An update from the Board
Dear pastors,
Thank you for bearing with us in patience as we have finalized details for the upcoming Board transition. We appreciate your encouragement, input, and prayers that have played such a significant role for us over the last several months.
This letter is to explain to you the significant changes in leadership structure that are represented in the new Board we hope to install in March, and to solicit your involvement in the process. For a quick reference, we’ve also included at the end of this document a table comparing the old and proposed configurations.
This represents the next step in our polity and leadership refinements that have been in process for the past couple of years. Before we get to the specifics of this step, we want to clarify a few preliminary points. As we’ve stated at the conference and in our various polity meetings, we continue to affirm and celebrate our existence together as a family of churches. Although this letter speaks in terms of “the Board,” that is simply a functional term for the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries and not an abandonment of biblical principle. Based upon the precedent of the New Testament, SGM is an expression of extra-local ministry that is connected to local churches, emerging out of local churches, endorsed by local churches, and working with local churches, with the goal of planting churches and serving those churches as they grow toward maturity. As such (and as will be noted further below), participants in the new Board will comprise both men serving extra-locally as well as elders of churches partnering with SGM.
Thus, we will maintain our historical commitment to the pervasive biblical pattern of gifted men leading the church in its mission—planting churches, nurturing churches, and uniting churches in a common mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:39-40; 18:27-28; 1 Cor. 16:10-12; Phil. 2:19-30; Col 1:7-8, 4:12; Titus 1:5; et al). The inclusion of church elders on the board will also honor the biblical precedent of local elders partnering with extra-local workers in leadership and mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:6).
1. Function of the Board
As noted above, the Board is the governing body of SGM. As such, it is not intended to be involved in the day-to-day affairs of the ministry, which are the purview of the Leadership Team (the president and other senior staff selected by the Board). Rather, it provides oversight and accountability for the organization. For example, the Board:
• Determines the vision and values for the ministry
• Sets priorities and conducts annual performance reviews for the president, and holds the authority to hire/fire him
• Provides financial and legal oversight for the ministry, ensuring an appropriate level of transparency, approving annual budgets, and setting policy
• Defines the Statement of Faith—changes to which will also require a vote of ordained SGM pastors when our polity is revised
Although these are not new responsibilities for the Board, our hope is that they receive more concentrated attention now that the Board (as a governing body) will be distinct from the Leadership Team.
Because of the unique season we are in, this new Board also has a number of special responsibilities awaiting it:
• Finalizing SGM’s polity—something that will likely include a subcommittee of pastors from SGM churches who are not Board members (this will include the development of a book of church order, a defined grievance policy, etc)
• Evaluating recommendations from AOR’s Group Reconciliation report
• Evaluating recommendations from the panels that evaluated Brent Detwiler’s allegations
• Installing a replacement for C.J. Mahaney as president
As we have communicated before, the interim Board’s role was not to finalize polity but to evaluate the charges against C.J. With the seating of a new board, these other important priorities can move forward.
2. Nomination process
SGM’s by-laws provide that the Board of Directors shall make subsequent appointments to the Board. Both in the appointment process for and the composition of the new Board, we are changing how this has been done historically. Given the interim status of this Board and pending finalization of our polity, however, we had to be careful not to set precedents that unduly obligated the future Board, which can further modify this process in light of the ongoing polity refinements in the future. One significant change we believed was important to make immediately was to provide a process for ordained SGM pastors to have input about nominees before they are confirmed. We will explain that affirmation process later in this letter.
The first step in seating the new Board was for the interim Board to nominate a list of men for membership. All of these men individually must meet certain criteria we established. Each man:
1. Is an ordained elder in an SGM church with at least five years of pastoral experience, or a member of the SGM leadership team
2. Has been endorsed to us by his local team for his leadership, wisdom, and character, especially his ability to work well in plurality
3. Possesses a proven grasp of biblical, systematic, and practical theology as well as biblical ethics, and a proven ability to reason biblically and to apply scripture to varied circumstances
4. Has a distinctive gift of leadership, especially the capacity to think strategically and solve problems
5. Has a proven commitment to and passion for SGM’s mission to plant and care for local churches
6. Is in agreement with SGM’s statement of faith and membership agreement with local churches
Other significant changes to the Board include group criteria we set: an expanded roster of at least nine men, at least half of whom are SGM church elders rather than primarily SGM staff (to avoid the dynamics of an insider Board). This change provides a broader perspective, a deeper pool of wisdom, a greater connection with and accountability to churches, and clears the primary obstacle SGM has to joining the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. (There are other measures meant to help SGM benefit from accountability to local churches that we expect will be reflected in the new Partnership Agreement. These include providing recourse for elders in the form of a grievance policy, the requirement that changes in the Statement of Faith be voted on by ordained elders, and the requirement that SGM executive staff serve on the staff of a local church.)
The men below have been nominated for Board membership and have been affirmed by their local teams for the role.
1. Al Pino
2. Craig Cabaniss
3. Ian McConnell
4. John Loftness
5. Ken Mellinger
6. Mickey Connolly
7. Paul Buckley
8. Phil Sasser
9. Ron Boomsma
Short bios of these men are included in the feedback form we created for the affirmation process.
Some of you are surely wondering why C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, and Jeff Purswell aren’t on the list. C.J. and Jeff were both unanimously nominated for the Board but asked to have their names removed from consideration. Both thought they would be able to better serve SGM at present if they were able to specialize in particular areas of their calling. Dave Harvey was also unanimously nominated for Board membership, but after considering the demands of the last eight months, the emergence of some family matters, and the care and counsel of his local eldership, Dave became convinced that Board membership was an unwise commitment right now. This does not mean the Board will not include full-time SGM staff in the future. The Board may nominate new Board members at their discretion and in keeping with the needs of leadership. As with the nominees at hand, new nominations will be submitted to SGM elders for affirmation.
We have instituted a three-year term for Board members. The Board may renew the participation of a member when his term expires, but the renewal will be subject to the affirmation process described below. To avoid a situation in which all nine men are up for renewal or replacement at the same time, the initial slate of men will have staggered terms—three men with two-year terms, three men with three-year terms, and three men with four-year terms. Those terms will be assigned to nominees by the Board once the affirmation process is complete.
This new Board process represents a significant change from the way any SGM board has been formed in the past. We believe that these changes—a larger board, the inclusion of more SGM church elders, a majority non-SGM staff, explicit Board qualifications, approval of Board nominees by their local team, and particularly the affirmation of Board nominees by SGM church elders—will provide us a strong group of gifted men to provide wise and biblical leadership for our future together.
3. Affirmation process
We are submitting these nominees to all ordained elders in SGM churches with the request that they communicate to us their affirmation or concerns for each nominee. Feedback should be based upon the stated qualifications for Board membership.
The interim Board will review and discuss the feedback we receive on each man (recusing the nominees where applicable). If the affirmation process makes it clear that a particular nominee does not meet the stated qualifications, we will find an alternate nominee. If any of you men has questions concerning the feedback we receive on a particular nominee, we will be happy to handle that over the phone.
If you are an ordained SGM pastor, please use the online feedback form to submit your affirmation or concerns. We request that this be done by the end of the day on Wednesday, March 7. Before doing so, you may wish to review the summary of changes (PDF) represented in the new Board structure.
We are encouraged about these changes and believe they will strengthen both our governance and our partnership as we pursue our mission together. We appreciate the feedback we have received from many of you, which has helped to inform the shaping of this process. We never tire of thanking you for your partnership in the gospel, which we trust will only strengthen and prosper in the days ahead.
The SGM Board
Hmm… No CLC Pastors nominated? Well we know at least SGM will have at least 9 member churches left.
Patrick -
Take note of point 6 above. I didn’t know that this was a finalized document. Shouldn’t every member of every SGM church know what this agreement entails? If an individual member in an SGM member church is not aware of what their local church elders have or are committing the local body to, then that should be a major red flag! I am a member of a local SGM church and I know where our elders stand in regard to the document in question. Apparently SGM is keeping that document as written and some churches are on board with the agreement as it stands (and written by Jeff P.)
So will Harvey still be working for SGM but just not on the SGM Board maybe even as president of SGM? My understanding is Harvey is currently employed by SGM and not CFC.
The statement first mentions at least half the board will be “SGM church elders.” The affirmation process then states the nominees will be submitted to “all ordained elders in SGM churches” for feedback. But then they are referred to as “ordained SGM pastors.”
It is strange terms are synonymous, what is the point of having the terms “elder” and “pastor” if they mean the same thing? Even if unintentional, the progression of terms in the statement (elder –> ordained elder –> ordained pastor) gives the appearence of playing with words, trying to minimize the fact that non-paid people are not included in the process.
Most of the nominated board members sat on the three bogus panels that vindicated CJ… go figure!
Lost,
I noticed that, too. Hmmmm….
Lost and Ellie -
These would be the pastors who are on board with the way things have gone and are going to be . . . no surprise there!
Only 3 sat on the panels, so only a 1/3 of them. However, 3 of them were part of the temp board that cleared CJ, and ALL of them are Senior Pastors, which is NOT a qualification (officially) to be part of the board. Believe me, I am not a fan of this process, but what shows me more than anything is that this is all still handled by the pastors behind closed doors.
Another point, notice towards the end that they are very clear to give input based solely on the listed qualifications (most of which many pastors could not speak to directly for any of these men). Already, they want to keep things very narrow and very much “just go with these guys cause we said they are ok” as they can.
First time posting. It seems that the average church member does not have a way to give feedback about any of these nominations. Perhaps it could go through their ordained pastor? The SGM church I am in has one pastor and he has not been ordained yet, so does that mean no one in this church would have a say at all?
It remains, and always will be, an insider Board as long as the Board does the nominating. The structure is designed to give the appearance of more local participation (partly to satisfy ECFA), but it is still a command and control approach to leadership with no provision for local churches to nominate dissenting voices
Greg — You summarized the description of the Board — key red flag: THE BOARD DOES THE NOMINATING. Yes, SGM simply cannot relinquish control – therefore the continuance of SGM strategy: give the APPEARANCE of local congregant participation.
To answer the “who cares” question, these are the men who will choose the new leadership team. They will choose the next president. The “face” of SGM is in their hands. I don’t know if the new bylaws have been written, or what the current bylaws say, but normally, a board of directors chooses officers (leadership team) which may or may not be directors. That would mean that none of the nine men listed above, nor any who were nominated but declined, nor any other interim board member would be excluded.
Appointment by affirmation should not be confused with chosen by, or voted in by SGM pastors. I’d love to see 100 pastors (rightly) state that they DO NOT affirm Mickey and
Ken(sorry, I was thinking of Jared. I have no idea who Ken is). Legally, I don’t think that a stated lack of affirmation would matter at all, as the interim board would be within it’s legal, self-appointed authority to install these men as directors.I would think that current pastors are encouraged by this process, thinking, “at least they told us beforehand what they were going to do…for once”, but this should not be mistaken for anything resembling a representative form of government.
“<em>The structure is designed to give the appearance of more local participation (partly to satisfy ECFA), but it is still a command and control approach to leadership with no provision for local churches to nominate dissenting voices</em>”
————————————
Yes, exactly, and well put. It is sad when their lip service towards more local control is so transparently false. I cannot think of any generous reason why they would couch their authoritarian leadership structure in what sound like falsly congregation terms.
Do they really only want to cling to power? I still want to believe they hold to the authoritarian leadership structure because they think it is the best way (“God’s way”) to care for people (not that I agree that it is). PDI/SGM used to proclaim that openly. But statements like this make it hard to think that.
“I would think that current pastors are encouraged by this process…”
———————-
It would make sense that that is the purpose of the Affirmation Process, and the statement in general, to provide a comfort level to current SGM pastors, not to sound a congregation note to the actual congregations. And it would make sense that I was not thinking of the first line (“Dear pastors,”) when I wrote my comment above.
I am quite pleased with the fact that Dave Harvey is off of the board. Yes, there are issues hanging over the heads of Mickey and Ken, but Brent will get to them soon enough.
John Loftness was a bit of a surprise. He is CJ’s caddie. With CJ gone I’m wondering how that will affect him.
This is GOOD change. Not great, but good. I think we can at least agree that it is going in the right direction?
Ok…for months, almost a year, SGM has been bogged down trying to work out things with Brent, CJ, CLC, Larry, etc…..
And now, in a matter of 24 hours, we have learned CJ is gone and going on to KY along with SGM central, new board member will be elected, they want your input but we need this done within the next month.
And oh yeah, I think that AOR thingy, or whatever that was all about, might be published for any of you that care to thumb through it…..
What a bunch of smoke and mirrors, if there was ever proof of SGM’s level of dysfunction, this is it!
Hi Hesitant,
Welcome.
You asked, “so does that mean no one in this church would have a say at all?”
Yes, that is what this means. Actually, if you’re not on staff (actually, if you’re not high up on the paid staff), then you have absolutely no say. At all.
But you do get to pay the bills.
Welcome to SGM.
Hesitant -
You are probably correct in your assessment. By all means go and ask your pastor. If he doesn’t know or refuses to communicate, then you can assume your church is just along for the ride.
Mellinger, McConnel and Buckley all learned their trade at the feet of Dave Harvey.
Loftness, Connolly and Sasser are well known SGM sycophants and enforcers.
Pino coming out of Metro can’t know how a healthy church is supposed to operate.
That leaves Boomsma and Cabaniss al the only two with no dark history of abuse. However, their continued participation in the charade makes me wonder about their true leanings. You cant work with the sewer master and not come out smelling. I dont see anyone known for their grace, their gentleness and their integrity being associated with Harvey. There are those kind of men in the churches but they rightly stay home and choose not to associate with the Harvey brand.
And to all those people who told me Harvey was just protecting his buddy, CJ…what’s the excuse now?
Well I’m done, Its been a journey but this is horrible. Its a total mockery of scripture. And for anyone from SGM reading.
A ELDER IS NOT A PAID PASTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
intheNickoftime…I was looking at the common denominators in training as well. Didn’t Boomsma and Cabaniss both learn under Mark Mullery in Pasadena, CA?
intheNickoftime- I knew Al back in the day, and was encouraged to see him included. I’ve heard no complaints about him since launching in June of 08.
I’d be more encouraged if he refused to participate, based on the other candidates’ character.
Based on what they state they do, i still fail to see why any existing SGM church actually needs them…
I meant to add this: I fail to see it, so can someone help me understand why the churches do need them…? I really am saying here that i’m probably just not getting something…
I like ANOTHER JOES’s comment. Most churches who have Pastors (they get paid), Elders and Deacons do not get paid by the church. This is all a charade. wonder of CLC will leave the fold.
Glad, I have been wondering that for years.
LilOleMe in #21 -
Cabaniss went to Fuller Seminary, then spent 5 years at Pasadena so he had to be there WITH Mullery but I dont know if MM was in charge at that time. (Lots of turmoil there when Che left) Then Craig planted Grace in San Diego and did 10 years or so, before moving back to Texas to start Grace Church in Dallas. He was/is a regional officer for SGM, so Jim, that puts him in pretty deep with the SGM tough guys. He aint no Shank or Harvey or Osborne but he is certainly playing on their field. I don’t want to say bad things because I haven’t heard much yet, but for now he is a “person of interest” in my book.
Boomsma, on the other hand…You are correct! He spent at least eight years working with or under Mullery. He ascended the throne after MM moved east to take over for the dethroned Benny Phillips. Fairfax, under MM, has ever so slowly switched teams…so much so that now they are team-mates with Josh and the CLC boys. So I dont know if Boomsma learned lording and abuse from MM or learned real pastoring from him. But Pasadena is certainly not well represented on the blogs which speaks well of them.
And following that line of reasoning, Jim, I think it fair to say that Al either left before it got bad down in Metro, or his character allowed him to glide through his time at Metro essentially unaffected by the preferential and celebrity like treatment of the pastors there. All I can say is, “good for him”. But as you say, it would have been better if his name was not sullied by being grouped with the rest of Harvey’s lackeys.
“You are known by the company you keep.”
I thought there was a provision that these blokes were to have demonstrated leadership qualities.
All I see is lips to buttocs. So, clearly by the lack of female names, the only conclusion I can make is you need to be a brownnose with a Y chromosome.
Oh-oh, and they’ve been affirmed for their role.
Does that sgmese mean that they’re auditioning for a part?
Not a stellar start.
To Mike
Back during the time of the Apostles time they, the preachers, weren’t paid either. Getting paid to preach doesn’t have it’s roots in the New Testament.
Ken said directly to me in a conversation that “I will follow CJ as CJ follows Christ, because CJ is a spiritual father to me”. Ken has and continues to follow whatever CJ says.
@ Jim
I know this is a already overstated comment on all of the blogs but this struck a raw nerve ending.
Thus, we will maintain our historical commitment to the pervasive biblical pattern of gifted men leading the church in its mission—planting churches, nurturing churches, and uniting churches in a common mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:39-40; 18:27-28; 1 Cor. 16:10-12; Phil. 2:19-30; Col 1:7-8, 4:12; Titus 1:5; et al). The inclusion of church elders on the board will also honor the biblical precedent of local elders partnering with extra-local workers in leadership and mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:6).
They love Paul, but they cant stand PETER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 peter 5:1-10
To the Elders and the Flock
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
5 In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”[a]
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.
I mean they have a wanna be theologian, who is opening a bible reference tool on his computer and spewing whatever he thinks out to theses poor pastors. Get a grip!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason a elder board made up men chosen from the congregations is biblical is because they had nothing to lose when standing up to a rouge pastor or APOSTLE for that matter. Which means that even if they did anger a PASTOR or PROPHET or APOSTLE and for there actions got voted off at least they could do so and keep their sacred oath of PROTECTING THE FLOCK FROM WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim ~
FYI: Ken Mellinger is Jared’s dad and has been the long time sr. pastor of the Harrisburg, Pa church.
So, I make a comment that I think Al’s a good guy, based on my interactions with him as the pastor of a church three hours away from me, and the fact that he’s stayed off of my radar, meaning he’s not one of the pastors I’ve heard about since starting refuge.
I just received an email that doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of Al as a pastor.
I wish these guys came with white or black hats.
Thanks Marian and Mrs Stretch.
griefofwisdom says, #13 “I cannot think of any generous reason why they would couch their authoritarian leadership structure in what sounds like falsely congregational terms. Do they really only want to cling to power?”
Historically the reason why they couch authoritarian leadership in congregational terms is because they must maintain control at all cost. Making the process sound and feel congragational puts a happy face, “see, we’ve really changed” mask on for the people to feel good about, when in reality nothing has fundamentally changed. You would think they would at least ask the pastors in SGM to put forward those they think should be on the board but that would be giving up control…. and as someone said, control is the holy grail in SGM.
Unfortunately, Josh’s messages at CLC are sounding very much like top down, authoritarian leadership couched in congregational language. I hope and pray he proves me wrong. Having the church affirm decisions the elders make is the exact opposite of what actually took place in Acts 6. In that passage the church chose, the elders affirmed and appointed. That is a very important distinction and one that has far reaching ramifications, as SGM is experiencing as we speak.
And to answer your other question, griefofwisdom, Yes, they (SGM) really only want to cling to power….. and they will continue to do so as long as the local body of believers in each church allow them to.
Jim -
Looks like he wasn’t so successful at walking through a bad situation and not picking up bad habits.
@AnotherJoe – thank you, very perceptive. If anything N.T. apostles were accountable to the local churches, but not the other way around, speaking formally. The apostles were bound to honor the decisions of each local church; the churches were not so bound with respect to the apostles, though the latter could/did exhort them as needful.
Though the Corinthians were blind and dumb re:Paul’s God-given authority on their behalf, the apostle could ‘only’ plead with them from the Word and his testimony of suffering which qualified him for their honor. Paul could not command or order them (e.g., their elders), by formal covenant, to do ‘x’ or ‘y’. That is, he could have, but it wouldn’t have been faithful to His Lord, so he didn’t do this or teach this. Nor did Peter. Nor did John. Nor did James.
Obviously, any local church too proud and self-authoritative to ignore a Paul was a mini-SGM, but that is exactly the point. Under the biblical method, spiritual illness is thereby confined locally, not propagated regionally or globally by ersatz popes. Corinth will impact Ephesus, but not corrupt Ephesus. Ephesus may appear to exert less impact on Corinth than it would if Corinth had pre-submitted itself, but Corinth would never have really submitted in any case – only pretended to do so. Thus, there is no true loss to the kingdom under God’s form of church government; there is gain.
This is not congregationalism as currently understood. The Lord Jesus expects local elders to submit joyfully and proactively to extra-local workers who have earned trust by their suffering, but they submit to the ‘pauls’ as unto Him whom they – with Paul – serve directly, not to apostles as their mediators by which they hope, pretty-please, to gain an audience with the Head.
God’s weak, though defined, organizational methods are so much wiser than the shrewdness of primitive 21st century man.
I just went back and reread the announcement … Need some help here:
“Although these are not new responsibilities for the Board, our hope is that they receive more concentrated attention now that the Board (as a governing body) will be distinct from the Leadership Team.”
Does anyone know what the difference is from the Board and the “Leadership team”? Am I reading that correctly that these are two separate teams? If so, who is on the Leadership team and what is their role in SGM?
Somewhereintime: See Point 1 Function of the Board for an answer to your question. They are two separate entities. The Leadership Team is the president and other senior staff selected by the Board.
@Moniker – correct -
But what stood out to me is that structurally, up to four members of the Board can be from the Leadership team which is selected by the Board and receives their salaries from SGM national.
That seems an unusual structure if you are trying to cultivate transparency and accountability.
I also want to know whether Board members who are not leadership team members will be compensated for their service on the Board (not just for travel and expenses).
The separation of the leadership (team) from an administrative (board) puts the lie, crashingly, to the conceit that SGM is/has/will change. As always, a few animals are more equal than others on the (animal) Farm. Now, yet another species of pig has been defined.
Changing species for a moment, the ‘leadership team’ is always the rabbit-in-the-hat for SGM.
If the board and the leadership team were one, then SGM organizational changes might encourage adjustments to the transparency and accountability of the real leaders. Instead, the new board will absorb/deflect issues with the churches while C.J. is shielded from any future accountability entirely. One might almost think that these guys have done this kind of thing before?
“Where did that silly wabbit go this time?” (Psst. Louisville, KY …)
We may ,easure SGM’s deceptive power by the inability of both deceiver and deceived to get how childish and inept they are from the perspective of church history. Even the deception is third-rate. Alas, our generation has fallen so far that Screwtape, perishing from boredom if he only could, won’t even waste his ‘A’ game on us.
Ok – someone please explain this to me. Under section 1 in the letter to the pastors, it says this:
1. Function of the Board
As noted above, the Board is the governing body of SGM. As such, it is not intended to be involved in the day-to-day affairs of the ministry, which are the purview of the Leadership Team (the president and other senior staff selected by the Board). Rather, it provides oversight and accountability for the organization. For example, the Board:
•
Determines the vision and values for the ministry
•
Sets priorities and conducts annual performance reviews for the president, and holds the authority to hire/fire him
•
Provides financial and legal oversight for the ministry, ensuring an appropriate level of transparency, approving annual budgets, and setting policy
•
Defines the Statement of Faith—changes to which will also require a vote of ordained SGM pastors when our polity is revised
Although these are not new responsibilities for the Board, our hope is that they receive more concentrated attention now that the Board (as a governing body) will be distinct from the Leadership Team.
I am focusing on the statement “Sets priorities and conducts annual performance reviews for the president, and holds the authority to hire/fire him”
Regarding the statement, I would like the former board to make public the documents, meeting notes, emails, etc. – regarding the “setting of priorities and annual performance review” of the president over the last 5 or 10 years to prove the board did what they were responsible for above.
If official documented evaluations / priorities of the past president were done by the former board existed, I think it would have been published by now for all of us to see (the past president’s evaluation has been the board’s or leadership team responsibility according to the letter and if he was responsible for doing this function I think Brent would have kept copies and shared with everyone by now).
I would have no problem if the letter to the pastors above said “Going forward – the board will now set priorities and conduct annual performance reviews for the president, and holds the authority to hire/fire him – and we have failed miserably at in this responsibility in the past and have not done this in an effective manner.”
However in the letter to the pastors to imply this was happening in a some active or functional way in past years seems crazy to me based on what has been happening in SGM that has now been revealed (past blackmailing situations, etc.). A lot of the dysfunction in SGM maybe could have been avoided if the board held the president accountable and if the board was held accountable to do what their “responsibility” was. The simple function of doing evaluation and setting goals for the president should have been a top priority of the board (to help keep the integrity of the president and SGM).
To say in the letter that “our hope is that they receive more concentrated attention” (meaning more concentrated attention on setting priorities and conducting annual performance reviews for the president) What have they been doing before now????? Now this needs a more concentrated effort now?? Why was this not a top priority before??
The board is saying above they only had four job functions. The other three job functions really were probably taken care by one board member -Purswell (values, statement of faith, etc.) and the SGM finance / legal teams (financial / legal – the board would not have much expertise to offer in those areas). The only real job of the board was to make sure the president was held accountable and that should have been their top priority over the past years. In the past I would “believed the best” that this basic high priority for the board would be getting done (for example if they said it was their responsibility – the board would actually do it).
Now the burden of proof is on the board to provide documentation that they actually did something they were responsible for in past years. To gain trust that they actually did what they said they were doing – it would be helpful to see some samples of the past president’s priorities and evaluations that were written up by the board.
I doubt we will ever see any evaluations of the past president done by the board (the evaluations may or may not exist). As a replacement for the evaluations of the past president, I will consider the AOR report to be an evaluation for the past president (if the AOR report is published unedited with the honest input received).
The “behold your board” manor this is taking place is appalling. There is wisdom in waiting to see what the AOR report is going to look like and recommend before having a new board. This is ready shoot aim if there ever was a way of running an organization. Where is the input from the pastors and members on the new agreement or makeup of the board? SG needs to call a synod of all staff not just senior pastors perhaps a layman and two pastors from each church and sort this thing out after the AOR report. It is as if they think leadership is leading everyone off a cliff.
Bridget -
What’s the hurry now anyway? They give “ordained” pastors a week to respond to this information after working on polity for 3 years??
Bridget-
Yes and Yes! This is the pastoral equivalent of a Chinese fire drill for a double decker in London…just keep things changing and maybe no one will remember why they were trying to get off the bus…..
Ted…Don’t you see?
Harvey has to get these hand picked lackeys into office a.s.a.p.
When the AoR report comes out it may suggest Harvey and his ilk all need to leave. It may recommend that an outside organization square up the polity. It may suggest that the leadership team be cleared out and started anew. It may suggest…….(wait for it)……all SGM pastors vote on who is in charge.
AoR may suggest a number of things that are not copacetic with lording and control and continued abuse. So if Harvey wants to maintain control of SGM he has to get his toadies and henchmen installed as officers of the organization as soon as possible so when AoR recommends something else he can say, ”Whoops, I already installed a new team. They were approved by all the pastors in SGM. I can’t put them out now so we will live with them until their terms expire.”
Remember that three will serve two years, three will serve four years and three will serve six year! Kind of like congress! And Harvey will serve at their pleasure but since he put them in they will be happy to do what he asks.
And Harvey will have to get his clones into office to do the polity. Otherwise, honest men with integrity will write the polity and they won’t include preferences for CJ and a power structure so Harvey can manipulate everything. So Harvey has to get his guys in quickly so he can continue to deal the cards, and fix the game.
I see Harvey sticking his middle finger at CLC and Fairfax and all the other doubters and saying, “UP YOURS” ! ! !
But the silver lining in this, if you can see it, is that it will certainly force the hand of Josh and CLC to realize that nothing substantial is changing in SGM so it is time for them to take their ball and go to another playground. And I hope they take a lot of churches with them!
inthenickoftime #46,
I believe you’re onto something….. sounds like you’ve played cards with these guys before.
What seems strange (ok not really) to me is that SGM is making ALL these changes and they have yet to recieve the AoR report?
Brent’s new post…when will they realize that he keeps records of eeeeeverything? I’m not calling Ted deceptive, but how can he be silent when it is clear from the e-mail exchanges that Ted and SGM are saying completely opposite things. Why is it so hard for these guys to admit when they are wrong? They are Christians! I’m flabbergasted. What kind of witness is this? Has our pursuit of “pure” authority, submission, and “sound doctrine” completely blinded us to right and wrong? Not all things are black and white, but when they are, they are. Where is their sense of moral clarity? Is everything relative, that is, things are only what they are when whatever “authority” defines its meaning? Is this how a lie can become a truth?
Ted says he didn’t affirm and recommend the three panel approach. SGM says he (AoR) did…it’s all in writing! Somone is lying, or is wrong, and someone needs to admit this. I mean, I’m not going to preach doom and gloom, but does anyone believe that God does not see this?
Brent has another post up calling SGM out on defrauding CLC in Board selection. He says they have broken the law by not including a board member from CLC.
Argo #49,
The lust for power and control will cause men to sacrifice even things and people they would otherwise hold dear. Ergo my moniker …..
Uriah, The “lust for power and control” seems to have, indeed, defined the motivations and actions of Mahaney, those who follow him, and SGM. —
Bob Dixon concludes in his post #35: “…Yes, they (SGM), really only want to cling to power…and they will continue to do so as long as the local body of Believers in each church allow them to.”
Mahaney relocates to Kentucky. Indications are showing his daughters and their spouses are leaving Virginia with a probable landing in Kentucky. The SGM headquarters could be moving to Kentucky.—Thus, the new mecca is transferring from Gaithersburg to Louisville Kentucky.
Mahaney must surround himself with those who adore him and are loyal to him and all his endeavors. Those who continue to be loyalists to Mahaney and SGM will walk in the SGM directives which have been ingrained in them for over 25 years.
Over on Survivors, poster ‘TurningTide’ (#98) describes the SGM CULTURE which ENABLES the continuance of all that is SGM:
“As I reflect on these years, I am saddened that:
I worshipped at the Shrine of Pastoral Authority
I prostrated myself at the Altar of Total Depravity and Self-Hatred
I paid homage at the Temple of Courtship
I bowed before the Statue of Happy Families
I sought refuge in the Cathedral of the Happiest Place on Earth, though I was never happy and never healthy.
I burned candles in the Tabernacle of Elitism
I lost my first love
~Christ, Have Mercy”
Praying, for Gods deliverance for His people, as He has delivered our family, and many of you. Christ, King of Glory, Have Mercy……..
I can so relate to Turning Tide’s post. I feel the same way. How could I have been so deceived? Why did I not see things sooner? Yes, I knew something wasn’t right for about 8 years, but not sure what was wrong. Was not happy. Had concerns. But we stayed… Believing the best. Many sorrows now.
Dear Lostincyberspace,
You will come through the sorrows…walk and talk with your Lord…He has never left you, and was faithful to bring “nudges” to your spirit (as He did for us for many years) — I believe Jesus was alerting us to these very dangers of ‘leaven’ in the Gospels —He knows we who desire to follow after Him could become unknowing captives of the pollution of mans edicts.
I pray Gods word over you and your household Eph 1:17.18
“I have received the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Jesus, the eyes of my understanding being enlightened.”
–He ever opens our eyes, our spiritual eyes, that we may walk forward…knowing HIM, more and more, being changed into HIS likeness…..
Dear Waters,
Thank you for your very encouraging and kind words. Knowing others have walked through this and have found hope is very comforting.
You’re welcome, LcS! — As our family member declares “our initially heartbreaking story has turned to one of Gods great deliverance from ‘Egypt’ for us — and His loving Redemption!”
Another document written in catch phrases….the word ‘proven’ occurs numerous times — and uh, how is provenness proven?
So much subjectivity — “ a broader perspective, a deeper pool of wisdom, a greater connection with and accountability to churches…” blah, blah, blah…
Think so?
Who writes this stuff?
Who’s gonna believe this stuff?
In the long run, the proof is in the pudding — of which I shall not partake. One slice was enough.
I have been sharing the Gospel with my unsaved sister for many years. Sometimes she showed flashes of interest in my faith and my church. She even attended a Sunday morning meeting at Kingsway while visiting a few years ago. She has been concerned for me and my family over the last year as we endured trials at our church. She called last night because she Googled the author of a little orange book I gave her a few years ago. She told me she spent hours riveted to blogs that unfolded a story about the leader of a Christian movement that her brother was “caught up” in. After an hour or so of a clarifying, question and answer, phone call she reiterated her reason for staying home on Sundays. She concluded that Sovereign Grace, et al, exemplifies Christianity to the “not-born-again” watching world. She asked me why on earth she would use her only day off from the political soap opera at work, to attend the very same circus called the church. She laughed and said that at least if she went to work it would be time and a half.
So much for my witness.
sigh. the little orange book. The Doublecross Centered Life.
Sorry Bill. Don’t stop praying for her and don’t give up. Counterfeits only prove that the real thing exists. The Lord can draw her in. He can do the impossible. I’ll pray for her too.
Bridget,
I did a Google search and found this link for the SGM Membership Agreement: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t.....fUsM5nmWlA
It is dated 2006. I do not know if there is a more current agreement at this time.
LilOleMe -
That propably is the most recent version in print. It was resubmitted to many (all?) the churches for review and signing recently. I don’t know that all the churches are signing on the dotted line without question. Maybe some have . . . and those are the pastors they speak of in #6 above. Maybe any church leadership that didn’t sign it “yet” or “without question” was not included for a spot on the Board. Again, SGM gives some information, but not all the facts. Maybe SGM is attempting to “hold-on to” the churches that are fine with the status quo and aren’t terribly concerned with those that are really thinking the document through. I don’t know their reasons. By their wording above, they are not recognizing lay elders. I also know that many (most?) people in the churches aren’t made aware of this document, what it states, or what their church leaders are committing to on behalf of the congregation. People should be asking. Why would churches want to keep important decisions like this secret or quiet? The answer to “why” gives us much insight into what drives the actions or inactions of people. I know Christians are often taught that asking “why” and other questions is akin to some kind of disgraceful sin, but look at some of the parables. Jesus didn’t mow down the woman who argued for the crumbs . . . Jesus seemed to banter with her!
That should read “look at some of Jesus’ interactions” not “look at some of the parables.”
Hey Bill,
I share your frustration and disappointment with C J and the orange book.
My best friend came to Christ in 2005 and observed at close hand, my dealings with SGM and the way I was excommunicated for sharing my needs with the pastors. As a result he has pretty much turned away from God and most definitely the church.
It’s difficult to try and defend that sort of behaviour to an unbelieving world isn’t it?
I weep tears for the non-Christians and backslidden Christians who have watched and observed this SGM drama unfold. No one has won here.
Bill — praying for your sister. Take heart — your witness has been faithful and authentic. Seeds have been planted; sometimes they take a long time to grow. Your sister may come to Christ before she comes to church — if she’s been reading on these blogs, she’s also seen love, grace, and faith in the midst of the muddle. Blessings to you and your family.
I don’t know anything about Mohler, other than what I’ve read here, which included that most of the SBC has quite a different perspective than he does. Could anyone fill me in as to why and how so? Does SBTS follow Mohler? Read here that he was just on staff there. Anyone know where he went to school? How did CJ get to be buddies with him? Thanks!
Fuzzy:
You can read all about Dr. Mohler here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mohler
Thanks, formersgmer! I don’t think CJ and Mohler will have much if any bearing on the church I’m in now, as the same twisted doctrines found in SGM attracted the pastor to it in the first place, but at this stage, am curious about SGM history and future projections, er, should I say, projectiles?
Read about Mohler on the wikipedia article. I agree with what I read about him, but think that SGM is still a shepherding movement formed during PDI and has taken a lot of scripture out of context to have carried some of their doctrines to such extremes as to be harmful to everyone.
To the NINE – I know you read SGM REFUGE and SURVIVORS so I appeal to you when it comes time to vote for a new SGM President – Josh Harris