostolic office and their perceived authority and influence that it wields in highest awe and respect. How humbling it is for them, the worst sinners they know, to be appointed by God to this lofty office. They communicate with whispered reverence about the sacredness of it, the tremendous responsibility they bear - standing in the very stead of God.
In a strange sort of paradox, they then fully embrace their “authority” with total confidence (and IMO an alarming lack of humility and grace). Though they still speak often of their own sinfulness, they believe that their anointing as an apostle TRUMPS their own sin nature, especially in regard to church matters (again, IMO). Thus if we, the lowly, ignorant sheep should dare to question their directives, we are being independent, not making their lives a joy, and even worse, resisting the will of God for our lives, therefore forcing God to oppose us. We were compared to Ananias and Saphira. Many of our “friends” seemed scared of us when we would run into them in town. After some time, our pastor himself ran into us and was quite shocked that we were actually doing well.
So, I don’t see these guys as evil men. Nor do I see them as the great men of maturity and integrity I once did. I see them as men who have, wholeheartedly with great passion and certainty, embraced a distorted gospel. A distorted view of apostles and their authority (which also extends to their view of “elders” or pastors). A distorted view of individual intimacy with the Lord and the priesthood of every believer. A distorted view of their own importance in the scope of Christianity as a whole. I see them as men who have learned to control their sheep instead of lovingly lead them. I see them as men who have embraced a form of darkness, but are totally convinced it is Light.
So PKR, those are my experiences which have lead me to the opinions I now hold. I can come to no other conclusions. These are not evil men, these are men who at one point were truly looking to find “biblical” mandates, do them and teach them without apology and til their dying breath. The “apostles” will tell you to this day that they will NEVER back down on their polity because they are RIGHT. But these distortions have awakened a part of their lower nature that should never be employed in church leadership – control and domination. IMO of course.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:05 am
GDfS:
Here we (I) go with the seeming generalizations that drive my SGM brethren nuts.
Micromanagement of this sort -what you described with brands of coffee creamers- is rampant in SGM, and indicative of more of obsessive compulsive disorder (PK whistles casually and looks away pretending to not be affected by OCD) than it is oversight; good oversight would have assumed the best of the lady in charge.
Interestingly enough, I think it’s created -or at the least worsened- by how our leaders may have been micromanaged in either pastor’s college (based upon the multiple experiences that have been related to me) or currently in their church, especially if there are “issues” that may come onto SGM hq’s radar.
Mistrust and micromanagement feigned as “oversight” I think I can confidently say is not indicative of the attitude Paul thinks we should have of one another, and with my organization being so bent toward quashing “gossip and slander,” it reeks of hypocrisy in a very gross and detestable way. Double standards like this send me into orbit; just ask Jim, he’s had to retrieve me from the outer stratosphere at times.
IMHO, The day the wrong coffee creamer rocks a pastor’s world is the day he needs to hit the Yellow Pages for a Christian Counselor; better yet, fall on your face bro, and seek the ultimate Counselor. He is the only one that can smash those “conflicts and cravings.”
~pk
February 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Sorry, Jim or PK. I am trying to talk kindly, but upon re-reading, I see my opinions come across pretty strong. Imagine that! If this would not be considered “taking it down a notch”, then I’ll be glad to re-write.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
PK,
And in the process they crush the God-given gifts of creativity that God gives His people, and they walk around always wondering if “leadership” will approve? I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard, “but we’ll have to check with ‘leadership!”‘
And yes, these guys actually get paid to make these critical “oversight” decisions.
And they walk around like they just had their brains and hearts sucked out of them until leadership either patted them on the head for taking initiative or reprimanded them for their “prideful” thinking for wanting to change something that “leadership” had already set up. OK, maybe that last part was a little hyperbolic–sorry.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Ooooops, I definitely posted that last “bit” on the wrong thread. So much for taking it down a notch–yikes!
February 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
If I might add a little bird seed to the fodder –
– I witnessed this kind of control being part of the New Members’ dinner ladies, who would prepare and serve a meal as the new sheep were being led to slaught…er, I mean membership. Anyway, the very last one I served at was so much fun. We ladies had so many plans for how to host the next dinner. Our creativity was pouring out of our ears. That is how excited we were.
Then came the let-down. The Pastor, Mr. Mucho Controller, just smiled at us with much condescension as we talked to him about the next dinner, and said thanks for serving. Little did we know, this would be our one and only New Members dinner that we would serve at together. I guess a whole other crew was brought in for the next one.
Our spirits (and creativity) were crushed.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
FYI -
Recently asked my pastor about these blogs and his reply was along the lines of “nothing we can do”. They’ve never, ever been publicly referenced in our church – not even to warn people off.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Joel,
What your pastor, or anyone in SGM leadership can do is call me if I’ve made an inaccurate statement.
jim@sgmrefuge.com
three two one five zero four four five four two
February 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I don’t think that will happen. I think the idea is to leave the blogs in the hands of the Lord and try to be the best pastors they can be. I don’t know how other sgm pastors are dealing with the blogs, but that’s the approach I’m seeing.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Joel,
Are you the intern pastor that once interned at the Pittsburgh SG church a few years ago? I can understand and appreciate you wanting to stay incognito but thought I’d ask.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
No, I’m a small business owner.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Thanks Joel. Thanks for offering your point of view and experience.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Joel:
The point of view is much appreciated. I know I am guilty at times with the language I use/write of funneling all SGM pastors into the same stew, and this is not the case with everyone (re: blog warnings).
We’ve received a lot of feedback that leads us to make assumptions like this, but it may not be true in every case.
Thank you for the civil tone (no sarcasm here, I am genuinely grateful) and reminding us of this.
~pk
February 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I, too, say thank you to Joel for posting about your pastor’s position.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
PK,
I’ve been wondering about the polity thing. I’m looking forward to your new presentation of it. My question is: are you presenting it again to help all of us posters and readers better understand where SGM is in error, or are you hoping that SGM leaders will read and then see the errors? Is there still hope in your own heart that there can be reform? Inquiring tweeties want to know…
February 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Canary:
All of the above.
~pk
February 28th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Good. Glad there is still some hope. I would also like to understand the errors in a way I can explain to others. Polity tends to hurt my little bird brain, but I’m hoping to keep up this time around! Thanks.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Joel..
I am offering my own story here because you mentioned not all churches or pastors are telling people about the blogs…my experience and the facts I know HERE, in Texas, is actually a result of leadership initially informing, not word of mouth from within the church or curiosity on the part of members here. I’ve said before how far removed we are from the rest of SGM World…nobody here was part of any church plants, and with the exception of one family who was part of another SGM before moving here, there are very limited (leadership families only) contact with other SGM churches or members. We’re “out of it” here..
since my situation is unique and I KNOW I didn’t tell anyone about my blog or these blogs my point is to show you that pastors (at least my former one) are telling people about the blogs and to stay away.
As of today, there are at least 14 people (many, but not all, are in my former care group) in my former church who know about my own blog, none of them I told personally. One of these was initially told by the pastor, and from there, who knows who told who or what was said…to date, I have only had ONE face-to-face conversation with one of these 14 from my former church who is aware of my blog and aware of the other blogs including this one (in their own words, this is face to face, remember)
The fact that nothing is being said from the pulpit means nothing in terms of whether or not the pastors are in fact counseling some to avoid the blogs. There clearly ARE things being said, and then spread. Maybe the pastors don’t want this spreading of information to happen as widely as it has, but it is. Maybe his motive was to tell a select few, KNOWING it would naturally spread and then everyone knowing was not his responsbility. WHo knows what these guys think. The statistics alone are evidence of this spreading of information, and increases in readership “coincidentally” coincide with current upheavals, announcements, etc in various churches..how are people finding the blogs if not word of mouth? And why would we assume this word of mouth is always from other sheep and not the pastors? In my own situation, it at least BEGAN with the pastor. (actually the apostle)And then from there, someone talked. Before hearing about my own blog, my pastor didn’t have a clue about the other blogs..that was September. And he told me personally on the phone that he would not be reading the blogs because of how the apostle described them to him.
Well, what do you think the apostle said? “Hey, these blogs are offering some good insights into how we can better serve those in our churches, but they are also filled with some anger, so just read with an open heart and seek the Lord.” Heck no, whatever he said was enough to convince my former pastor that he wanted no part of the blogs.
In my own SGM church, people are aware of the blogs and it is not because of me. It is because the pastor told them. No one was aware of it, because the Lord did not lead me to tell anyone about anything regarding SGM when I left or in the months that followed. Now I see why He did this – I believe he was revealing that spirit of gossip and slander and through whom it was working..I knew exactly where and who it came from. I tested the spirits. The results were clear. Because he had kept me from saying anything to anyone, the “track backs” are clearly to the pastor and the apostle, initially, and one other person after that the pastor told.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
When you’re interacting with these blogs a lot and thinking about them a lot, it makes it seem as though everyone else must be too. I haven’t been on these blogs in a few weeks and when you’re not getting a steady diet of well – these postings – you just forget all about it. Life goes on. Church goes on.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Error goes on.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Joel,
Most of us have been where you are. Life is meant to be lived from the abundance of HIS LIFE manifesting Itself out through us, as us. LIFE, the real thing, isn’t found in anything except HIM. Believing that to be truth and knowing that are two very different things. We believers believe a lot of theological stuff; but how much do we KNOW? Until I know it, it remains in the realm of theory and feeling, and doesn’t translate into real LIFE. FAITH is knowing, not just theory and theology and what we tell each other to be true in our little “care groups!”
Life goes on, but we too often never live, and “church” goes on, and we never really experience church because of all the noise and activity of the Western production that is housed in our multi-million dollar buildings that we call “church”, with our sophisticated sound systems, and our polished pasted smiles and our raised hands and our busyness, which too often turns out to be nothing more than a well-oiled franchised production that falls apart when you challenge it or question it or say, “hey wait a minute!!!”
Joel don’t settle for life and “church” merely just going on. The LIFE of the Lord Jesus will be expressed out through you much better when someone else isn’t telling you how to live it. HIS LIFE doesn’t need instruction; it simply produces evidence of itself. Conference don’t enhance it, counselling doesn’t make it more alive, none of that stuff. Just your willingness to live by the Spirit, not the flesh. Just to clarify: The flesh is humanity living independently of God. It is that simple. Living by the Spirit is simply living by faith (dependant on God) as God lives His life (SPIRIT) joined to your spirit out through you.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Thanks for your concern. I’m very happy in my church and hope you are in yours.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Joel you said -(bold is my emphasis)
”When you’re interacting with these blogs a lot and thinking about them a lot, it makes it seem as though everyone else must be too. I haven’t been on these blogs in a few weeks and when you’re not getting a steady diet of well – these postings – you just forget all about it. Life goes on. Church goes on.”
Wow, did you intend for that to be insulting to people here? I’m just checking. It implies that there aren’t real people with real stories and experiences and hurts and feelings on this blog..you simply refer to it all as postings?? It’s shocking to me that you can read all of these stories and then forget about “it”. Sounds like a very hard heart to me. Am I misinterpreting your words? And are you assuming I (and others here) don’t have a life because A) I read and post on this blog or B) because I don’t (in your opinion) go to church. (or both)
was that your intention by saying what you did about this blog and the people here? Just want to make sure..you know, charitable judgment and all that, brother.
But for the record, I’m very happy and fulfilled in CHRIST and hope you are as well.
I could care less about “church”..it is an institution created by man. I do however, love my brothers and sisters in Christ and fellowship with them regularly, on the phone, online, and in person.
People are mature enough to manage their time accordingly, and even if they couldn’t it is none of anyone else’s business. It’s a free world. Or at least outside of SGM it is.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:40 am
Juli – that was a very long response to a very short post from me. I admit I couldn’t completely follow it so I gave up about halfway through. Soundbite culture strikes again! My experience is my experience only and nothing more or less than that.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:46 am
Joel, you wrote, “My experience is my experience only and nothing more or less than that.” But what is true? Is your experience true? Are you living in truth? Are those of us here just responding to isolated bad experiences, and are you responding to us from genuine good experiences. That is something you will have to sort through.
In the meantime, enjoy your experience, but don’t ignore the tragities that have resulted from SGM leadership throughout the lives of these precious followers of Jesus Christ here, your brothers and sisters. These stories are their experience too, nothing more or less than that.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am
Yeah, I think that’s pretty much the gist of what I was saying.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:45 am
Well, so be it, as “life” goes on and “church” goes on. Bodies in the upright position, to me, do not denote life necessarily, and what goes on in the organized, institutional “church” doesn’t represent the organism that is the church either. The church is His body moving about with HIM living in each living stone moving about our world manifesting HIM as HE expresses HIMSELF out through them, as them.
What happens at 10am on Sunday mornings is often a scripted, man-empowered, lifeless mockery of the real thing, not always but way too often, especially in our Western culture. Sadly, what we do in our “sanctuaries” on a given Sunday morning could be replicated with a couple hundred non-believers. The flesh cannot reproduce real life, even when positioned uprightly. Only GOD can give life and restore life, which is what HE does when HE gives life (the new birth) to people who looked alive, but in reality were only upright. So, the lesson that I have learned is that everyone in an upright position, whether in the pews or behind the pulpit, doesn’t mean that the are alive. Evidence of LIFE, HIS life, cannot be generated and scripted by human effort and “church” life.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
G.D.,
Oh, well said! I’m clapping. Standing ovation!
March 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Juli,
Aw well, you tried. Beautifully said. My thoughts – if the blog won’t go away, a new tactic would be to “minimize” it, as Joel has done. De-emphasize it. Treat it as a bit of lint to be absently brushed off the shoulder.
That is how Joel treated you. Sorry, honey. Hugs from your peep.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Just another thought: Life goes on for Noel and her daughter, for HappyMom and her daughter, for Musicman, and Juli, for Stunned and Gratefully Disillusioned…for all those who were so harmed by a controlling church, life goes on. But the Son of God goes on with us, and helps us work through the devastation. We will all be fine, sooner or later.
However, those still enslaved to men’s traditions are walking in chains. They don’t understand that their freedom in Christ has been stolen (or willingly given away). So this blog will go on…
Read it. Or not.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Canary,
{{{{{{{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Thank you!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
happymom,
Hugs back. You are welcome!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Thanks Canary. The cat is still looking sad though.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
G.D.
Yeah, the kitty is smelling like fermented leaven…ooohy.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Well, maybe an air freshener is in order, but that just masks the smell. Maybe take the kitty to one of the 10am Sunday morning things and let him out of the cage. He may fit right in. Hey just trying to think outside the box here.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
er…you mean “outside the cage”. Hee-hee, you’re funny, G.D. I notice Joel stopped posting. Wonder why?
March 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Beware; keep kitty away from her box too long and the ensuing mess is your fault.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
P.S. I must add that I exhibited amazing self-control when Joel posted about church going on, life going on…I couldn’t help but think of Noel’s and HappyMom’s daughters. Grrrrrrr…But I meant what I said, that the Lord is helping and they, along with all of us, will be just fine.
The ones still trapped under the old law, well, that is another story. Hopefully, PK’s upcoming post on church polity will open the eyes and ears of those still enslaved to controlling churches. We can pray!
March 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
D.B.,
Poor kitty.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Joel checked this out for a reason. I sense him being curious and that he has an initial wonder if something might be a little off in SGland. I remember my first red flag, and me running right through it, not wanting to even consider that things aren’t perfect in the land of SFM. BUT started being sensitive to the ungraceful approach to the real gospel. I remember becoming willing to open my eyes to truth, no matter where that may lead or what pain it may bring. Without that, freedom will NEVER come.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I stumbled across this website and began reading everything in it. I have attended a SG church in Georgia for four years and recently became a member about a year ago. Some of the posting I think is helpful, but many parts just seem to be people who have been hurt by SGM returning the favor by bashing those who have not. If you are not one of the one’s doing that, I am not referencing you. Our church would be considered a younger church with a much younger pastoral staff that I do not see a lot of these problems in. I grew up going to all types of churches and have always been taught to evaluate any church I went to in light of the scriptures. I cannot speak for other SGM churches, only mine. I am sure that there have been disagreements and such, but I like to believe those are normal since we are all human. I am a single mother of two (divorced during the time I have been at SG) and have not had anyone tell me I had to spank my kids a certain way (both of our pastors do it a lot less than a lot of older families) nor have I been told I have to follow the Ezzo’s way of dealing with a baby (maybe 20% of our church follows that method). We also have three couples in our church getting married this year who did not do courtship but have dated for many years. I say all of this not convince anyone that ALL of SGM is good, but to say that people experience horrible situations in churches (mine was in a baptist church) but that does not mean everyone associated is horrible. We are “allowed” to read books not in our bookstore, and we do have a choice of snacks
In any event, I am not saying I know everything there is to know on any of the above mentioned topics, I’m just saddened by the division that has occured. I honestly pray for the emotional and spiritual healing that many need, and know that the lord is faithful to provide it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
nemo:
Welcome to SGM Refuge!
It is a blessing to hear good things about your SGM experience coupled with the acknowledgement that you don’t use your sole experience as indicative of all of SGM.
Yes, the trainwrecks can happen in churches outside SGM. I am praising the Lord that based on your testimony His grip of grace encircles you through the roughest of storms.
The last line of your comment says a lot about you and your witness, and it is a blessing.
Again, welcome.
~pk
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Nemo welcome!
I am glad to hear that your experience has been a good one
I do believe that there are many whose intentions are good, both leaders and sheep but something has gone wrong. I would have never of thought that I would have to leave my former church. I have grown up with the leaders and know them to be godly men. These men who I still dearly love, got sucked up into all that SGM had to offer, and it has changed them and this church hasn’t been part of SGM for more than five or six years.
Though I believe that not all SGM churches are experiencing the same problems on the same level, I think the important thing to notice is the underlying themes that seem to be showing up in these churches. My experience with my former church wasn’t like most of the stories shared here, but the underlying themes of stories shared here are slowly appearing in my former church. I pray that your church wouldn’t experience any degree of what you read here but I also think that it is wise to know what tendencies to be on the lookout for.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
Hi Nemo,
I’m in Georgia too, however my SGM experiences were in another state. Don’t know anything about the Georgia church (or churches). It is good to hear of a more balanced approach, a more grace-filled approach from a SGM church as you describe. But I would tend to agree with Bethany. It would be wise to be on the lookout.
Welcome to the site. Glad to have you here.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Bethany and Gracie:
I felt nemo’s post was grace-filled, and yours was as well. There is nothing wrong with us in the flock for believing in and praying for the best in our churches while exercising caution coupled with wisdom to look out for wolves.
Thanks to all three of you for being peaceful warriors (if I can use that term without sounding too PC or patronizing, because it is not intended that way).
~pk
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
OK, have been without power for 40 plus hours, but back on now–hooray. Now I have to read up with what is happening in and out of SGland. Mmmmm, didn’t miss much.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I just got back from vacation and I am catching up as well!!!!