The following is a copy-and-paste job of a comment I made recently under the “Take it Down a Notch” subject. Jim referred to it as the Road that Leads to Nowhere, and I thought that was the perfect description:
~~~
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 to verify what you think are questionable conclusions on my part).
From our (SGM’s) FAQ:
This is an important question, but one that requires a more detailed answer than can be given here. Please see the issue in our Perspectives series, “Polity: Serving and Leading the Local Church,” by Dave Harvey (also available as a free PDF download).”
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:
Although a full treatment of the biblical, theological, lexical and historical issues involving present-day apostles are well beyond the scope of this paper, an introductory defense is necessary to justify principle behind our polity. (Harvey, Polity, 17)
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
~~~
I would also add that when the subject of polity comes up here at SGM Refuge & Reform in the comments section of any post, my brothers and sisters in SGM go slipping away silently (that’s my observation, and not an attack). I, for one, would like to know why.
What’s the response you’ve been given when you inquire about the leadership structure/polity at your church, SGM affiliated or not?
~pk
Quizzlers said: Seems like there is a very purposeful agenda being put forth by some of the newer posters (not PK).
Maybe some of the “newer posters” did not use their usual name to state their view but wanted to state their opinion. Maybe they were quite surprised at the very hostile level of attack and efforts at control. I am glad reconciliation has taken place. That is always good. I am not trying to debate or stir things up again but just want to state an answer since I might appear to be a new poster.
I hope those on the fence weren’t turned away by the behavior of a few, which I realize is forgiven, forgotten and everyone who is still here is moving on.
When Jim asked: If we see genuine reform within sgm, will we rejoice? I thought of course!! God would want reform and reconciliation, wouldn’t he? I want his agenda. I would be quite glad. I know for a fact, many in SGM are hurt by the views posted here and don’t understand it. I have prayed for reform for many years and I think it would be wonderful. Wonderful.
Blogs are difficult. I have been offended by things said to me so I know it is so easy to be casual and have no idea how someone could be hurting from a comment. Intended or unintended.
I still don’t understand the part about the apostolic directive. I read it too. Is any part of that responded to by the apostles or is it written TO the apostles. I’d like to understand that better. Thanks
.
…
……
.
.
.
:::: peeking out from the closet & tryin’ to figure out what is going on ::::
.
.
.
.
:/
.
.
>sigh<
.
.
Anyone or everyone,
Check out this article I found online. Not sure if I agree with everything in it, but it definitely has some very interesting things to say about shepherding and other features of modern church government.
http://www.crossroad.to/articl.....erding.htm
Canary, Girl, you’re my hero.
Stunned,
Aw shucks, I’ve never been anyone’s hero, before. Except maybe to my seven dogs. They treat me like royalty (but I do all the work, cleaning up messes, feeding, brushing…wait, I treat THEM like royalty…sheesh). Stunned, keep looking up!
Canary, sister, on that day, when we stand before Him, I think there will be a lot of people pushing forward to get to tell our King all you’ve done to point us to Him, to fold us in your arms/wings and to care for us with the same love that He cared for you. What a great day that will be.
Stunned,
Well, if that is true, then I will be on the other side of Jesus with alot of other people, trying to get to Him to say how brave and wonderful all you guys have been to come on here and share your hearts, so that others could find Him through all the pain. If you and others weren’t here, sharing your experiences, I don’t think reform would be possible.
Well done Wanda and Taking Note; you both get extra credit for identifying Catholic University of America as Jeff Purswell’s choice of academic institutions. Wanda also gets additional bonus points for citing the source of her answer http://www.sovereigngraceminis…..llBio.aspx and correctly identifying Mr. Purswell’s position as the Dean of the Pastors College at SGM.
She gets even more bonus points for discerning that it is very puzzling.
The Quizzler also wonders why, with all the outstanding institutions of higher learning around here why Mr. Purswell chose Catholic University?
Upon searching out Catholic U’s Mission Statement and Goals http://www.cua.edu/mission/ the Quizzler finds it to be a bit concerning. Here’s an excerpt………….
“………The university recognizes that its distinctive character ultimately
depends on the intellectual and moral quality of its members. To create
an environment that is intellectually stimulating and characterized by
the generosity and mutual support required for collegial life and
personal growth, the university seeks men and women who are not only
professionally competent but who also can contribute to its Catholic,
moral and cultural milieu. The university seeks to preserve its
tradition of collegial governance, fostering a climate within which all
members of the university community have sufficient opportunities to
influence deliberation and choice.
Though a research and teaching institution, the university recognizes
that it is part of a larger community to which it has certain
obligations consistent with its character. Its presence in the nation’s
capital and its unique relationship with the Catholic Church in America
provide it with opportunities for influencing the resolution of the
crucial issues of our time. In providing information and criteria by
which public policy is shaped and measured, the university seeks to be
of special service to the nation. Similarly, it seeks to be of service
to the Church, not only through the preparation of clergy and other
leaders for specific roles in the Church, but also through factual
investigations and discussions of principles which influence policy.”
now here’s the question…………….
Do we influence our environment or does our environment influence us?
Scripture speaks clearly of this. The Apostle Paul (a TRUE Apostle) refered to influence in his first letter to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 15:33) “Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals.”
so……………
Will Mr. Purswell be influenced by the environment at Catholic U?
If so, will that influence in turn have an impact on SGM polity which will in turn be taught to all the up-and-coming young future pastors throughout SGM?
So many questions, so little time………..
A Good and Interesting Question, Mr. Quizzler.
Point of interest – many worthy people, with solid spiritual and theological foundations to protect them, have intentionally chosen to enter educational institutions with high academic standards but with theological heritages that would challenge their core convictions and require that they give full defense to their persuasions without being allowed to “cheat” in a fully like-minded setting. They believed that their convictions and their ability to defend them with integrity and clarity would be strengthened rather than weakened by being given no mercy in the requirement to defend their perspectives.
Among these are John Piper, (doctoral work in New Testament Studies at the University of Munich, Munich, West Germany) R.C. Sproul, (the Free University of Amsterdam) C.S. Lewis, (whose whole education and vocation, before and after conversion were occupied in secular contexts like Oxford and Cambridge) and highly respected teachers of my own personal history who chose, for example, a Catholic university (Fordam) to study Reformation history, a Dispensational Seminary (Dallas) as a reformed and covenant- oriented theologian, and a secular University (Boston University) to study philosophy and theology.
Those of these men that I have heard speak of these choices – among both the well known and the barely known – would strongly profess to the great benefit that came from entering challenging environments that would require them to thoroughly understand their own beliefs and better be able to articulate and defend them.
I myself came out of Bible College/Seminary environments, that would have differed with my convictions at a number of points, far better equipped both to understand those who differ with me and to defend my own perspectives with relevance and precision. I am far less likely to make “straw-men” of those who disagree with me, because I understand their perspective and far more likely to make an effective case for my own convictions because I have needed to defend them “against the wind” so to speak.
More to the present point – I have a number of vital differences of conviction and perspective with Jeff Purswell and see a number of parallels between Roman Catholic and SGM church government and polity, but I am (for myself) fully persuaded that Mr. Purswell has no Roman Catholic leanings (or background) and that he will emerge from Catholic University of America even less “Catholic” than he entered it.
He is a man who is unlikely to be affected by my differences with him for sure
, but I also am quite sure that he will not be theologically diluted or compromised by a contrary point of view in the University atmosphere of his doctoral studies either.
For what it’s worth, I also believe that the Roman Catholic background (nominal and in their youth) of C.J. Mahaney and others in SGM has little or no influence on them. They are passionately protestant and (at the same time) pragmatically (rather than “Catholically”) given to a hierarchical, authoritarian, and nearly papal church polity.
Just thoughts. I really like your question and think it is a very interesting and insightful one to ask and explore.
Taking Note
Why do you assume that The Quizzler is a MR. ?
You make a good point, Quizzler.
I was simply being playful in my words, but it is funny how we have some intuitive opinion of the gender of fellow-posters with gender-neutral screen names. Several folks here have called me “he” or “him” without me ever indicating one way or the other.
Forgive me for my presumption.
Please consider the following about Catholic University:
The University specifically provides that “theologians” in the University are “expected to give assent to the teachings of the magisterium in keeping with the various degrees of assent that are called for by authoritative teaching.”[9] It should be noted that the Catholic University of America does not offer general studies in theology. Instead it offers doctorates in historical theology and systematic theology, the latter of which “undertakes the task of a comprehensive and synthetic understanding of the Christian faith as mediated through the Scriptures and the Catholic Tradition and as interpreted by the conciliar and papal magisterium [10] In addition it offers ecclesiastical degrees (i.e., licensees to teach Catholic Theology) in Liturgical Studies and Sacramental Theology, Moral Theology/Ethics, and Historical and Systematic Theology [11] In order to teach theology at The Catholic University of America, one must be licensed to teach Catholic Theology by the Vatican
With the above in mind, WHY IN THE WORLD did Jeff Purswell, the “Dean” of the “PC” choose Catholic University (of all the schools such a “coveted intellectual” would be drawn to?-Has he signed their Covenant?)
I’ve been pounding this drum for a year: the Catholic church’s polity is the model for SGM’s, since they essentially ‘sprang’ from the mind of two non-educated Catholics!
I don’t mean this disrespectfully, or in a demeaning way, but the two of them only knew Catholic polity–so structured their church in the same way: Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests.
Reformed Teacher: You are right on! The roots of SGM are definitely Catholic. The fruit (wrong doctrine, incorrect interpretation of Scripture, focus on Jesus on the Cross and suffering, control, overly authoritarian, abuse, etc) that has been borne is a direct reflection of the roots.
Hmm…WIF–good point about the Cross and the suffering–I had not thought of that! You are right!
I haven’t noticed this–are there crosses displayed in SGM churches?
When we first did the polity series, my opinion was-you’re clearly episcopal, just admit it.
I was wrong, as SGM’s polity cannot be defined. They stand completely alone in this regard.
In the US, the head of the episcopal church is elected for a defined term by a a simple majority of bishops. The current leader ran against 6 other candidates and won by 1 vote. I think 180 bishops voted.
The RC church elects their pope with a 2/3rds majority, again with approximately 180 bishops voting. I think the exact number with the current pope was 183.
CJ is self-appointed, which looks like a monarchy to me.
Their polity is clearly undefined, and their attempt at self definition (the canonical polity statement) was an unfortunate disaster.
An honest statement from SGM would say-”We stand alone. We stand against over 2000 years of church history and have decided to do this our way”.
The proof text Scripture references and out of context quotes just made them look foolish.
Hey, the twelfth disciple to replace Judas was decided by lots…isn’t that sorta funny? It’s like flipping a coin at a football game! I guess they trusted the Holy Spirit to make the bet go the way He wanted. That probably wouldn’t go over well, today.
The proof text Scripture references and out of context quotes just made them look foolish.
Like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole – quite ridiculous. I have to ask again, don’t these guys listen to God in any way? Puzzling…
Jim, monarchs are not self-appointed. They are born into the role.
Dictators, OTOH, are self-appointed. And they get to make all the rules. Or change the rules as often as they wish. It’s their way or “off with his head.” Reminds me of so many refugee and survivor stories.
Well…
It really is remarkable, isn’t it, Jim, that SGM doesn’t even have a coherent explanation of their polity. They don’t even try to offer one.
Every significant movement of history has recognized the need for some recognizing and affirming authority to establish and maintain church leadership and government (with the exception of an odd mix of independent “apostolic” movements, millennial communes, and cults).
Every major movement has either 1.) claimed apostolic succession in some form (and even then used plurality votes and such to identify and select leaders), or 2.) recognized that biblical apostolic authority was no longer available and looked to congregational or movement-wide consensus in reliably identifying faithful, qualified leadership.
Even the Puritans with their strong view of leadership (and their tendency to overuse authority at times) recognized that they needed to identify a locus of authority (having thrown off RC apostolic succession) and became the founding congregationalists of their time. They didn’t apply a “democratic” 51% votes rule the church approach, but they knew that elders and deacons would have no meaningful, sustainable, and accountable authority without broad support of the body of Christ. Their experiment had many flaws, but at least there was an attempt at applying biblical principle in the absence of NT apostolic authority.
Originally, CJ, Larry and other leaders probably had a “congregational” trust and recognition sufficient to be appropriately establishing and leading a church in Maryland, but when the addition of further leaders, new leaders for church plants, etc. was needed it required self-appointed apostolic authority and began a pattern of giving little or no voice to the “gathering of believers”.
It is a pragmatically easy paradigm and it can carry on for some time on the force of personality, manipulation, and pure chutzpah; but it is by nature a self-defeating approach. Credibility fades and instinctive trust declines in the folks under such a system when pastoral leadership and personal “cover” becomes layers of unfamiliar and untested pastoral and “apostolic” care and the decisions that shape it all become less transparent, more arbitrary-looking, and completely disconnected from the proven trust and recognition of those being governed.
Many SG people are being led (pastorally & apostolically) by people they simply don’t know. They have no seasoned, relational basis to know if their leaders’ hearts, lives, families, and convictions are worthy of their devotion and imitation (and no recourse if they discover over time that the answer to that question is “no”).
Not all monarchs are born to the throne–many schemed, seized, or slaughtered their way to the throne. SGM is closer to a dictatorship or an oligarchy–rule by a few people (or families–hence the legacy pastors).
Acme, At the Abbey we have noticed that “some are born to greatness, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them” and seemly overlooked by brother Shakespeare, some take greatness upon themselves
Watch for things to break losseat the Sovereign Grace Church in Gilbert, Arizona as discussions of lay leadership unfold and God uses the economy to drive home His message.
Romans 8:28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
Cadvael-welcome back.
My little Abbey is praying for the good people of Gilbert.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out…
Indeed brother Jim! The Gilbert Church will either implode or explode in revival. Let us believe for revival. Watch for the IPOD posting of the Sunday March 8th service on the Sovereign Grace Church Gilbert website. The Lay minister received a standing ovation although from our vantage point it appeared that the pastoral team was very slow to rise.