Symboulos Ministries

The new Sovereign Grace Ministries Board of Directors met this Wednesday.  We devoted most of our time to getting an update and overview of the state of SGM and established two immediate priorities for the coming year.

First, we decided to create a polity committee to consist of two members of the Board, two members of the Leadership Team (including C.J. Mahaney, who will chair the committee), and at least three Sovereign Grace pastors not on the Board.  This committee will pick up the work that has already been done on polity and develop it to give better definition to the ministry, to how SGM as a ministry relates to pastors and their churches, and to policies and procedures for making decisions and selecting leaders.  We are tasking this committee to solicit a broad range of views within SGM regarding how we are governed and how we define our connections between churches and the ministry.  Once the committee’s work is done, they will submit it to the Board for review, amendment, and approval.  The resulting governance and our partnership agreements will then be presented to Sovereign Grace pastors for their review.  We decided, at least for the present, not to set a deadline for the committee’s work to be completed but do want this to be a top priority for our development as a ministry.

Second, we expect to receive the Ambassadors of Reconciliation report in the coming two weeks.  We plan to begin discussing the report on a retreat in Louisville April 9 & 10 and then to make plans for responding.

Read more…

Dear Brothers,

Thanks so much for getting back to us regarding the proposed board nominees. We appreciate you taking the time to let us know your thoughts. We realize that for some, the time frame we gave for responding may have seemed short given the seeming importance of this, and for others the process we have undertaken in establishing a new board has raised some questions.

We wanted to give some explanations as to why we’ve done it this way in the hope it may bring some clarity.

Is this a new polity? Our goal in this process is not to create a new polity. If fact, it’s just the opposite. We are seeking to avoid creating new polity at this point and instead are transitioning to a board that will work in partnership with our pastors to move the polity process forward. We believe the appropriate way to accomplish this transition is to honor our current polity while at the same time strengthening accountability for it.

The board has always had the obligation to appoint board members, the freedom to expand the board, and the responsibility to appoint the leadership team. The interim board is acting under the authority of this current polity. However, we are advocating a board that will increase the involvement of SGM elders in our governance, broaden our leadership base, increase the accountability of the board to our churches (by subjecting them to an affirmation process for appointment and reappointment), and increase the accountability of the leadership to the board (by separating the two bodies and ensuring most board members are not SGM staff). These modifications don’t reflect a change in polity, but they do inject a level of accountability into our structures that we believe is necessary and helpful, and that is consistent with our communications with pastors and our general polity direction.

We understand that some pastors are advocating more sweeping polity changes, but to lead in such a process is beyond the interim board’s mandate. We agree with pastors who desire clarity on our polity, but we don’t agree that we will arrive at that clarity without a new board in place that has been explicitly affirmed by our pastors to take responsibility for that process. The board of the next few years will carry an enormous responsibility for our movement and it seems wise that they be installed for that task intentionally, not just as an accidental byproduct of what happened in July.

Why the rush? We understand this process felt rushed to some. We could have communicated better about this board, and we apologize for not doing so. The interim board turned its attention to focusing on seating a new board after we completed the priority assignment of evaluating the charges against C.J. After determining a process for establishing a new board, we were left with a small window of time before the release of the AoR report. It was important to get a new board in place in order to respond promptly to that report—we know you men are eager to get to work on the changes that lie ahead of us and we didn’t want to delay that process unnecessarily. Regardless of what board is in place when we receive it, decisions concerning the AoR report will fall to the new board. The need to have a board in place to respond to the report placed some limits on the response time afforded our elders to register their affirmations or concerns for the proposed board members. However, since the only changes to the board configuration involved those that increase SGM elder-involvement and accountability, we felt the board could be formed within the necessary time-frame. We could have explained this much better at the outset of this process, and
apologize for the confusion created by our failure to do so.

How were the nominees chosen? We are grateful for the many encouragements passed on about the men nominated to the new board. Some had questions about how this slate came about that we thought it would be helpful to address. We listed the most important criteria in the letter we sent, and we believe each man solidly meets these standards. We also sought a theological diversity—within the bounds of our doctrinal unity, the men represent a range of views on issues such as polity, pneumatology, and mission. We sought men who would bring a depth of pastoral experience, combining the strength of long pastoral experience with some younger men who brought fresh perspectives. We also wanted a diversity of experience: senior pastors, church planters, urban and suburban pastors, etc. Finally, we sought men committed to and experienced in our mission. SGM is fundamentally given to gospel expansion through church planting and care. So we sought to establish a new board comprising men with vision, wisdom, and experience in gospel mission as well.

There are a number of questions outstanding that will need to be addressed as soon as practically possible. For this reason, we have wanted to get a new board in place that can do all that is necessary to serve SGM in working through these issues. Although we are not able to constrain the new board, we will be recommending—and it is the intention of present board members who are nominated for the new board—that they find ways to gather the thoughts and considerations of the pastors of SGM in ways that effectively allow for dialogue and interaction over these vital subjects. We feel the new slate of nominees has the desire, gifts, and abilities to serve all of us as we move forward together.

Thank you again for your patience, feedback, and support. We are eager to move ahead together in the mission of the gospel.

The SGM Board
Copyright © 2012 Sovereign Grace Ministries, All rights reserved. You’re receiving this email because you’re on staff at a Sovereign Grace church. Our mailing address is: Sovereign Grace Ministries 7505 Muncaster Mill Road Gaithersburg, MD 20877

http://sgmrefuge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SGM-Board-3.13-.pdf

See update at the bottom of this post.

Dear members of the SGM Interim Board,

“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 15:5-6 ESV)

We write to you on behalf of the Pastoral Team of Sovereign Grace Church (SGC) Fairfax in response to “An Update from the Board,” that we received on February 27, 2012.  These have been very troubling times for our family of churches, and we thank God for you, as you have labored many hours serving as Interim Board members.  We continue to pray that the Lord himself will preserve your souls in peace and that as fellow brothers in Christ, we all will remain focused on glorifying God our Savior.

When we received your update, the SGC Fairfax Pastoral Team discussed the changes in the leadership structure, the functions of the permanent Board, and the nomination and affirmation processes. We also reviewed the list of nominees for Board membership.  In the light of our discussions, we are declining to participate in the process of affirming these nominees because we believe the process is premature and unwise.

Our Concerns

The process is unnecessarily rushed.

You ask that the online feedback form with affirmations and concerns be submitted by March 7, just 10 days after we received the update.  You do not explain your rationale for the urgent timeline.  We suggest that it would be better to wait until after Ambassadors of Reconciliation releases its report of findings.  We understand that this report will include key weaknesses and strengths in SGM’s cultural norms, polity, and structure, all of which could inform the way we move forward in seating a Board.

Ongoing lack of or contradictory communications

We see an established pattern of a lack of communications, including the absence of regional meetings, over the last several years.  The most recent example is that we received your February 27th update without any meaningful conversation about the process involved or the contents of the update.  Within the update itself, there is very little explanation about how and why the new Board nominees were selected.

In addition, we have received contradictory communications that make it difficult to know what to believe about the actions being taken by the Interim Board.  For example, you had explained in “Sovereign Grace Board’s Response to the [Panel] Reports that your “mandate as an interim Board was to evaluate Brent’s allegations,” leaving a “thorough examination of SGM’s leadership structure … to the next Board.”  With your latest update, however, it is clear that you have made determinations about polity outside of your self-described scope.

Lack of diversity among the nominees

There is no doubt that the nominees are upright and godly men.  However, the lack of diversity of opinions is of great concern.  Such diversity would come by including broader perspectives on polity from all of our churches, as well as representation from the international churches, and would greatly enhance the pursuit of much-needed reforms in our family of churches.

Ongoing polity problems

SGM’s new Board, like the previous and Interim Board, will have great authority without strengthened accountability.  In effect, the Board remains self-appointed and self-perpetuating because we have no commitment that you will act on the concerns that SGM pastors express.

In addition, there is a lack of sufficient clarity about SGM as an entity.  There needs to be a theological document that lays out the Biblical explanation of SGM that is published, peer-reviewed by those outside our movement, and discussed as a whole by all SGM pastors.

Proposed Way Forward

The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty. (Proverbs 21:5 ESV)

Our dear brothers, we appeal to you to slow down.  Please stop and listen to the churches you are connected to and emerge from; create forums for pastors to speak together and with you; and call a council of pastors from each church together to discuss our future and make decisions together.

We make these appeals as one of the founding churches in our family of churches and as fellow followers of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who can redeem all circumstances and make right all relationships. Also attached is a list of churches and their Pastoral Teams who agree with our concerns and proposed way forward.

Please receive this letter as an expression of the desire we all share for the reform of our family of churches.  For over three decades, we all have been walking together for the sake and advancement of the gospel.  We hope to continue doing so fruitfully for decades to come.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you,

Lou Gallo, David Hinders, Vince Hinders, Luke Middleton, Mark Mullery, and Seita Sakaguchi

Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax

##

The Pastoral Teams of the following Sovereign Grace churches have reviewed, and are in general agreement with, the concerns expressed in the March 7, 2012 response letter from the Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax Pastoral Team to the Sovereign Grace Ministries Interim Board:

Christ Church – San Francisco, CA

Toby Kurth, Tim Chao, Jeff Locke, Jon-Paul Momsen

Christ Our Redeemer Church – Vancouver, WA

Daniel Morse

Covenant Life Church – Gaithersburg, MD

Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Dave Brewer, Don DeVries, Braden Greer, Isaac Hydoski, Grant Layman, Jamie Leach, Joe Lee, Matt Maka, Adam Malcolm, Kenneth Maresco, Corby Megorden, Mark Mitchell, Kevin Rogers, Eric Sheffer, Jon Smith, Ben Wikner

Crossway Community Church – Vancouver, BC

Pat Sczebel, Fred Eaton, Marty Jones, David Smith

Grace Christian Fellowship – Spokane, WA

William Farley, David Farley, John Kershinar, Dave Nelson, Jim Spurgetis, Mark Williams

Grace Covenant Church – Jacksonville, FL

Joe Calabello, Craig Eddy Sr., Ed Edwards

Gulf Coast Community Church – St. Petersburg, FL

Jerry Cisar, Steven Brunson, Daryn Kinney

Sovereign Grace Church – Cleveland, OH

Darren Lander, Roman Bibyk, Bob Digney, Eric Grover, Jonathan Putnam, Brian Reebel, Keith Schifano

Sovereign Grace Church – Greenville, SC

Matt Rawlings

Sovereign Grace Church – Indiana, PA

Mark Altrogge, Stephen Altrogge, Joe Ryer

Sovereign Grace Church – Oswego, IL

Josh Fenska, Jamie Maxim, Tab Trainor

Wellspring Church – Pleasanton, CA

Sam Shin, Justin Chang, Chris Feng, Dan Kim, Thomas Ki

__________________________________________

March 8 Update:

I have nothing but respect for the men listed above. Knowing that other SGM pastors are in general agreement the FFX letter, my first response was disappointment by the lack of participation by some teams. I was wrong. One of the participating pastors posted late last night that,  “Only a few churches even knew about this letter – it was just voluntarily shared amongst like-minded friends. We are all hoping for reform and in faith that God will help us all honor and please Him in the process.” This was confirmed by another source via email. Makes sense, given the unreasonably short time frame given to pastors to “affirm” the new board nominees.

I think it would wise for other pastors to express their general agreement with the FFX letter to the interim board immediately.

Kudos to the FFX pastoral team for taking a leadership role in this matter.

UPDATE #2: Here