I sort of dreaded writing this post, as this subject is truly one of those where I believe the debate has no end in sight, as many have their firm convictions and minds settled to a degree that won’t be moved by any natural means.  It’s a subject that has to be addressed before we go any further through the minefield of missiology in regard to SGM.  I can’t talk about SGM’s witness to world religions without tackling it.

So, with caution and prayer, here we go…

Once upon a time in PK’s life, back in the day -before Christ- I used to be somewhat of a film buff… well, okay… addict.  Having extensive employment in all facets of the home video industry didn’t help this addiction.  During this time I regularly read film criticism -some of it being required for my profession- and I was not so much guided by their reviews as being amused by them.  However, I remember reading one particular video review in the 1990’s of The Exorcist that I never forgot (unfortunately I forgot the reviewer himself, whether it was Ebert or Maltin).  In one sentence, the reviewer summed it up well: The Exorcist was a once-powerful film, but its impact has been significantly cheapened over the decades by bad imitators.  He was dead-on correct.

I share this story not to tie in Regan McNeil’s head-spinning snarls accompanied by pea-soup hurling into my article for carnal appeal; quite the opposite, in fact.  I share it analogously as I believe this:

“Cult” is a once-powerful word that has been cheapened over the decades by bad imitators.  I would further add to this that the problem, unlike the Exorcist, has cult’s imitators all going by the same name: CULT.

This is an issue that goes beyond the whole evolution-of-language, post-modern nonsensical explanation that tries to marry Charles Darwin and Noah Webster.  By believing that language is ever-growing and goes through some sort of cartoonish survival of the fittest independent of God’s providence is not only erroneous, but it leads to the very issue at hand in this post: the history and cheapening of the words, namely ”cult.”

What, in fact, does the word “cult” mean in terms of classic, evangelical Christian theology?  Is it a word that we let the world outside the church modify and determine for us in the faith, or do we raise our own standard in regard to it?  I would support the latter, and I do not do so in a vacuum, by any means.

I’ve spent many, many hours these past weeks reading posts and comments regarding the issue of whether or not Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) should be classified as a cult.

Before I can write about missiology in regard to witnessing to (a) cult members, (b) those wrapped up in the occult, and (c) other flocks belonging to non-Christian religions, this is a very obvious hurdle to jump.

As I surf sites that have miscellaneous posters and commentators -every one of them entitled to their opinion- who write about the ills of SGM, these are some of the observations and statements of individuals I have gleaned after countless hours of reading:

(1) Some individuals fire a Patriot missile and directly accuse Sovereign Grace Ministries of being a “cult.”

(2) Some individuals fire a bazooka, taking it down half-a-notch from number (1) and directly accuse Sovereign Grace Ministries of exhibiting “cult-like behavior.”

(3) Some individuals fire a sawed-off shotgun, taking it down three-quarters of a notch from number (1), and hint at SGM of demanding “cult-like adherence” to particular doctrinal distinctives, teachings, lifestyles, fads, etc.

(4) Some individuals have fired really loud cap-guns by making the it’s-not-a-cult-but-it-sure-is-scary comments.

What all four of the above have in common is that the word CULT has been thrown into the SGM conversational arena, and there’s no going back.  I knew that by even doing this post I would only contribute to this.

I have a problem with this, in that I believe people need to be very careful before slapping this four-letter word onto SGM.

In my opinion, numbers (2) and (3) above are not just related to number (1)… the first three are practically triplets in terms of forcefulness.  While number (4) may be the red-headed step-brother of this bunch (no offense, red-headed step-brothers), he’s a relative, nonetheless, and can cause as much damage as the triplets.

I don’t think the weapons and sibling analogies can quite capture the concern I have about this word “cult.”  Many will presume I have an issue with it because I’m a member of an SGM church, as in “PK must abhor it because he’s been (gasp) taken captive by them.”

My response is that if you believe this, you haven’t been reading my posts and comments in regard to reform here at SGM Refuge; posts and comments highly critical of my own organization.  I just recently got a bomb in my e-mail’s inbox chastising me for daring to post an R.C. Sproul You-tube clip, claiming that I am duplicitous in supporting Sproul because he supposedly patently supports anything and everything regarding C.J. Mahaney.  This is completely erroneous, and this is a separate issue that can be discussed later, but my point is I take a lot of heat from both sides, and I never take pleasure in it.  SGM needs reform, and that’s where my flag is planted.

One area I feel the need to defend SGM is in this use of the word “cult” as many feel it applies to us.

The reason I have a problem with throwing the word “cult” around is because I am very familiar with the word “cult,” for better and for worse.  I spent the first quarter of my life in a cult, and many of my own family members spent much longer; I know how a cult feels, looks, sounds, smells and tastes.  While I have no formal degrees regarding it, I’ve studied cults, the occult and non-Christian religions for the better part of three decades.  I’ve spent hours and hours with ex-cult members, spent just as many hours witnessing to cult members, and spent even more hours on my knees before God regarding all of the above.

This is where I part company with many folks who post or comment and include “cult” in the same sentence along with Sovereign Grace Ministries in a scathing, derogatory or less-than-flattering way.  In the heat of experiencing grief within my own ministry, I may have even uttered these words myself.  Carrying it beyond an emotional response needs to be seriously reviewed and considered.  Beloved, I believe that SGM on its worst day doesn’t even tread the same ground that a “cult” does if we are to apply any type of meaningful standard to the word “cult.”

I know for many reading this, that last sentence felt like salt on your open wounds and many of those wounds were inflicted by SGM.  And I know many who are reading this went through abominable situations due to the neglectful, offensive and sinful behavior of many SGMers, those in leadership and those in the flock.  Please understand that I haven’t gone temporarily insane and forgotten this.  Others are taking exception to my words because you thought SGM was wrapped up snugly in a Sociology 101 textbook definition of a cult.

Prayerfully consider holstering any six-shooter comment retorts before reading the rest of this post; in other words, hear me out.

Many men have given their lives or at the very least significant chunks of their ministry in researching, affirming and developing a detailed Evangelical Christian apologetic in regard to the study of cults.  Among them on a very short list are Jan Karl van Baalen, Walter Martin, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler and Ravi Zacharias.  There are of course many more, and please don’t be offended if I didn’t list your favorite cult-buster here.

In all of the above individuals’ bodies of work (and many more that were not listed) that includes articles, books, and audio messages detailing their take on the subject of cults, there is an unswerving lane of consistency they maintain before stamping the word “cult” onto any organization.  This lane, I am convinced, distilled down to the nitty-gritty, includes essentials of the Christian faith, one or more of which must be mangled to the point of being utterly outside orthodoxy before the word “cult” ever comes into the picture (these are enumerated, but not listed in order of importance; one could argue they are all on the same plane of profundity):

(1) His Word is Truth, or the Infallibility/Inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

(2) God in Three Persons, or the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

(3) The Gospel of the Deity of Jesus Christ.

(4) The Gospel of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.

(5) The Gospel of Christ in His Dying for our sins, or the Doctrine of Salvation, or the Doctrine of the Atonement (its counterpart would include salvation PLUS works formulae and the error of universal salvation).  Included in this nearly-unfathomable subject is the truth that human works are a natural outpouring of one’s salvation status, but contribute absolute zero to that same salvation status. 

(6) The Gospel of Christ in the triumph over death in His bodily resurrection.

(7) The Gospel of Christ in His Return, or Second Advent (not when He is coming again, but that He is coming again).

Staunch Hyper-Calvinists would whip out TULIP at this point, but I think it obfuscates the issue at hand, which is defining a cult.  In numbers one through seven above, there are solid lines of agreement, however slim one may think they are, between Arminians and Calvinists and everyone in between.

Others believe that items such as (a) Spiritual Gifts and their manifestations, (b) a correct understanding of the offices of the church (a subject close to my heart) (c) the roles of gender in relationship to marriage and church leadership, etc. should be in the above list.  Subjects like this, while hotly debated and contested (some by me on a regular basis) I still believe fall within the periphery of theology, and not the soul-saving essentials.  As Wayne Grudem would say, a church can be more or less pure in these areas.

I think I’ve said enough in the two paragraphs above to expect an inbox full of grenades.  So be it.  My only prayer is that individuals see the heart of what I am saying.  Are there psychological games, abuse and general mayhem with the minds of the sheep in cults?  Of course there is.  Are there similar psychosomatics and attempts at conditioning within orthodox churches?  Sadly, yes.  But regardless of one’s personal experience in an SGM church and their take on what they or a loved one went through, all I ask is that you really consider or re-consider the use of the word cult.  Don’t let the world define this word for you, or you may quickly find that they will call any body of believers you set up camp with a cult.  There are some very generic definitions of “cult” bouncing around out there.  Many so-called experts, with one broad sweep of a word-processor’s clickety-clack, dust all of Christianity into their basin labeled CULTS.  The Roman Empire called Christianity at one time a “cult.”  It made them feel better about serving up “cult” members to lions.

Here’s some thoughts from Irving Hexham, which I believe are helpful in governing our mouths (mine being first) in regard to this word:

Cults.  Defining a cult is far more difficult than is often appreciated.  Many evangelical Christians support the activities of Jews for Jesus and see them as a legitimate missionary group.  But members of the Jewish community regard them as an evil and deceptive cult, a fact that well illustrates the problems surrounding the word. (Elwell, 289)

Hexham goes on to describe the history of the word “cult,” it’s usage, and how cult-busting, while necessary in the evangelical sense, is a difficult ministry to administer (f.y.i., Hexham’s entry is in a book published in 1984, so this thought is all the more relevant in the present tense):

In the last twenty years a large number of evangelical books dealing with cults have appeared.  Over the course of time these have increasingly concentrated on the allegedly fraudulent claims of the cults, the immoralities of their leaders, and the ways in which their followers are deceived.  As a result, in many cases a transition has occurred from a theological argument refuting the claims of various religious groups to a reliance upon the psychological arguments which suggest that members of these groups are in some way brainwashed.  This development poses a great danger for evangelical Christianity as can be seen from William Sargent’s The Battle for the Mind (1957).  In this book Sargent takes evangelical conversion as a classic example of brainwashing.  More recently this argument has been developed by Jim Siegelman and Flo Conway in their popular book Snapping (1979), where the experience of born-again Christians is compared to the process by which people join groups like the Moonies. (Elwell, 289)

Hexham elaborates on the legal quandary this has put evangelicals in with anti-conversion laws, such as the state of New York’s Lasher Amendment (11122-A, March 25, 1980) which have had a whiplash effect in Christendom’s relationship with the state, to put it mildly.  He then finishes the entry with a cold splash of water on our faces:

Today the real problem of cults is the propaganda value of the word “cult” in a secular society.  Although there are reliable statistics to show that the total membership of groups like the Children of God, the Unification Church (Moonies), and Hare Krishna is less than 35,000 in the United States and even fewer in other Western countries, these groups are presented as a major threat to society [1984 statistics].  As a result secularists are able to urge the acceptance of laws which replace religious freedom by a grudgingly granted religious toleration.  Rather than persisting with the use of a word which has now become a propaganda weapon, the academic practice of calling such groups “new religious movements” should be followed [Josh McDowell appears to have done this in quite a bit of his work, referring to them as "today's religions," among others].  An alternative to this neutral terminology available for Christians who oppose such groups on theological grounds would be to revive the usage of “heretic” or simply call such groups “spiritual counterfeits.”  Such a procedure would move the debate away from psychological theories that can be used by secularists against Christianity to the arena of theological discussion and religious argument. (Elwell, 289)

Years ago I would have disagreed with Hexham, but I strongly agree with him now as I have seen over the decades how society wants to litigate Christianity into either extreme, innocuous liberalism or mythological non-existence.

Many will read what they want in this post and fire away, but I pray that is not the case.  Many will interpret my statements such as my belief that gender roles -in relationship with leadership and polity- falls ultimately into the periphery of theology as code for “gays can believe one through seven and they’ll be saved or can be pastors,” when that is not at all what I am saying.  I believe the marrow of theology, the rock solid core, to which all of the arms of theology originate from, can be found in the essentials above.  If one must use the word “cult,” it has classically fallen into the category of being blatantly heretical in relationship with one of the above seven essentials of Evangelical Christianity -regardless of psychological systems employed and their devastating effects.  The fact that the church universal -not just SGM- has goons that employ such psychological tactics does not relegate their existence into heresy, pure and simple.

Call it my opinion, print it up and burn it if you want to.  But my final answer to the question of whether or not Sovereign Grace Ministries is a “cult” will always be the same unless something radically changes:

No, we are not a cult.

How in the world can this make me heartless in regard to those who have suffered at the hands of SGM?  Beloved, these things occur in mainline denominations and non-denominations, and if we call everyone a cult, then we’ve moved into the realm of the atheistic psychoanalyst.  You know the one.  He’s the guy with the bells on his hat, tricycling ice cream through your neighborhood and parroting his college professor, who in turn was parroting his college professor who taught him:

“There is no God!  There is no God!  Squwak!”

He needs the Gospel, and Christ is sufficient.

…pk

——————-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. (Editor).  Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.

In returning to the original structure I established regarding this series on the missiology of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), I will now quote myself from Missiology Part 1:

“In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), Professor Arthur F. Glasser attempted not so much to define what he believes missiology should be as he does documenting what it has been and what five ”Major Issues” have surrounded it and shaped it over the last two millennia and beyond: (1) Apostolic Practice, (2) Church Structure and Mission, (3) The Gospel and the Religions, (4) Salvation and Non-Christians, and (5) Christianity and Culture. (Elwell, 725) [enumeration mine]“

In Glasser’s description and question regarding number (2) above, he writes the following:

Church Structure and Mission.  What is the relation between the church’s structured congregations, ruled by its ecclesiastical authorities, and those mission structures within its life directed by others, whether voluntary or authorized, whereby the gospel is shared with non-Christians and new congregations are planted? (Elwell, 725)

I think it is interesting to note that Glasser observes both “voluntary” and “authorized” as legitimate.  This is probably the view of most evangelical bodies’ theology regarding missions, but it is very much not the case with the organization I am affiliated with, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM).

The church structure, or polity, that SGM claims and exhibits has been examined at this link.  In summation, the best way I know to describe our polity is a hierarchy that wants to call itself a plural eldership.  We have an “apostolic team” that has recently re-dubbed itself a “leadership team.”  However, in the latest missions video when Josh Harris interviews C.J. Mahaney, C.J. speaks about the “apostolic team.”  One can only surmise that the name change was short lived, or simply toyed with and backed up by very little conviction regarding it.  Whatever name changes we’ve had, this has little to no changes in how our polity operates.  This is discouraging, to say the least.  How this affects our missions is profound, and a partial description of this can be found in this series’ previous post.

In some final words about polity’s influence on our missions is the concept of the church planter who is given elder status (Harvey, 20, 44) and leads the church as an elder from the moment the first service begins.  It must be said by me and the confirmation of many others at SGM Refuge that our experience -inside and outside SGM- is the term “elder” is never used at SGM.  It is understood very early on that we have a “senior pastor,” then “associate pastors” and “interns.”  If the language of “elder” is used along with the aforementioned terms in Dave Harvey’s booklets Polity and Missiology, this can lead to confusion quickly, particularly with new members.  One wishes that the terms we actually use were more honestly represented in Harvey’s works, as “elder” is completely absent from our vernacular.

SGM missions are not done without SGM HQ’s authorization and direct involvement, period, end of story.  While this may afford “support,” it also smacks of control in an area where God may be mobilizing a person in a unique way to serve a unique task. Imagine the response if you told a member of leadership you felt called for the specific task of being a missionary, and then proceeded to elaborate on it.  Exintern has, and the results were less than positive, to say the least.

The absence of E-Teams in the 2000s, a ministry that was once an integral part of SGM/PDI also leaves some members scratching their heads.  The bulk, if not all of our missiology, rests with SGM’s powers that be, a group of self-described “gifted and proven” leaders. (Harvey, Missiology, 4)

It would serve SGM’s leadership team very well to examine the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 through the eyes of fellow T4G guest speaker John MacArthur (who, I can confidently proclaim, has done a few things other than speak at T4G conferences), particularly regarding his comment on verse 16:

28:16 the eleven disciples does not mean that only the eleven are present.  The fact that some there “doubted” (v. 17) strongly suggests that more than the eleven are present.  It is likely that Christ arranges this meeting in Galilee because that is where most of His followers are.  This location seems the most likely for the massive gathering of disciples Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:6 (see note on v.7). (MacArthur, 1186)

So, per his suggestion, let’s stroll on back to Matthew 28:7 and look at MacArthur’s comment regarding it:

28:7 there you will see Him. See verses 10, 16 [Matthew 28:10,16] [and] [Matthew 26:32] [and] John 21:1-14.  This does not mean that they would not see Jesus until then.  He was seen by the apostles several times before they saw Him in Galilee (Luke 24:15,34,34,36 [and] John 20:19,26).  But His supreme post-resurrection appearance is in Galilee, where “He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once” (1 Corinthians 15:6).  See note on verse 16. (MacArthur, 1184)

Christ is not speaking to a closed group.  Beloved, this small sampling of verses (Matthew 28:7,16 and 1 Corinthians 15:6) should once and for all make it very clear that the Great Commission was given to you by Jesus Christ.  Christ did not elaborate in such a way that necessitated making ridiculous triangular diagrams, charts and formulas (Harvey, Missiology, 6, 15, 25, 27, 28, 36 and Polity, 2, 19, 24, 26) that try to bottle up people and through a corporate manager style of franchising, distribute those who have been “called” to do mission work.

ONCE AGAIN: Our apostolic authority comes from the Bible, via the Epistles and Gospels, empowered by the Holy Spirit.  The Great Commission contains the precious words of Christ.  What an infinite honor it is to be sent by Him!  Don’t overcomplicate the Gospel.  Go because Christ commands you to go.  That isn’t reckless, that’s Holy Scripture.

…pk

——————–

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. (Editor).  Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.

Harvey, Dave.  Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord (Number 4 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).  Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2006.

Harvey, Dave.  Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (Number 2 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).  Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2004.

MacArthur, John.  The MacArthur Bible Commentary.  Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005.

In your SGM church, you may be in the midst of the endless forays into “indwelling sin” and a recitation of all the bad things you did that warranted the Cross (and I do not negate this fact or event by any means).  However, are you -or were you ever- taught about the miracle that takes place in terms of your sin being absent when God looks on you?  Are you ever told that in the Great Exchange, when God looks on you, He sees the righteousness of Christ?

Enjoy this six-minute old school video (probably filmed right around the time I was going into college) by T4G speaker R.C. Sproul.  Leaders, take a clue or two from this guy and start encouraging your flocks!

…pk

PREVIOUSLY, IN (PART TWO) of MISSIOLOGY:

Hello Beloved:

Wayne Grudem describes the Purposes of the Church as follows:

We can understand the purposes of the church in terms of ministry to God, ministry to believers, and ministry to the world. (Grudem, 867)

He further breaks this down into categories he elaborates on: (1) Ministry to God: Worship, (2) Ministry to Believers: Nurture, (3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy, and (4) Keeping These Purposes in Balance. (Grudem, 867-869)

So what is the elaboration behind Grudem’s (3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy?  Stay tuned.  It’s a goldmine.

——————–

…AND NOW, PART THREE

Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy. Jesus told his disciples that they should “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19).  This evangelistic work of declaring the gospel is the primary ministry that the church has toward the world.31 Yet accompanying the work of evangelism is also a ministry of mercy, a ministry that includes caring for the poor and needy in the name of the Lord.  Although the emphasis in the new Testament is on giving material help to those who are part of the church (Acts 11:29; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 1 John 3:17), there is still an affirmation that it is right to help unbelievers even if they do not respond with gratitude or acceptance of the gospel message.  Jesus tells us,

“Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:35-36) [emphasis in bold italics by Grudem]

[...and Grudem's  #31 footnote reads]:

31. I do not mean to say that evangelism is more important than worship or nurture, but only that it is our primary ministry towards the world. [emphasis in italics by me]

(Grudem, 868)

The above words from Grudem are both echoing and bringing home to us the words of Christ that seem to leap from the pages of scripture, and these words bring me up short.

My propensity is to not even share the Gospel with those who are unkind to me, let alone give them practical help in regard to their health and “daily bread” needs regardless of their response to the Gospel.  God forgive me for the Phariseeism that has obviously been birthed in my heart (please understand me: in no way do I blame SGM on this particular bullet); and Christ forgive me for directly disobeying Your command (You did not say, “This is a good idea,” or, “Here is a suggestion.”)

God is merciful to remind me of this!  It’s not about Protestant Knight.  It’s not about you.  It’s not about any of us.  It’s about the Gospel.  It’s about Him.  He is the Gospel.  And He is merciful to all.

The context of “mercy” within Dave Harvey’s Missiology booklet -his vision of how Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) would, should, and does acts of mercy- is an interesting picture, to say the least.  If one were to watch a PowerPoint presentation of the Missiology booklet, I’m sure it would seem like one of those so-called job interviews that turns out to be an attempt to rope one into an Amway-type schematic of missions.  According to Harvey, any type of mercy missions done by SGM must adhere to a pyramidic, alliterative model developed around Harvey’s extrapolations of the Message (the base of this pyramid), Method (in the center of this pyramid), and the Model (at the top of this pyramid).  (Harvey, 6)

Within those words that are contained in this pyramid, Harvey gives sub-categories and sub-sub-categories as descriptors.  For Message it is The Gospel and Gospel Inspired motives: The Way of Humility and The Way of Servanthood.  For Method, it is Church Planting, Apostolic Ministry and Team Ministry.  For Model, it is the ASLA (as in Assessment, Specialized Training, Launch Support, and Apostolic Care) Adoption Process and Associate Program. (Harvey, 36)  Harvey spends the bulk of the Missiology booklet defining these categories, sub-categories and sub-sub-categories.

I did a word and phrase search -that is, words or phrases that may be pertinent to the subject of missions- for the entirety of Missiology, and below is a list of those words or phrases and how many times they appear within the booklet:

“Charity”: 0 times.

“Christ’s love,” or “God’s love,” or “Holy Spirit’s love” phrases: 0 times.

“Clothing,” and “clothe,” words: 0 times.

“Food,” or “feed,” words: 0 times.

“Love of Christ,” or “Love of God,” or “Love of the Holy Spirit” phrases: 0 times.

“Love your enemies,” phrase: 0 times.

“Rescued,” word: 0 times.

“Samaritan,” word: 0 times.

“Share the gospel,” or “sharing the gospel” phrases: 0 times.

“Foreign,” or “foreign mission/missions”: 1 time.

“Saved,” word: 1 time.  It is from quoted scripture.

“Word of God,” phrase: 1 time.

“Witness,” or “witnessing,” words: 2 times.

“Child,” and “children,” words: 3 times.

“Hope” or any word beginning with “hope-”: 3 times, combined total.

“Medical,”: 3 times.

“Preach the gospel” phrase: 3 times.

“Salvation,” word: 3 times.  One is from quoted scripture.

“Holy Spirit,” and “Spirit,” separately, as in referring to the third Person of the Holy Trinity: 4 times, combined total.  Two occurrences are quotes from scripture.

“Bible,” word: 5 times.

“Mercy” or any word with the prefix “merci-”: 5 times, combined total.

“Love” or any word beginning with “love-”: 5 times, combined total.

“Country,” and “countries,” words referring to countries other than the U.S.: 6 times.

“Lost,” word: 6 times.

“Earth,” word: 7 times.  Five of those are directly from quoted scripture.

“Theology,” word: 7 times.

“Faith” or any word beginning with “faith-”: 9 times, combined total.

“Grace,” not including the name Sovereign Grace Ministries: 9 times.

“Doctrine,” or “doctrinal,” or “doctrinally” words: 10 times, combined total.

“Jesus,” word: 10 times.

“Baptize,” and “Baptizing,” words: 11 times, combined total.

“World,” word: 18 times.

“Disciple,” or “discipling,” or any word beginning with “discipl-” that refers to this in the sense of “disciple” in the Great Commission: 28 times.

“Christ,” word: 37.

“Biblical/Biblically”: 38 times, combined total.

“Serve,” or “serving,” or “servanthood,” words, relating to serving in the church: 67 times.

“God,” word: 77 times.

“Apostle/Apostolic,” or any word beginning with “apost-”: 115 times, combined total.

The name “Sovereign Grace Ministries”: 269.  If we subtract the three times their name appears at the bottom of each page denoting copyright info (approx. 150), we are still left with at least 119 times.

“Plant,” or any word or phrase containing this, specifically referring to church planting: 155 times.

While many would fault statistical data like this in forming a conclusion about a written work, I think we can safely note that Dave Harvey is not interested in talking much about anything except how missiology is filtered through SGM’s concept of church-planting: the apostolic team members are in charge.  Once again, polity affects even our ministry to the world.  It could be seriously argued that Missiology is not about missions so much as it is defending the “apostolic team.”

I was saddened after doing this word and phrase search, and even disgusted by some of it.  It’s good to know that in a 46 page document the word “God” was mentioned 77 times.  It’s disgusting to know He, the Creator of the Universe, Who is calling us to Himself, is outranked 2x with the 155 total of “Apostles/apostolic/apostolicity,” etc.  Harvey does have some mention of medical/mercy missions, but his absorption with the church planting model within his pyramidic matrix all held together by the apostles definitely pervades and sours the entirety of Missiology’s text.

There is a high probability that I have fellow brothers and sisters within SGM that are saddened by the time and energy I put into the above word and phrase search.  Beloved, I’m sad that time and energy went into Missiology, a work that loves the sound of its own voice; a work that glorifies the efforts men… a work where God is invited later to the party because it is assumed He is the originator of this pyramid scheme, and the Holy Spirit is virtually ignored.

A Message, a Method, a Model.  Proclamation, Integration, Expansion.  Focused yet Flexible.  Mobile, Purposeful, Relational.  Leadership, Plurality, Unity.  ASLA.  Character, Capabilities, Conduct in the Home, Confirmation in the Church.  The Principle of Plurality among elders.  The Principle of the Presiding Pastor.  The Principle of Partnership with Apostolic Ministry.  Musings on the Metaphor.  Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers.  Peter Piper Picked a Peckle of Pickled Peppers.  I must confess I’m sick and tired of the principle of the plurality of potent, acrostical, alliterative, asinine and Juvenile Corporate Americanization of decidedly describing what concretely could be solidly summed up admirably adequate as the Great Commission.

The Gospel, in all of its beauty, power and magnificence, is quite simple.  Don’t overcomplicate it.

The following is an excerpt from Missiology that is essentially its heart:

A truly biblical missiology has a sturdy ecclesiology that shapes and guides its methods.18 The New Testament model is for the preaching of the gospel to be directed toward the formation of local churches, which provide for new converts to be baptized, discipled, and taught within the appropriate context of biblical community.  Indeed, the Great Commission would make missionaries into church planters—people whose passion for the gospel results in a passion for the church.

It’s not enough simply to preach the gospel and see people converted.  The Great Commission is fully satisfied only when converts become anchored in their faith, instructed in the context of the local church, and equipped as ambassadors of Christ. That is, made disciples.

[and Harvey's #18 endnote reads]:

18. Chaney agrees. He writes, “The only way to increase the ratio of Christians to population in any nation is to multiply the number of churches. If evangelicals are to make significant progress in bringing America to Christ, the number of churches must be multiplied.” Charles L. Chaney, Church Planting at the End of the Twentieth Century (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1991) pp.176-177

(Harvey, 16, 43)

Let’s cross-examine Harvey’s text with the remainder of Grudem’s text under the Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy header (picking up right after Grudem’s quotation of Luke 6:35-36):

The point of Jesus’ explanation is that we are to imitate God in being kind to those who are being ungrateful and selfish as well.  Moreover, we have the example of Jesus who did not attempt to heal only those who accepted him as Messiah.  Rather, when great crowds came to him, “he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them” (Luke 4:40).  This should give us encouragement to carry out deeds of kindness, and to pray for healing and other needs, in the lives of unbelievers as well as believers.  Such ministries of mercy to the world may also include civic activities or attempting to influence governmental policies to make them more consistent with biblical moral principles.  In areas where there is systematic injustice manifested in the treatment of the poor and/or ethnic or religious minorities, the church should also pray and -as it has opportunity- speak against such injustice.  All of these are ways in which the church can supplement its evangelistic ministry to the world and indeed adorn the gospel that it professes.  But such ministries of mercy to the world should never become a substitute for genuine evangelism or for the other areas of ministry to God and to believers mentioned above. (Grudem, 868)

Grudem and Harvey aren’t just slightly different in their approach… they’re on different planets.

I can’t think of a better way to end this particular post than to quote from Grudem’s QUESTIONS FOR PERSONAL APPLICATION at the end of his “The Nature and Purposes of the Church” chapter in Systematic Theology (question number 4):

To which purpose of the church do you think you can most effectively contribute?  Which purpose has God placed in your heart a strong desire to fulfill? (Grudem, 869)

…pk

——————–

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grudem, Wayne.  Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.  Leicester, Great Britain: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, HarperCollins, 1994.

Harvey, Dave.  Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord (Number 4 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).  Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2006.

And the world says: “You really want to be at that church? John Piper hates women. Don’t you know that? John Piper hates women.”

I grope in a controversial situation concerning complementarianism and egalitarianism, for ways to celebrate and articulate magnificence in women. “What do you think that looks like because you don’t think they should be elders, so you must think they’re dumb.” Or, “You don’t think they should call the final decisive shots in the marriage but be responsive and supportive, so, what is magnificence here?”

One of the words that has proven to be remarkably vision-giving for me and them. My goal for the women of our church is that they become sages. It’s an unusual word; we all tend to know what it means. It’s a Huldah-like…they streamed to Huldah. She was a prophet, but she evidently didn’t do public prophetic ministry, they came to her in quiet. I don’t know the details.

But I just want our women to study Wayne Grudem’s Theology and read my books and read you guys’ books and have rich, deep, strong, theology; unshakable faith; tender, sweet, kind, supportive, loving hearts towards husband and church.

And as they get to be 40, 55, 60, people are streaming to them for wisdom, because they’ve walked through such deep water.

Women, don’t begrudge suffering, you will become a sage. People will stream to you. Men will seek you out, which will not be inappropriate in the right setting, in which they say, “I need your help, I need counsel, I need insight into how to deal with this.”

And you’ve walked through 30 years, and you’ve carried this and your arm has been lamed…

And you’ve loved this husband who’s never believed and he’s with you and you’re with him…

You have this child who you’ve now nursed for 35 years and lives at home with you still and has the brain of a two-year-old…

Talk to me about perseverance, ma’am.”

View the source here

Hello Beloved:

I wanted to include a brief snippet of the last post on missiology, so I guess I can introduce it like a television series:

PREVIOUSLY ON MISSIOLOGY:

In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), Professor Arthur F. Glasser attempted not so much to define what he believes missiology should be as he does documenting what it has been and what five ”Major Issues” have surrounded it and shaped it over the last two millennia and beyond: (1) Apostolic Practice, (2) Church Structure and Mission, (3) The Gospel and the Religions, (4) Salvation and Non-Christians, and (5) Christianity and Culture. (Elwell, 725)

I think this would be a good template in guiding our series on this subject, which launches us immediately into topic number one: Apostolic Practice.  Glasser’s entry on missiology briefly elaborates on this subject that provides a solid framing in our approach:

Apostolic Practice.  How is the apostolicity of the church to be expressed if it is conceived as embracing the evangelistic practice of the apostles as well as their “received” teaching?  What is the church’s collective responsibility touching the sending forth of laborers to “bring about the obedience of faith…among all the nations” (Romans 1:5)? (Elwell, 725)

So what does [Dave] Harvey have to say about the “apostolicity” of the church?  A lot.  We barely get through page four of Harvey’s booklet when he makes a particular item bluntly clear:

Early in the history of this ministry [Sovereign Grace Ministries] it became apparent that the churches needed to be linked by more than a name and an essentially common vision.  A leadership team of gifted and proven leaders was formed and given a dual responsibility: serving the local churches and establishing strategies for future missions direction. (When referring to the overall ministry, “leadership team” is for us synonymous with “apostolic team,” a phrase defined in the following pages.)  (Harvey, 4; emphasis in bold mine)

So whatever name change takes place with the apostolic/leadership/whatever team, it’s still synonymous with “business as usual.”

——————–

AND NOW, PART TWO:

Before we go any further, let’s remember the Great Commission from our Lord Jesus Christ:

16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:16-20. New American Standard Bible [NASB]).

To be fair to Harvey, let’s take a look at his words in explaining exactly what the “purpose” of the Missiology booklet is:

The purpose of this booklet is twofold: to explain how Sovereign Grace Ministries understands the New Testament teaching on missiology, and to describe how we have sought to apply that teaching in response to the Great Commission. But first let us emphasize the obvious: this is far from the last word on the subject. We are a young family of churches and have much more to learn about missiology than we have to teach. Our gains have been modest and our mistakes memorable. Our understanding and practice of missiology (and indeed of every area) is semper reformanda—always being reformed. Yet, for reasons mystifying to us, there is growing interest in our doctrine and practice of missions. So here in these pages is an attempt to express and explain briefly our position and practice. (Harvey, Missiology, 3; emphasis mine)

So, after three decades, we are still getting the cop-out phrases to justify past, present and future mistakes that are, by Harvey’s admission, “memorable.”  Is this careful humility? Others, like myself, wonder if Sovereign Grace Ministries -who has had roughly three and a half decades from its inception to make a stronger announcement on its missiology- will step up to the plate to say anything substantive rather than publish an ambiguous missiology that flies apostolic authority under the radar (barely).

The flexibility of this ”semper reformanda,” used in this context, allows -I believe- for the same mistakes, a.k.a. sin, to be made over and over again with very little to no accountability to the congregation.  This results in nothing being in place to put the church back on track in regard to obedience of the Matthew 28:16-20 directive.

This is a command, and not a suggestion or good idea.  When Christ says “Go,” He is not speaking in a way that allows whimsy or convenience to dictate our witness.  The record of Scripture reveals a transformation of our souls that gives us a desire to share this Hope with the lost, and Christ is commanding us to run with it.  He is not speaking exclusively to the apostles, whom in this passage He addresses as disciples.  The Sovereign Grace Ministries Apostolic Team cannot lay exclusive claim to this passage.  But the implications of their actions as testified by many here and in their literature (i.e., church planting teams bear a sole witness in terms of a radical spreading of the Gospel) is that they do have the corner on the evangelism market.  This implies that unless your evangelistic efforts are directed by their apostolic leadership, your fruit will be minimal at best and sinful at worst.

If there is any doubt to my observations, read pp. 16-17 of Harvey’s Missiology, where he proceeds to lambaste Christian media as being inadequate and producing disciples of a lesser “quality.”  I believe many Christians, especially those in Third World countries, would disagree with Harvey and thank God for the trickle of media that can bust through the airwaves and underground pipelines when missionaries’ passports are denied; in these places, Harvey’s concept of the “local church” is stomped out harshly by murderous dictators and their regimes, and media combined with the underground church are the only way these precious brethren receive the Gospel.

Additionally, there are many in our own country that are invalid and/or disabled who have been abandoned by their own “local church.”  Where do they get their preaching and teaching?  Christian media.

I also find it amazing that statements like this can be uttered with a straight face when SGM has a veritable department store of music, books, video, and audio-message media available online.  Can Harvey honestly say to the permanently hospitalized quadriplegic that their consumption of SGM media isn’t enough?  Must they be wheeled into the local church and made to sign a member’s contract/agreement/blood oath to get the full benefit of the Gospel?

The arrogance of such statements and the audacity that Harvey has in claiming to know how to better spend $15,000-$17,000 a week (Harvey, 16-17) by planting churches can only make the blood boil of those who work hard in the media to spread the Gospel in this country and the rest of the world.  Do efforts legitimize a doctrinal stance?  Of course not.  But that’s not what we are talking about here, and Harvey makes no doctrinal distinctions when it comes to his approval of Christian media.  He views it as a supplement, at best, and nothing more.  In my case, I simply shake my head in shame that a leader of our organization can make such pride-filled, unbiblical, man-centered statements as these.  Folks, Harvey’s words are there; this is not a simplistic assignation of motives.

Harvey tries to soften the business end of his baseball bat that has been inscribed with his New Testament “local church” observations by adding the following:

Especially in cross-cultural application, added obstacles will surely arise, from seasons of persecution to the enactment of strict government policies that declare a country “closed.”  But let us remember that the New Testament depicts a world in which persecution, suffering, and martyrdom were not unusual for Christians obeying the Great Commission.  Despite such severe challenges, local churches were continually planted and strengthened.  We must not abandon our commitment to church planting simply because a nation appears hostile or closed. (Harvey, 17-18)

The above statement is not necessarily inaccurate, but it is cheapened by the high-nosed we-know-better-than-y’all Phariseeism it is prefaced by!  This is like throwing a bucket of water on a house they have already torched.  This is not Scripture or the Spirit of the Gospel by any stretch of the imagination.

And notice the word exchange and cross-definitions going on?  “Missions,” “Missiology,” “Apostolic Ministry” and “Church Planting” all become the same thing by such encompassing, generic statements.  Here’s an example (and these types of statements are littered throughout Missiology):

Apostolic ministry, so often missing from modern missions work, is nevertheless integral to the way of biblical missiology; it goes hand in hand with church planting. (Harvey, 19)

The above statement could have the underlined words rotated around like a volleyball team (try it), and to its core it would be saying the same thing every time.  Even George Orwell couldn’t have dreamed this up.  No wonder there have been outside “observations” on our “unbiblical” SGM-speak that is not “Gospel-centered” or “God-Glorifying,” particularly “in the context of the local church.”  All of this word-exchange and lexicon-building is patent nonsense, doesn’t come close to the heart of an honest treatment of missions, and it needs to stop.  I’ve been guilty of it, and God forgive me.

God forgive all of us in Sovereign Grace Ministries for ever thinking we could have an exclusive language, and build a tower to the heavens with our rulebooks as bricks and a mortar made of a pulverized flock.

Wayne Grudem describes the Purposes of the Church as follows:

We can understand the purposes of the church in terms of ministry to God, ministry to believers, and ministry to the world. (Grudem, 867)

He further breaks this down into categories he elaborates on: (1) Ministry to God: Worship, (2) Ministry to Believers: Nurture, (3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy, and (4) Keeping These Purposes in Balance. (Grudem, 867-869)

So what is the elaboration behind Grudem’s (3) Ministry to the World: Evangelism and Mercy?  Stay tuned.  It’s a goldmine.

But let’s end on this note: Re-read the Great Commission.  It’s very clear, it’s very Gospel-centered, it’s very biblical, it’s very God-glorifying:  Christ commands you, Brothers and Sisters.  That means all of us, the saved, the transformed, the born again, the regenerated, the rescued and the called are commanded to go into all the world with the Gospel.  There is no parenthetical reference that excludes the flock from the command and defers it solely to a man-made “apostolic authority.”  Harvey even admits that the Great Commission is to the church universal (Harvey, 12-13), but then goes on to contradict this point when in the remaining pages he hammers home again and again the “apostolic oversight” that must be in place over churches.

Christ did provide apostolic oversight and His guidance: their names are the Gospels and the Epistles.  Empowered by the Holy Spirit, there is no stopping them.

Go into all the world, because Christ your Savior, your Lord, your Everything, commands you to go.

…pk

——————–

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. (Editor).  Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.

Grudem, Wayne.  Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.  Leicester, Great Britain: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, HarperCollins, 1994.

Harvey, Dave.  Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord (Number 4 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).  Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2006.

Hello Beloved:

A couple of years ago, when I first opened my new copy of Dave Harvey’s Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord, I had to look up the word missiology, because (a) I, Protestant Knight, am not as think as you smart I am and (b) Harvey does not give a paragraph or one sentence toward a simple definition of missiology; not even a quick one that can he can launch from in the booklet’s opening pages.  He at least did readers this courtesy in the first paragraph of his booklet, Polity, by explaining polity’s meaning and its Greek roots.  Missiology is not so new a word to come onto the scene to warrant this; it landed onto the vocabulary landscape sometime in the early 1920’s, according to dictionary.com.

Instead, Harvey spends forty-six pages defining mis·si·ol·o·gy, or, the study of how missions are carried out according to Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM).  Yes, I know, I am stating the obvious:  If someone has a booklet titled Missiology, there’s a good chance that expounding on missiology between the covers will take place.  My whole point is that this particular subject is one that Harvey wants SGM to own right out of the gate.  As we will see throughout this series, it starts off with a type of gee-whiz bewilderment that turns into a not-so-humble orthodoxy toward the end.

“Aw, c’mon PK, are you gonna pick on Dave Harvey again?”

No, just a few of Dave’s statements and conclusions in Missiology.

I believe it would be of particular value if we filtered SGM’s missiology through the strainer of some of the big brains who sit outside -and at times even close to- our camp at SGM.  Yes, Harvey’s Missiology details the missionary vision according to SGM, but in following the example of Paul telling the church at Thessalonica to ”examine everything carefully” and “hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), we must go forward with study while Scripture is firmly in hand and view.

After a recent re-read of our Missiology, I am seeing an umbilical cord between our missiology and polity practices at SGM, as to me they seem to inform each other equally.  This makes missiology a topic of enormous importance concerning the purity of the church.  Some would make the argument that these two should inform each other equally.  Whatever the actual extent of the connection, of particular concern to me is that an infection (sin) in one can spread to the other.

So, at the beginning of Missiology, since Harvey isn’t quoting a dictionary or thesaurus or Greek lexicon or etymological word finder in regard to the word missiology, how does he in fact begin?  Missiology starts with a not-so-subtle cautionary tale as Harvey tells a story about getting lost on his way to a church in a nearby town (Harvey, Missiology, 1).  Remember, this anecdote is coming from a man who all but refuses to listen to “anecdotal” war stories regarding polity; that is, he has a particular distaste for cautionary tales -even if they are true- that warn of the abuses of those hijacking the authority and title of the apostles (Harvey, Polity, 21).  My whole point is this: Harvey is not afraid to use anecdotes to further his point, or condemn anecdotes when they deter his point.  This makes for a whimsical defense and offense that come off as Harvey being self-serving, i.e. he can use anecdotes, but the rest of the population of earth can’t.  If this was not his intention, my only advice for him is to stop it.  I personally have never been anti-anecdote as long as a scriptural basis informs it throughout, but Dave, don’t condemn a writing technique that you wish to employ before or after your own condemnation of it!

A BRIEF SIDENOTE: DOES PROTESTANT KNIGHT HAVE AN AXE TO GRIND WITH DAVE HARVEY?  No.  I have never met Dave Harvey, so I cannot comment on him personally, nor would it serve any purpose to do so on this website or in any other fashion, period.  What I can do is make an assessment of what Dave has said or written based on audio messages, outlines, booklets, books and articles he has produced.  While I do employ sarcasm from time to time, it is no different than the sarcasm employed by pastors -within and without SGM- on a regular basis to further a point or to illustrate things ranging from silliness to heresy.  If you have a problem with sarcasm, you have a problem with men like the prophet Elijah and the apostle Paul. Dave Harvey happens to be in the crosshairs on my last two series because he is the author several of the SGM Perspectives booklets I am reviewing.  These booklets are held up in high regard within SGM churches, and are handed to anyone asking about the subjects with which they deal.

In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), Professor Arthur F. Glasser attempted not so much to define what he believes missiology should be as he does documenting what it has been and what five ”Major Issues” have surrounded it and shaped it over the last two millennia and beyond: (1) Apostolic Practice, (2) Church Structure and Mission, (3) The Gospel and the Religions, (4) Salvation and Non-Christians, and (5) Christianity and Culture. (Elwell, 725)

I think this would be a good template in guiding our series on this subject, which launches us immediately into topic number one: Apostolic Practice.  Glasser’s entry on missiology briefly elaborates on this subject that provides a solid framing in our approach:

Apostolic Practice.  How is the apostolicity of the church to be expressed if it is conceived as embracing the evangelistic practice of the apostles as well as their “received” teaching?  What is the church’s collective responsibility touching the sending forth of laborers to “bring about the obedience of faith…among all the nations” (Romans 1:5)? (Elwell, 725)

So what does Harvey have to say about the “apostolicity” of the church?  A lot.  We barely get through page four of Harvey’s booklet when he makes a particular item bluntly clear:

Early in the history of this ministry [Sovereign Grace Ministries] it became apparent that the churches needed to be linked by more than a name and an essentially common vision.  A leadership team of gifted and proven leaders was formed and given a dual responsibility: serving the local churches and establishing strategies for future missions direction. (When referring to the overall ministry, “leadership team” is for us synonymous with “apostolic team,” a phrase defined in the following pages.)  (Harvey, Missiology, 4; emphasis in bold mine)

So whatever name change takes place with the apostolic/leadership/whatever team, it’s still synonymous with “business as usual.”

Being that the above statement alone is worth chewing on for awhile, we’ll take a brief break here for comments, Beloved.  For further discussion about the office of “apostle,” click on this link.  Next time we’ll discuss Harvey’s assertions on the apostles serving-and-caring-and-caring-and-serving and how this all fits into the work of missions.

In the meantime, remain in the grip of His grace. Test all things! Hold fast to that which is good!

…pk

——————–

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elwell, Walter A. (Editor).  Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.

Harvey, Dave.  Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord (Number 4 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).  Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2006.

Harvey, Dave.  Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (Number 2 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).  Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2004.

“missiology.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 29 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missiology>.

Pageviews for September-86394

Pageviews since June 6 launch-345707

Hello Beloved:

Books and Scripture have been plumbed and exhausted on this topic.

Put your seatbelts on.  It’s time to call for repentance.

In wrapping up this specific series on polity, I’ll open with the remainder of Wayne Grudem’s statement from Systematic Theology; this is the last of the missing chunk from Dave Harvey quoting (or not quoting in context, as it were) Wayne Grudem… that is, Grudem’s statement that I addressed in the first post in this series:

And it also seems that individual Christians –while they may have a preference for one system over another– should nevertheless be willing to live and minister within any of several different Protestant systems of church government in which they may find themselves from time to time.  But I do not mean to say that this is an entirely unimportant matter.  In this area as well as others, a church may be more or less pure.  If there are clear New Testament patterns regarding some aspects of church government, then there will be negative consequences in our churches if we disregard them, even if we cannot foresee all of those consequences at the present time.  Therefore Christians are certainly free to speak and write on this subject in order to work for increased purity in the church (Grudem 904-905).

I am in a Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) church.  My church ”from time to time,” as Grudem words it, has been twenty-eight years with SGM, and twenty-plus years of that were spent specifically in SGM churches.  I met my wife in an SGM church.  I lost a parent while in SGM.  More than half my life has been spent with SGM.

At a particular Celebration I attended in 1985, I was in a youth class that had Larry T. and C.J.M. as the featured speakers for the next two days.  In C.J.’s class, he had me read a few passages of scripture from my Bible.  At the time, I was using the Amplified Bible, and I read everything that was in parentheses and brackets.  I was highly impressed with myself and C.J. was highly amused by me.  I rode the crest of people being either amused or impressed by me.  I’d grown up in a Christian home.  I said all the right things.  I did all the right things… within earshot and sightline, at least.

It wouldn’t be until 2003 -at least an observable line of demarcation for me- that God would call me out of darkness.  It wouldn’t be at church, it wouldn’t be at a Celebration, it wouldn’t be anywhere near the vicinity of an SGM church.  It would be in a cold, dark room in late Autumn on the first floor of a friend’s house… a friend who’d been charitable enough to take me in, because I was a thousand miles away from my wife.  We were separated, and my world was falling apart.

Flash forward to a few Sundays ago.  The worship leader in my church is giving his testimony of God meeting him in a very desperate hour for him and his family.  I know this man personally, and to see how God’s grace has transformed him moves me to tears.  Not much later, the Senior Pastor is giving his Sunday message, part of an expositional series on one of the Gospels; one that continues a theme of the sufficiency of Christ, when, he begins to acknowledge that we in SGM are rank with an arrogance that somehow we have the corner on the Gospel.  He elaborates, and calls the church to repentance in regard to this.  He is visibly shaken.  He means what he says.  I finally begin to see cracks in the Berlin Wall that holds my SGM church within its compound, and I experience a meltdown.  I thank my God and Savior.  It encourages me to pray harder.  I have hope.

And then Christ gently takes my chin and fixes my gaze upon Himself.  It’s then I realize that SGM is nothing without Him.  I am nothing without Him.  The cosmos is nothing without Him.  I have but to look at Christ to remove all fetters, all pretensions, and all barriers.  I go from meltdown to being destroyed.

God is good.  He is gracious.

The reason I shared the Celebration ‘85 story is because I believe we have many leaders who are amusing or impressive, but like myself in 1985, simply empty on the inside, or full of dead men’s bones.  We need men with the courage to embrace a plurality of eldership –a true plurality minus the man-made concoctions of things like “first among equals.” Can we at SGM not see the blinding and deafening hypocrisy of calling for stringent adherence to qualifications for elders while trimming some qualifications for the “apostles?”

Where do we strike that balance of calling for reform while, in the words of Grudem, being willing to live wherever we may find ourselves “from time to time?”  We’ve hit the thirty-year mark and beyond with SGM and to say we’ve experienced negative consequences is both true and haunting when taken in light of Grudem’s warning: “If there are clear New Testament patterns regarding some aspects of church government, then there will be negative consequences in our churches if we disregard them, even if we cannot foresee all of those consequences at the present time.” (Grudem 905)

Websites like this exist because of the disregard we at Sovereign Grace Ministries have had for not seeking a model of church polity that is, in our words, “God-Glorifying.”  Our leaders have spotted the toothpicks in the eyes of the sheep while neglecting to see the entire treelines of Yellowstone National Park in their own.

This is not just a call for change, but a call for repentance.  To say that we carry this polity on in good conscience while using Paul’s terms like ”Christ and Him crucified,” as a seal of righteousness puts us in a special kind of peril due to trampling on the Gospel!

The reason I shared my story about my worship leader and senior pastor -there was no exaggeration in any of that, by the way- is because there is hope.  Prayers make a difference.  Websites like this, where a call for change and repentance is tempered by prayer and love, make a difference.  And now that I have seen the cracks, the urgency is even greater.

The Bible is not our personal stamp of approval for our theological concoctions; we do not kidnap the Word and hold Him hostage at our convenience.  The Word of God is our life!  Leaders, do not treat this precious volume like you would a personal trainer: here’s a few bucks… get me in shape and make me look good… now please go.

Leaders:

Repent… as in make an about face and go another direction!

Pull the cedars out of your eyes and read the stories on these sites.  Stop dating your flock.  Stop being impressed by your image in the mirror while you mouth the words, “I’m the worst sinner I know.”  This is as dangerous and foolish as the harlequin who unicycles down your street parroting, “There is no God… there is no God… there is no God… squawk!”

Link arms with others in true accountability and do not form circles of yes-men who do your bidding.  You want to mortify sin?  Fall on your face before God and beg His forgiveness for how you’ve abused your flock and left the pasture fallow, stinking and bloody due to your lust for power!  Take an interest in your flock and stop giving them drive-by Hallmark card greetings (a bad rhyme followed by insincere commitments).

Repent… as in make an about face and go another direction!

Tear down your cults of personality.  Stop worshipping each other.  Stop erecting temples that face away from God.  Pray for one another and for three seconds stop “making an observation.”  Give God the Glory and stop giving it to each other.  Go on a sabbatical with just you and the Word.  Feed your sheep the Word of God and stop making them cannibalize each other with man-centered darkness.

Repent… as in make an about face and go another direction!

Give yourselves to your church and stop giving your church copies of Polity.

Stop handing us idols and give us back our King!

…pk

P.S. - “Therefore Christians are certainly free to speak and write on this subject in order to work for increased purity in the church (Grudem 905).”

For an even better therefore, see Romans 8:1-2

…pk

But don’t get too comfortable in that hammock.

Today I’d like to re-post a comment that frequent and well-versed commenter Reformed Teacher submitted in the POLITY Episode 3 comments.  It’s worthy of a serious gander, and while reading it, ask yourself these questions (and I’m sure many will crop up on their own):

Do the gates of heaven swing open any wider for the Arminian or the Calvinist?  Is it possible to be a Calminian?  Should one debate this topic at all in the church?  What is your background or stand in this area?  How do you believe the sovereignty of God plays out in the events of history and man’s salvation?  Does debating this strengthen or divide the church?  What is Hyper-Arminianism and what is Hyper-Calvinism?

In our discussion here, debate is acceptable if respect is modeled, and an assurance that we can “agree to disagree agreeably.”

If anything, just enjoy this excellent read by Reformed Teacher: