My little Abbey is praying for the good people of Gilbert.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out…

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”).

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…

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…

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.

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.

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 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.

Why do you assume that The Quizzler is a MR. ?

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.

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………..

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.

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!