Last Updated: April 18, 2009, 6:45pm
~~~
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
~~~
INTRODUCTION
Hello Beloved:
I’d like to revisit a vital discussion here at SGM Refuge & Reform: ecclesiastical polity (or, church government) and its relationship to my beloved Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). It is also linked on the page menu bar under the header at the top of this screen. It will be a standard, foundational page here at SGM Refuge & Reform; that’s how strongly Jim and I feel on the matter.
This page on polity is the combination of several posts I made here, with quite a few changes:
(1) The Star Wars allegory and imagery have been removed. It had the potential for being inflammatory and a serious impediment in seeking reform.
(2) I’ve attempted to remove as much sarcasm, personal jabs and inflammatory language as possible, without weakening the primary concerns I and many others have in examining polity and discovering the critical issues surrounding.
(3) I have also tried to do some mop-up (editing) to make it a unified, coherent statement. That being said, I am open to anyone pointing out items or sections that need to be corrected, be it spelling, grammar, references, redundancies, inflammatory language you may see remaining in it, etc. Whatever the concern, email me at protestantknight@gmail.com … Let’s not miss an opportunity to glorify God!
(4) A small section of newer material and information has been added after doing more research on the subject of polity.
(5) My final goal in changing this material is to make it available for members of the flock and leadership to print up and use as a more formal structure for discussion on the topic. Don’t use it as a club to beat up pastors and leaders whom you have nothing more than a personality clash with. I would especially ask that you use it as a document of direct inquiry when asking the civil but tough questions about SGM polity in order to seek reform within SGM.
Many thanks are due to those who have pointed me to more material available on the subject.
These changes were not made grudgingly. I sincerely desire reform within SGM, and do ask forgiveness for any sinful behavior on my part in which the issue of polity was addressed or presented. With that in mind, Sovereign Grace Ministries’ theology of polity still needs serious review, and once again, in the opinion of many like myself, reform.
Jim and I could never seem to have a conversation without returning to this subject many times, as so many ills in our churches -within and without SGM’s oversight and sphere of influence- stem from a poor foundation or implementation of polity. That is my primary motivation behind this analysis and call for reform: This is the church; the beloved of God, the Bride of Christ… the one He will return for.
So let’s revisit polity with a bit more sobriety on my part.
Polity impacts everything we do as a church. It is no small affair to keep hitting the snooze button over and over. The alarm will keep going off.
In Christ because of Christ,
~Protestant Knight
~~~
THE PROBLEM OF POLITY IN SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES
by Protestant Knight
When many of us within and without Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) have asked questions about the form of church government practiced in SGM-affiliated churches and the leadership structure that oversees these churches, we are handed Dave Harvey’s 54-page work on polity, titled Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (Number 2 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series).
It should be noted Polity’s primary manuscript is contained on pages 1-28, while Endnotes, three Addendums and a Bibliography take up the remaining 26 pages. No one can fault Harvey doing his homework and wanting to quote all sources and make corrections along the way before, during, and even after the original article was written.
Noah Webster sets the ideal stage for us:
“Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.” –comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
In Polity, Dave Harvey quotes Wayne Grudem from Systematic Theology:
…At the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture… And church history attests that several different forms of government have worked fairly well for several centuries… It seems to me, then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained (Grudem, 904 as quoted in Harvey, 2).
Harvey immediately uses this as a defense for the believer to have an open view of polity:
Tempered by the wisdom of Grudem’s maturity and civility, we resist all impulses to canonize our polity (Harvey, 2).
As far as “tempering our wisdom,” I think we should go a little further by mining the wisdom of Dr. Grudem by simply doing justice to his chapter titled “Church Government,” in Systematic Theology.
Here is that paragraph again, in its entirety, with the missing segments and missing words in bold as well as the preceding paragraph and the paragraph following it (all in bold, as well) so that we may look at its proper context:
Is there a New Testament pattern for church government? Is any one form of church government to be preferred over another? These are the questions addressed in this chapter.
However, at the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture. Although I believe, after examining the New Testament evidence, that one particular form of church government is preferable to the others, nevertheless, each form has some weaknesses as well as strengths. And church history attests that several different forms of government have worked fairly well for several centuries. Moreover, while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament, other matters (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear, mainly because the New Testament evidence on them is not extensive, and thus our inferences from this evidence are less certain. It seems to me then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained. 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)
Beloved brothers and sisters in Christ: That last sentence above is the goal here. Sovereign Grace Ministries does not have the final word on church polity, even with members of their churches. Harvey seems to agree with this premise early on in Polity, but based on his conclusions that follow it, it would seem that the message conveyed is, “but ours is the best representation of polity.” Please read Polity and see if this is the case, and if words are being put into Harvey’s mouth unfairly by me.
Here’s what’s important: In the spirit of Dr. Grudem’s observation, this is an area of Christian theology and practice you are free to speak and write on in order to work for increased purity in the church.
I think some of the missing segments from Harvey’s quotation of Grudem are essential points when studying and implementing polity.
Grudem believes:
(1) “…after examining the New Testament evidence… one particular form of church government is preferable to the others, nevertheless, each form has some weaknesses as well as strengths.”
Grudem also states:
(2) “Moreover, while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament, other matters (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear, mainly because the New Testament evidence on them is not extensive, and thus our inferences from this evidence are less certain.”
Additionally, Grudem exhorts:
(3) ”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 themsleves from time to time.”
And finally, Grudem cautions:
(4) “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.”
It would seem to me that Harvey’s abbreviated version of Grudem’s quote is intended to disarm any objections to what Harvey is about to lay out before us. Of incredible significance is that Harvey’s Polity creates -whether intentional or not- an imaginary enemy of sorts out of those idividuals who question it and those churches who operate their polity radically different from SGM churches.
Dr. Grudem’s work should be quoted in context on such an important matter. Also, I think we should look at Harvey’s Polity in light of a wider view of what Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology has to say on the matter of church government. This should be agreeable to SGM since Harvey feels free to quote from Dr. Grudem’s volume -albeit vastly edited, it seems- in order to posture a “mature and civil” stand to “resist all impulses to canonize our [SGM] polity.”
Another important point: This is all the more relevant an issue because Systematic Theology has been portrayed as a staple among SGM leaders and members of the flock. It’s on our book tables, it’s in our church offices, and it is the topic of frequent discussion. It should be, as it’s an outstanding volume of work and a very obvious labor of love by Dr. Grudem.
In this critique, I believe it is necessary to get some thoughts from other theologians as well, some of whom are greatly respected on this subject of polity even though a few might personally part ways with them on other issues from time to time. It is also my hope and prayer to temper all of this with Holy Scripture.
Polity is important, whether importance is assigned to it or not by individuals or churches. Not wanting to forsake the gathering with our fellow saints, the church must go above and beyond just playing church and acknowledge a vast dependence on guidelines derived from God’s word, and ultimately empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Alexander Strauch wakes us up with this:
Some of the worst havoc wrought to the Christian faith has been a direct result of unscriptural forms of church structure. Only a few centuries after the apostles’ death, for example, Christian churches began to assimilate both Roman and Jewish concepts of status, power, and priesthood. As a result, church government was clericalized and sacralized. Under Christ’s name an elaborately structured institution emerged that corrupted the simple, family structure of the apostolic churches, robbed God’s people of their lofty position and ministry in Christ, and exchanged Christ’s supremacy over His people for the supremacy of the institutional church. (Strauch, 101)
The above quote came from a book listed by Dave Harvey in the Bibliography section of his Polity booklet. However, this quote by Alexander Strauch was not used by Harvey… it’s being used by me.
As part of his support for a nine-page section titled “Principle of the Presiding Pastor,” Harvey uses a different quote from Strauch:
A thorough examination of these points would take us beyond the present discussion. Suffice it to say, however, that an ability to define values, inspire vision, administrative gifts, and lead leaders will ultimately guide the eldership to a Godward orientation and build the church infrastructure, creating efficient leadership and an effective church. Release the leadership gift to serve, and the church grows qualitatively; ignore it, and the church may limp along without aim or impact.39
Alexander Strauch brings a cogent summary when he says, “The advantage of the principle of ‘first among equals’ is that it allows for functional, gift-based diversity within the eldership team without creating an official, superior office over fellow elders.”40(Harvey, 13)(Below is from Harvey’s Endnotes…)
39. The irrepressible Margaret Thatcher once stated “Consensus is the absence of Leadership.” Kaltman, 67. (Polity’s Bibliography lists this as – Kaltman, Al. The Genius of Robert E. Lee: Leadership Lessons for the Outgunned, Outnumbered, and Underfinanced. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press, 2000.)
40. Strauch, 48. (see BIBLIOGRAPHY for book information)
Here is Strauch’s quote again, with additional sections in bold by Strauch (with his original emphasis in italics) that appear before and after the section Harvey quoted, so that we can put all of this into proper context:
This doesn’t mean, however, that elders who are first among their equals do all the thinking and decision-making for the group, or that they are pastors while the others are merely elders. To call one elder “pastor” and the rest “elders” or one elder “the clergyman” and the rest “lay elders” is to act without biblical precedence. To do so will not result in a biblical eldership. It will, at least in practice, create a separate superior office over the eldership, just as was done in the early second century when the division between “the overseer” and “elders” occurred.
The advantage of the principle of ‘first among equals’ is that it allows for functional, gift-based diversity within the eldership team without creating an official, superior office over fellow elders. Just as the leading apostles, such as Peter and John, bore no special title or formal distinctions from the other apostles, elders who receive double honor form no official class or receive no special title. The differences among the elders are functional, not formal. (Strauch, 47,48)
Strauch then goes on for two paragraphs to elaborate on full-time pastors and the meaning of “double honor.” Then, he resumes defining “first among equals:”
Furthermore, “first among equals” provides desperately needed protection from the all-too-common pitfalls of egoism, greed, personality imbalance and unholy ambition to which highly gifted teachers may succumb. An exceptionally gifted leader or teacher can lead and teach with all his zeal and might, as the Scripture commands a leader and teacher to do (Romans 12:7,8), and yet be held accountable to fellow leaders and teachers. The Christian leader or teacher who refuses brotherly accountability is self-deceived and is headed for self-destruction. The Christian leader who really knows his Bible and has an honest view of his sinfulness and weaknesses understands his undeniable need for the checks and balances provided by fellow colleagues. Only dictators fear accountability from godly colleagues. (Strauch, 48, 49)
And here is probably the most pointed criticism Strauch could level in relation to the title “Senior Pastor,” the title of choice used for those individuals who lead a Sovereign Grace Ministries’ affiliated church:
As the natural leader, the chief speaker, the man of action, Peter challenged, energized, strengthened, and ignited the group. Without Peter, the group would have been less effective. When surrounded by other apostles who were his equals, Peter became stronger, more balanced, and was protected from his impetuous nature and his fears. In spite of his outstanding leadership and speaking ability, Peter possessed no legal or official rank or title above the other eleven. They were not his subordinates. They were not his staff or team of assistants. He wasn’t the apostles’ “senior pastor.” Peter was simply first among his equals, and that by our Lord’s own approval. (Strauch, 46-47; emphasis his)
Now, let’s tie this all into Dr. Grudem’s statement that appears at the beginning of this post. What appears to be Grudem’s polity of choice? While he is careful to warn us that “… each form [of church government] has some weaknesses as well as strengths,” (Grudem, 904) I think it would do us, the flock, a great service to get his take on this.
This is a quick outline on the “Forms of Church Government” Dr. Grudem describes (Grudem, 923-936; these are not necessarily in the order of Dr. Grudem’s preference as we will soon see):
1. Episcopalian
2. Presbyterian
3. Congregational
a. Single-Elder (or Single Pastor)
b. Plural Local Elders
c. Corporate Board
d. Pure Democracy
e. “No Government but the Holy Spirit”
After analyzing arguments for and against these different forms of polity, here are some defining statements regarding Grudem’s views (readers are encouraged to carefully study Grudem’s work if they feel I have taken any quotes out of context):
Grudem on Episcopalian:
The theory of a group of bishops established to replace the apostles is not taught in the New Testament, nor is there an implication of a need for a physical continuity of ordination through the laying on of hands by those who have been ordained in an unbroken chain of succession from the apostles. (Grudem, 925; emphasis his)
Grudem on Presbyterian:
Nowhere in scripture do elders have a regularly established authority over more than their own local church. The pattern is rather that elders are appointed in local churches and have authority over local churches. (Grudem, 926; emphasis his)
Grudem on Congregational Single-Elder (or Single-Pastor):
A common practical problem with a “single elder” system is either an excessive concentration of power in one person or excessive demands laid upon him… it was never the pattern in the New Testament, even with the apostles, to concentrate ruling power in the hands of any one person.
Here it should be noted that the “single elder” view of church government really has no more New Testament support than the “single bishop” (episcopalian) view. Both seem attempts to justify what has already happened in the history of the church, not conclusions that have grown out of an inductive examination of the New Testament itself. (Grudem, 931; emphasis mine)
Grudem on Congregational Corporate Board:
It is simply the result of trying to run the church like a modern business, and it sees the pastor not as a spiritual leader, but merely as a paid employee.
Further objections to this structure are the fact that it deprives the pastor of sharing in the ruling authority that must be his if he is to carry out his eldership responsibilities effectively. (Grudem, 935)
Grudem on Congregational Pure Democracy:
The result is that decisions are often argued endlessly, and, as the church grows, decision-making reaches a point of near paralysis. (Grudem, 935)
Grudem on Congregational “No Government but the Holy Spirit”:
Not only is it unfaithful to the New Testament pattern of designated elders with governing authority in the church, but it is also subject to much abuse, because subjective feelings rather than wisdom and reason prevail in the decision-making process. (Grudem, 936)
So, what form of polity shines through? Congregational Plural Local Elders seems to leap off of Grudem’s pages with positivity and he even begins describing it this way:
Within such a system the elders govern the church and have authority to rule over it, authority which has been conferred by Christ himself, the head of the church, and by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28, Hebrews 13:17)… the pastor (or “senior pastor”) would be one among the elders in this system. He does not have authority over them, nor does he work for them as an employee… though elders have substantial governing authority over the church, it should not be unlimited authority.” (Grudem, 933; emphasis mine in bold)
Grudem goes on to magnify the congregational authority in all major matters, and that the congregation –while presided over by the elders– must have a voice, and that a system of “checks and balances” must be in place all the way around (Grudem, 932-935).
My conclusion is that Sovereign Grace Ministries has a heterodox form of polity. I see primarily authoritarian characteristics in the written and evident polity. Lines get blurred too much when trying to compare it with standard or historical forms of church government.
It is my opinion that the organization I have been a member of the flock of for over twenty years –Sovereign Grace Ministries– has a seriously questionable form of polity, to say the least. I believe this form of polity can only be found in the New Testament if one were to ignore a systematic and contextual treatment of how the church should operate. The problems with authoritarian behavior on the part of pastors as evidenced by testimony on this blog may boil down to personal character and training issues. But the polity structure, I believe, not only widens the door for tragedy to come in, but plays a serious role in creating it. Whatever good intentions my brothers in Christ may have in implementing the polity we currently have, I believe it cannot go on without a serious re-evaluation and at least an effort to begin reforming it. I beg my brothers to not be tempted defend a position based on what appears to be sentiment and not the whole of Holy Scripture.
Then there are the Apostles. What about this word, apostle?
In his commentary on the book of 2 Corinthians, John MacArthur offers a good, concise word study of apostle:
Apostle [2 Corinthians] 1:1; 11:5, 13; 12:11, 12 –simply means “sent ones with the authority of the sender.” Out of Jesus’ many disciples, He selected twelve to be His apostles. These were the men who were sent by Jesus to take His message to the world and then raise up churches. Paul also became an apostle by the appointment of the risen Christ, Who encountered Paul on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9). Paul’s apostleship was accompanied by a great deal of suffering; and then, to add to it, some false teachers in the Corinthian church doubted his authority. Thus in 2 Corinthians, Paul repeatedly defended the genuineness of his apostleship. (MacArthur, 1651)
Dave Harvey spends nine pages (Harvey, Polity, 17-26) communicating what apostolic ministry looks like as lived out by Sovereign Grace Ministries. After his opening, he immediately raises a shield:
In the interest of avoiding misunderstanding over the phrase “apostolic ministry,” let’s begin with a brief apologetic. Although a full treatment of the biblical, theological, lexical and historical issues involving present-day apostles are well beyond the scope of this paper, an introductory defense is necessary to justify principle behind our polity. (Harvey, Polity, 17)
So, since these nine pages and the Addendum III in Polity are not a comprehensive treatment or defense of present day apostles, the implication seems to me that we are to cut Harvey some slack over his treatment of an office that is second to -and created by- Christ Himself in terms of establishing the church. We at SGM are also asked to embrace a word-exchange when Harvey makes the distinctions of Apostle and apostle, Apostolic and apostolic (Harvey, Exploring [audio message] [outline, 1-9]). While this is probably just a creative element used by Harvey to demarcate between apostles of the New Testament and the “present-day apostles” he is defending (Harvey, Polity, 18), I would submit that it can nevertheless be confusing for new Christians and those who have to scale the barrier of the English language. Please understand where I am coming from, folks. This isn’t some politically correct hypersensitivity cooked up for exploitation. I have a genuine and grounded concern regarding this. If apostle is to ever be proper-nouned into Apostle, I’m of the opinion that this belongs solely to the Apostle, Jesus Christ, as referenced in Hebrews 3:1 and John 17:3.
So, the Apostles in the bible were, in fact, the apostles. I would appeal that we leave the little “a” with them, and the big “A” among the glorious names of our precious Lord and Savior, Jesus.
Harvey does carefully make a distinction:
Unlike Paul, present-day apostles: 1) Do not write Scripture. 2) Do not experience the appearance of the Risen Lord. 3) Do not enjoy an unparalleled revelation of the Gospel. 4) Do not wield Paul’s spiritual power. 5) Do not enjoy spiritual experiences on the magnitude of trips to the Third Heaven. (Harvey, Polity, 18)
Harvey spends time in his audio message on this subject to reiterate these five points. But it doesn’t help his case when he seems to turn right around to point out that the New Testament was not exclusively written by apostles, and cites examples such as the epistle of Jude to make his case (Harvey, Exploring [audio]). In this same message, in what appears to be once again heading off the critics, Harvey quotes Wayne Grudem (in both the audio message and the accompanying outline):
It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of ‘apostle’ or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title ‘apostle’ to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Grudem, 911)
Harvey then throws out the word cessationist in describing Grudem, which is completely inaccurate. Items such as the interview available at this link confirm Grudem’s continuationist theology. Let’s see that paragraph by Grudem again, with the first sentence (curiously left out by Harvey) intact in bold to provide context.
Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read the New Testament and see the high authority that is attributed to the office of “apostle” there. It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of ‘apostle’ or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title ‘apostle’ to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Grudem, 911)
Harvey tries to go for common ground between big A and little a:
To acknowledge the vast differences between Paul and present-day apostles is only a start. We must also note the similarities that call us to apostolic faithfulness today. What is the common ground between Paul and, say, Sovereign Grace Ministries? How is it that we dare mention both in the same sentence? Some of the similarities can be organized under three general headings:
•The Message [of the Gospel, p. 20]
•The Method [Service, p. 21]
•A Metaphor [for Service, p.22] (Harvey, Polity, 19)
In the bulk of this text, along with the forty-plus scripture references in Addendum III (including less than specific ones like the entire New Testament epistles being cited as descriptive of the apostles’ identification and communication of doctrinal foundations) Harvey is doing nothing more than simply describing by-the-numbers actions of the New Testament apostles and attempts to indoctrinate it into how present-day apostles function. The quoted sources at this point can only become confusing or overwhelming when checking them. Harvey, who quite frequently uses anecdotes (at least in his written work), falls short of his target in this analysis:
Discussions about apostolic ministry can accelerate quickly into debate over present-day apostolic authority. This is understandable in that Paul often pulled rank to protect the unity of the church and the purity of sound doctrine. Also, illustrations abound of contemporary “apostles” who have used Paul’s example in an effort to justify unwise or self-serving leadership practices. But war stories of apostolic abuse are poor evidence against the legitimacy of present-day apostles. We must move beyond anecdote to wrestle with the realities of this office. (Harvey, Polity, 21; emphasis mine)
It needs to be pointed out that if Harvey is opposed to anecdotal arguments against “modern-day apostles,” then he needs to not use the wit and wisdom of individuals to support it either (see page 13 of Polity where he references quotes from Margaret Thatcher and Tom Marshall to support his argument).
Taking Harvey’s advice, let’s indeed “wrestle with the realities” of his argument for “present-day apostles.”
Bible scholar and archaeologist Merrill F. Unger:
As regards the apostolic office, it seems to have been preeminently that of founding the churches, and upholding them by supernatural power specially bestowed for that purpose. It ceased, as a matter of course, with its first holders, all continuation of it, from the very conditions of its existence (comp. 1 Corinthians 9:1), being impossible. The bishops of the ancient Churches coexisted with, and did not in any sense succeed, the apostles; and when it is claimed for bishops or any Church officers that they are their successors it can be understood only chronologically and not officially. (Unger, 73; emphasis in italics mine)
Under the subject heading of Extraordinary Officers, Louis Berkhof wrote the following about apostles:
Strictly speaking, this name is applicable only to the twelve chosen by Jesus and to Paul; but it is also applied to certain apostolic men, who assisted Paul in his work, and who were endowed with apostolic gifts and graces, Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:5,6; 2 Corinthians 8:23; Galatians 1:19 (?). The apostles had the special task of laying the foundation for the Church of all ages. It is only through their word that believers of all following ages have communion with Jesus Christ. Hence they are the apostles of the Church in the present day as well as they were the apostles of the primitive Church. (Berkhof, 585)
Sometimes the apostles are not classified as a current church office. This is not assigning invalidity to it, but a simple acknowledgement that apostolic authority resides in the Epistles themselves and New Testament Scripture as a whole… not in present-day individuals. In laying out twenty-two identifiable and distinct offices in the past and present church under the entry of Church Officers, Stuart Barton Babbage doesn’t name the office of Apostle at all (Elwell, 243-244).
One of the ”Theological Notes” in the Reformation Study Bible (a sometime staple in our SGM churches) is an entry titled “The Apostles” that sums it up nicely in terms of the status of the office of apostle (one hopes the Apostolic Team/Leadership Team has come across this and taken it to heart, but the evidence suggests otherwise):
The apostles were agents of God’s revelation of the truths that would become the Christian’s rule of faith and life. As such, and through Christ’s appointment of them as His authorized representatives (2 Corinthians 10:8; 2 Corinthians 13:10) the apostles exercised a unique authority in the church. There are no apostles today, though some Christians fulfill ministries that are in particular ways apostolic in style. No new canonical revelation is being given; apostolic teaching authority resides in the canonical Scriptures. The absence of new revelation does not put the contemporary church at a disadvantage compared with the church of apostolic days, for the Holy Spirit interprets and applies Scriptures to God’s people continually. (Sproul, 1560; emphasis in italics mine)
I simply don’t know why we at SGM feel the burning need to defend the “present-day apostolic ministry.” The current re-naming the “Apostolic Team” to the current “Leadership Team” has so far shown little evidence of change in the amount of vigor that the office of “present-day apostle” is defended. The materials promoting it are still available, men still carry that title, and it is not flying under the radar by any means.
Beloved, based on God’s word with the help of scholars like I mentioned above, I humbly submit that the best “present-day apostles” are already here with us in the Scriptures, via authority established by the Holy Spirit empowering the Epistles. Trimming the qualifications for apostles down and clinging to the honor and responsibility of the ancients waters down the profundity of the life of those who were the real apostles. Creating big “A” and little “a” is unnecessary, and when held up in the light of the very materials we promote and sell in our bookstores, it seems to disintegrate like dry branches in a refining fire.
If we strive to seek the treasure of a polity closer to that exemplified in the scriptures, we get closer to the diamonds contained in these verses:
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
~Protestant Knight
———-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition with a New Preface by Richard A. Muller. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Cambridge, United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. First Published separately by Eerdmans as Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology (1932) and Systematic Theology (1938). All references in this post refer to the Systematic Theology (1938) portion of Berkhof’s work, as the combined edition has left intact the original volumes’ page numbers, which can lead to possible confusion when citing this reference.
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. Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (Number 2 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2004.
Harvey, Dave. Exploring the Gap between the Big & Little A (This is an audio message from Sovereign Grace Ministries 2005 Leadership Conference, available at this link): http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Resources/ResourceLibrary.aspx?md=printandteaching&srch=big+a
Harvey, Dave. Exploring the Gap between the Big & Little A [Outline] (This is a printed form outline for the above audio message, from Sovereign Grace Ministries 2005 Leadership Conference, available as a PDF download at this link): http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=A2096-05-59
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005.
Sproul, Robert Charles (General Editor). The Reformation Study Bible. Lake Mary, Florida: Ligonier Ministries, 2005.
Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, revised and expanded edition. Littleton: Lewis & Roth, 1995.
Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Third Edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1985.
_________________
This is Jim-Pk’s done a good job above providing a good summary statement.
My summary statement is brief. A SGM distinctive is their view of leadership. I believe that it is extra Biblical, giving leaders more authority than given by Scripture. The issue in SGM is Apostolic/Pastoral authority.
My opinion is that their view of authority is not informed by their polity, but vice versa. This is possibly why SGM’s polity is unique.
To see most of what we’ve said about SGM polity, please follow the link below.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
John Piper has some good articles over at Desiring God on eldership. Has there been an appeal to Mr. Piper to address the concerns raised here with CJ Mahaney since there is a relationship between these two men? I’m new here, so maybe I missed it….
March 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Sue-
Piper has been mentioned as someone who could address these issues, but to date, I’ve not heard of anything from him or his ministry.
I’m not sure how Piper could effect much change in SG….if they don’t listen to their own members, why would they listen to Piper (I’m thinking of the Chesapeake church and the lack of follow up on the issues of eldership raised)?
Not trying to be at odds, but I don’t think Piper could do that from outside of SG.
Just my 2 cents….
March 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Excellent excellent excellent.
I will add though, that all of us tend to gravitate towards doctrine that best fits our own sin. Legalists gravitate one way, licencious people the other way. “They became enemies in their mind because of their evil behaviour”. Fearful people stick to verses about meekness and silence; pushy folks seem to live in verses about confronting. We all justify what we do to some extent with our own carefully filtered selection of bible texts. Time , money, love……none of us really face up to all that scripture asks of us.
In the case of SGM, it isn’t about intellectual discussion of what seems to be best polity. It is about control. And until you get the control freaks out of the show, the show will go on, and you’ll just beat your head against the wall trying to talk theology.
Nice try though
March 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
5yearsinPDI:
“In the case of SGM, it isn’t about intellectual discussion of what seems to be best polity. It is about control. And until you get the control freaks out of the show, the show will go on, and you’ll just beat your head against the wall trying to talk theology.”
I will agree that character is the marrow of this. If you have a good polity built with weak character that is never tempered by mercy or willingness to be accountable in power, no matter how complex the skeletal structure of polity, it will shatter like glass.
Also, for the one adamant in defending a position, I could easily see Grudem and Strauch’s quotes simply removed and replaced by others.
Excellent points.
~pk
March 10th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Just trying to get the ball rolling 2.0 style
PK I appreciate what you are hoping to accomplish, I honestly do.
I also appreciate your responses to my previous post;
In the SGM Statement of faith, in the paragraph regarding the Church we hear;
All members of the Church universal are to be a vital and committed part of a local church. In this context they are called to walk out the New Covenant as the people of God, and demonstrate the reality of the kingdom of God.
However when we look at the SGM Articles of incorporation we see this;
Article 5 This Corporation shall have no members
So SGM has NO MEMBERS.
CLC, has an extensive membership class /program. Yet the relationship is one sided.
As a member you ere expected to pour out everything to the church, yet the church
membership is comprised only of the Governing Pastors. For the rest, membership conveys no standing, responsibility, or authority for governess. See article 10
Since I last posted this, Boo placed an interesting link. I can say from some of the people that I worked with and for in my tenure at SGM/CLC that Deming’s Principals of Quality and TQM were a fixture in the operations and structure of SGM.
I would also like to say that God is in all things. The fact that SGM has a lot of good in it is not a surprise, as a lot of good can be found in many churches. I could name a few Catholic churches that have many biblical and spiritual qualities that most Christians would find commendable.
Suffice to say;
SGM is a secular business model, cloaked and justified on Biblical principals.
It is wrong! It is not a biblical model, there is no biblical precedent, and it is simply
an unbiblical foundation.
Their defense of this is at best written in the sand, and the most we can hope to do is run our fingers through it with discussion and debate.
Not many people were rooting for Paul prior or post Damascus road. Fair to say, I am looking for a Damascus road experience for SGM/CLC. Hopefully that could be considered reform. (I will take it in any form)
So here is the $64,000 question….
What would change..What would remain??
March 10th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
PFR:
Good comments; for the most part I agree with your assessment.
Something that must happen in cojunction with a change in polity is a radical change in defining the character of the leaders. This is a huge topic (and probably worthy of another post). What I mean is tempering justice with mercy, strength with honor, confrontation with love, etc.
There just seems to be an overabundance of authoritarianism in SGM; I say that based on my many years there and the testimonies of families who really have no axe to grind with us at SGM. Men want their counsel taken without question, want their ideas to prevail over all others, want their families honored unflinchingly, want their cravings satisfied… and then turn around and tell the sheep (via the leader’s actions) that your counsel is not needed, your ideas are best subjected to review, your family’s honor is secondary to mine, and your cravings are sin.
This is not indicative of all SGM pastors, but story after story on these blogs would indicate that an alarming percentage are. Even if one in ten are that way, that’s too much.
An even-keeled Christian brother lovingly told me recently that “good” polity can still be administered by “bad” leaders; Better to have a “bad” polity with “good” leaders… (I think he was quoting someone and I’ll find out who it was); it may seem like a contradiction, but I think I know what he means.
That being the case, then you run into the dilemma of the leader thinking themselves to be “good.” Many mistake that for being better, superior, and above the flock in all things. And that’s when disaster strikes with a vengeance.
Even so, I still believe that bad polity can be a root to all kinds of tragedy.
~pk
March 10th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
So where does the term “Executive Pastor” fit in?
“Family Pastor” too…..
Thanks, PK……
March 10th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Thanks for all of your hard work, PK!
I have to admit that when you and Jim started posting about SGM’s polity issues, I just wanted to skip over them. My attitude was “polity, schmolity, and who cares?” But, after realizing that most of the horrible experiences people have had within SGM churches IS BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITY (which puts them on the outer fringes of orthodoxy, I might add!), I dug in to the posts. I wanted to know why and how the governmental system that these leaders chose for this “family of churches” allowed for the abuses that we have seen and heard over and over and over again.
So, if the polity posts were ones that you also were tempted to “skip over” I would encourage you to read this “new piece”… when we understand the faulty polity issues within SGM, we will then see why the leadership of SGM and it’s churches have responded to us, those that have been hurt and wounded by this system, in the inept, unbiblical way that they have.
And our cries for reform and change will become more focused as we understand the root cause of their practice. Authoritarianism is part and parcel of SGM’s polity. Their extreme view of “first among equals” places their “apostles” above the senior pastors, and the senior pastors above their “support staff” (other pastors).
What place do the sheep have in SGM’s food chain?
As Jim likes to say… “SGM’s clergy/laity distinction is their “Berlin Wall”…
Mr. Mahaney… TEAR THIS WALL DOWN!!”
March 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Amen Sister!
I admit I felt the same way you did initially until I started reading it and was so stuck by what PK had outlined…almost word for word what my husband observed for years!
March 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Happymom,
You have a very wise, observant husband!
March 11th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Carole,
I made it through Polity! Yee-ha! And I understood most of it!
PK,
I have a question: do the leaders whom we have seen misuse authority do it because they sincerely believe they are following God’s will, or is there selfish ambition, greed, and a lust for power, as was mentioned in your post? I’m truly trying to understand if the men I’ve known deliberately sinned in their use of authority (because of a lack of integrity) , or are just deceived in believing that they have the right to rule over others the way they do. If, as I have heard them say, they will stand before God one day to answer for their tending of the flock, how will they explain to Him the abuses their actions have led to? Is this deliberate on their part, or deception? Lack of true character, or sincere belief that they are doing right?
I hope I’m making sense. I’ve always wondered this.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Hi Canary:
You said: “I have a question: do the leaders whom we have seen misuse authority do it because they sincerely believe they are following God’s will, or is there selfish ambition, greed, and a lust for power, as was mentioned in your post?”
Honestly, I think it’s either/or, and sometimes a combination of both. It’s a tangled mess with some leaders. At times, bad polity creates an environment where unquestioned authority just simply leaves one open to corruption too easily. For others, their own power trip fits in -and hides, for the most part- just fine. I hate to paint with a wide brush on this one, but polity that isn’t clearly defined will produce authoritarian personalities and practices. There’s just no kind way to say it.
And to quote Dr. Grudem again (whether anyone is a fan of this guy or not, this is an absolutely true statement):
“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.”
It’s obvious some of those negative consequences have shown their face. My prayer is that those who read it do not use it to justify ill practices.
I hope that was a clear answer… it’s late and I need coffee, or I need to go to bed.
In closing, for me, Canary, the most compelling part of all this research came from Holy Scripture in 1 Peter 5:1-4 … I’ve read it many times over the years… but when I read it today, I wept. I haven’t always had a good pastor like now. That scripture should be emblazoned on every flat surface at every seminary, pastor’s college and pulpit.
Thank you for reading my monolith article. I know it’s a chunk, but I wanted it all in one place.
Good to see you Canary!
in Christ
~pk
March 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Thanks, PK.
I wonder, how can these men have such power trips if they are walking with God? Do they not listen to Him, or fear Him? Do they harden their consciences to the Holy Spirit? Because power tripping, or whatever anyone wants to call it, is not what Jesus would do. Somewhere along the way, they had to loose the Lord’s heart, right? I mean, to put themselves in positions with such grand authority is not what the Holy Spirit would call them to do. I’m asking because I have been confused by this for years. Have their hearts just wondered away from the Living God?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Canary:
I’d hate to judge their hearts, but I can see where someone would conclude a spiritual drift based on authoritarian practices and the mishandling of the saints that has tragic results. Through all of this I am learning to pray for these men that are behaving this way, that God would arrest them and redeem the circumstances through repentance and possibly evaluating if they should be in the positions they are in. More humiliating than stepping down from a post where you’ve made carnal mistakes is the humiliation one experiences through the natural consequences of your sin, and the ultimate humiliation is giving an account to your Lord for your thoughts and actions. It’s one reason I’ve stepped back from so much biting language I’ve exhibited… not just toward those in SGM, but regular posters on the blog like you. I look at our conversation last week and I just shake my head…. God wasn’t glorified in ANY of my words. I suffered from what I accused SGM leaders of doing. It came out of my heart (the book of Proverbs nailed me on that one). I pray for more pastors to repent and experience reconciliation, conciliation, joy and peace that comes from realizing the fact the church does not revolve around you… it revolves around Christ.
We’ve lost sight of Christ Himself, the hope of glory; all sufficient, and the true source of our church life and fellowship of saints universally.
~pk
March 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Good post PK – I like the using of who they quoted to disprove their points. I don’t fully agree with everything Grudem says – and SGM’s holding his Systematic so high that most members think that it is the title of a Grudem book, and the only systematic, is another topic. I obviously from my name disagree with Grudem’s review of Presbyterian church government, but I would rather be congregational than what SGM is.
One additional resource that would be great to be used is SGM’s recommended book about the church – 9 Marks of a Healthy Church by Mark Devers. He has great quotes about church government that clearly are opposite of SGM teachings. I am looking at his teacher notes at http://content.christianity.co....._Notes.pdf
He says “ The congregation has real authority. It is also true that the Bible presents the local congregation as having the final say in matters of dispute, doctrine, discipline, and membership. The congregation exercises this authority for the maintenance of the body’s health and for the accountability of the elders.”
And
“The responsibility for disciplining this sinning brother by removing him from
the membership rolls belongs to the assembled congregation, not just the
pastor or the elders. The pastor and elders may make recommendations, and
the congregation is wise to trust those recommendations. But the final
decision is made by the congregation.”
There are many other great quotes on this teaching guide, on his page about mark 9 – church government, and in the book.
One area of polity that I think you left out in this post is on lay eldership. I think this is one of the other major error in the church polity at SGM – the lack of lay elders. SGM clearly teaches that elders are all to be paid staff, and this is against what all (I think) other reformed teachers would say. Devers specifically mentions having lay elders, and I believe that Grudem does as well.
I believe also that a look into the consequences of this church polity can be made. There is a hero-worship/idolatry of the pastors – having lay elders who are equals and having some congregational authority would temper this. Also the lack of biblical training in theology I believe is directly related to the church government. There is no need for a good theological understanding of the congregation because there is no need for them to ever vote on anything, become a leader without going to a special college, or have any say whatsoever. The elders/pastors and ultimately apostles are the ones who need to know theology (which their lack of theological training is another topic), the congregation has no need to have training. The only ones who get some training are the men going to discipleship? (I think that’s the name), who are to become care group leaders. There is also no communication to the congregation about doctrinal/theological changes, because there is no need if the congregation has no authority, no ability to review the changes, and lacks the knowledge to understand them. Also the preaching style which revolves on quotes, humorous stories, and sometimes nothing to interpret scripture instead of using other scripture to explain what passages mean is understandable based on the SGM belief that the apostles and elders are the ones with spiritual authority and the congregation does not need to, nor should question anything they say. There is no way to examine what is preached against scripture like Paul commends the Bereans for, because we never see how they got to what they are saying. In my exit meeting with CLC I brought up the passage about the Bereans and I was told they did not believe it means that we should examine what the pastors preach. I am sure there are many more results that can be mentioned, but I will stop this too long post here.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Dear PK, I want to ask your forgiveness for my abrupt words to you the other day, removing myself from the blog because you are still in a SGM church and for all that transpired over the weekend. Will you please forgive me? God always leaves a remnant and maybe you are part of that remnant. Walking in Freedom
March 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Presbyterian:
Quite a few people now have emailed/discussed with me a most serious discrepancy between the polity put forth in Dever’s 9 points and the polity we practice at SGM; yet another book we carry in our bookstores that is openly at odds with us at least in on some serious points; enough to warrant questions.
I absolutely understand your disagreement with Grudem on his Presbyterian view; the whole reason I quoted him was to illustrate that his views on polity were nowhere near what ours is at SGM, yet we feel free to quote him in our written material -even out of context- to defend our position. How upside down is that?
Your post was not too long, it was great and raised some excellent issues and areas of discussion. How someone can not view the verses regarding the Bereans as checking everything taught by the word of God… WOW… again, it’s a serious departure from what is abundantly clear in scripture.
Thanks again, and God bless…
~pk
March 11th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Walking In Freedom:
“Dear PK, I want to ask your forgiveness for my abrupt words to you the other day, removing myself from the blog because you are still in a SGM church and for all that transpired over the weekend. Will you please forgive me? God always leaves a remnant and maybe you are part of that remnant. Walking in Freedom.”
I was overwhelmed by this (in a good way). Absolutely, and positively I forgive you. Please forgive me for feigning martyrdom, my harsh words, and my complete misunderstanding of the serious matter you and others were trying to communicate to me.
In Christ,
~pk
March 11th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Thank you so much PK. I am absolutely still very sensitive to the whole SGM thing and do not trust SGM in any way – not at all. I was transferring my distrust with SGM to you and for that I was wrong and am very sorry.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
PS To PK: I most certainly forgive you.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Just a couple of comments from PK’s rarely-seen wifey.
Canary (and all), it is most difficult to discern any man’s heart. Only the Lord can know (Proverbs 15:11, Prov. 17:3, Prov. 21:2). Some perhaps are deceptive and some are deceived themselves.
I believed our dear PK was a Christian when I married him, and I think he believed he was, too. But over the years, the fruit was not there. The love for Christ and the His church was not evident. After some very difficult years, I then saw PK’s amazing regeneration by God’s Spirit as He called him out of darkness into His glorious light. Now the fruit can be seen, and the change is quite remarkable. He is still just a man—a sinner—but now saved by grace! As he’s fond of saying, “I used to be a jerk; now I’m a saved jerk.” One who delights in his salvation, I might add.
So…all this to say SGM’s pastors I’m sure are all good men (as “good” as men can be – Psalm 14:3). I am not doubting they are saved men, either. But men, on their best day, are still only men. Men need to be proven; men need to be tested. And dare I say it? They need to be accountable to others. Their fruit needs to be evident (Matthew 7:15-20). Men are so easily corrupted by any kind of power. I believe it is the enemy’s #1 weapon against them. Power can be most seductive.
I was once under a pastor who publicly stated (from the pulpit) that his “spiritual gifts” were “ruling and reigning.” Just let that sink in for a moment. And he certainly believed in exercising those “gifts” in our lives. But there was no one in this pastor’s life to call him on it. And if they did, he never made a public apology or confession.
He bulldozed his way through life and our church for many years, leaving much destruction behind him. But God did not turn a blind eye. He used this man in our lives for many reasons. Years later we can see this and thank Him for it; back then we only saw this man’s arrogance and our pain and misery.
I can imagine every leader (pastor) has been tempted many times to abuse his power. What would frighten me is a system that supports, or even just ignores that fact. Men need help to be leaders; men need time to become humble pastors. On their best day, they are still men. God bless them; they shoulder a great responsibility. Pray for them all.
PK’s Protestant Dame
March 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Walking in Freedom,
Yeah!!! Welcome back!
March 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Thanks so much Canary! You are always such an encouragement!
March 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Nice to hear from you again, PD!
March 11th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Protestant Dame,
Thanks for the wise words. I understand a little better, now. Though I do still think that men who seek power in the church have wandered from their first love, Jesus. We cannot know hearts but we can tell by the fruit whether someone is walking close to our Father, or not. I have had that question on my mind for so long – Why? Why do some leaders loose their way? It is about the heart, isn’t it? I think I’m closer to understanding WHY these things happened to us. That is very helpful.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Walking in Freedom,
I wrote something about you on “Moving On”. I’m so glad you are back.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
You are so sweet Canary!
March 12th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
WIF,
Re your 3:08 on March 11.
Your words bring glory to God.
You sound like someone “Walking in Freedom”
March 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I never thought much about the SGM polity until I started reading the blogs. I came across an interesting article on Charisma magazine’s website that I thinks speaks to the problem. http://www.charismamag.com/ind.....-anointing
These points by Mr. Grady especially:
“Some charismatic apostles became mini-popes who carved out their fiefdoms. Suddenly the independent charismatic movement had more invasive authoritarianism than the denominations these pastors abandoned 10 years earlier.”
“But if we view leadership in the way Jesus taught it, we know that being first is not about being on top. Apostles are at the bottom of the pecking order. They are the servants of all. And because they serve a foundational role, their work will often remain hidden in obscurity. They are not looking for fame or celebrity, nor are they grasping for a title; their role is to empower everyone else.”
Anyway just found this to be some food for thought…
March 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Hi SueBee,
I assume you read the polity posts by PK (John) and Jim? PK refutes the idea of apostles altogether. So while the quote you posted makes good points about the role of a true apostle and could be great advice by way of example for anyone in a leadership role in the church, it doesn’t really say what many (if not most) here would say to the apostles of SGM. That would be, “You are not apostles.”
Grudem says, “In order to qualify as an aspostle, someone (1) had to have seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead, and (2) had to have been specifically appointed by Christ as an apostle.” (Systematic Theology)
But maybe you were just suggesting how things got to be the way they are? And how ironic it is that the guys who call themselves apostles don’t even behave like the true apostles?
March 27th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Yes, I read what Jim and PK posted. Yes, I posted this more to show how we got here. I am a long-time member (since before the shift to reformed), so I am coming from the charismatic side, although I grew up in a “mainline” denomination. I remember asking about elders and deacons when I first started attending my SGM church…
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Is anyone up for revisiting this whole polity and authority in the church issue? I have been reading quite a bit about this lately, and I would like to blow off some steam and have a nasty and heated debate.
I am going through blogging withdrawls, and I am looking for some action. Any takers?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Dennis-SGM’s polity is indefensible. You will find no takers.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Hi Jim,
Yes that is true about SGM. But it seems that many outside SGM still hold to the present day “senior pastor” model of church leadership, with the exception of most house churches and a handful of other assemblies.
So my question is, who has authority in the church, and what exactly is the extent of that authoriy? Are there prophets today, and do they have any authority? Are there apostles today in a differning sense that the 12? What is leadership and who is in that leadership and what authority do they have, if any?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
oh…you may find some takers
maybe not today, it would take too much time…but in general…I would love to defend the indefensible.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Here is the reason I ask. I realized that I loved my brothers and sisters at SGM. If it were not for the so called pastor, I might still be there. And that goes for some other churches I attended as well.
So do I have a problem with authority, or is “authority” the problem? Does the pastor have the authority to tell people who they can bring to church? One guy was bringing in the homeless that he was ministering to, and the pastor told him to stop! Who is he to tell someone who they are allowed to bring to church? How is that Biblical? And that is just one small example of the false control of this pastoral role.
Thoughts anyone?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
My family also attended another church in town where we were very faithful members. We were there every time the doors were open, Sunday morning, the Tuesday midweek service, and the Friday night prayer service. One Tuesday night, we decided to stay home. The next day the pastor called me and said he wanted to meet with me. When we got together, he read me the riot act about “forsaking the assembly”. So I asked him if he had forsaken the assembly by not coming to Friday night prayer. He rarely came to that meeting.
Before that confrontation, we were called on frequently to share, pray, etc. After that incident – NOTHING! It was as if we did not exist anymore. We went from getting called on frequently to dead ZERO! We were now the black sheep of the fellowship. All of this because the “pastor” got offended.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Hey Dennis,
Not sure if we’ve spoken before, but I was posting here a while back (if you’re curious, I think my story is in the archives here in July 2009, I believe entitled “SGM’s scorched earth policy”). I’ve had zero time in the last year or so to post regularly, because I’m in law school, but I found myself with a bit of a lull in the action this afternoon so I visited. I’d be happy to get into a polity discussion
; it’s one of the three main reasons I left SGM.
I’m hoping Joey will engage us as well. If it’s the same Joey I believe it is, he and I knew each other from a mission:x trip to Cuba, and I’d love to have some conversation with him. It’s been several years since we’ve talked.
Here’s my initial thought on SGM’s polity: the main problem with it is the main problem with all the rest of SGM’s doctrine: it’s completely divorced from missiology. (In all fairness, most American churches have the same polity problem, no matter what form of govt. they adopt). Apostles in the NT were first and foremost “sent ones”, as the term’s origins imply. They had to be eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, and they’re mission was to bear witness to the Risen Lord. The authority they had was incidental to this mission; it wasn’t authority for authority’s sake, or for any other purpose than to further the witness of the Risen Lord to Judea, Samaria, and the Uttermost. Likewise, when bishops/overseers rose up as time went on, they “apostolically succeeded” in the sense that they carried on the mission of proclaiming the Risen Lord. The authority they had was to ensure that false gospels such as Gnosticism weren’t proclaimed in contradiction to the Church’s mission.
And therein lies the problem in SGM’s polity: it’s purpose is to guard the flock. Or encourage holiness/sin management. Or ensure Reformed doctrine is taught. Or whatever. The point is it’s not for the furtherance of the mission of the Church. At least I didn’t see it being used for that in my time there. And authority not being used for the purpose Jesus gave it for is sure to abused. The proof of that is all over this site and survivors.
I’m not sure if any church today has “the” correct polity. Currently, I’m of the opinion that the Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox are closest to what the early church practiced: strong congregational authority, accountability for all clergy members, bishops who lead and oversee in a concilliar fashion, etc. But the point to me isn’t to come up with “the” correct polity structure, it’s to further the mission of bearing witness to the Risen Lord. If you’re polity hinders that, ditch it, no matter what theological luminary proclaims it. If you’re polity is effectively encouraging mission in the life of your church, I’m not going to pick exegetical hairs with you.
Thoughts? Joey?
Ryan (exintern)
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Hi ex,
Thanks for posting. We are in agreement. In Eph 4:11 it states that the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherd teachers are for the equipping of the saints, and the edification of the body. I see no authority over the flock whatsoever. A shepherd feeds the flock. Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep, not tell them what to do. We need teachers, not policemen, and not judges and juries.
I had a teaching one time that I wanted to give to the church, so I asked my then SGM pastor if I could present it one Sunday. It was a flat out NO! He did not even ask me what the teaching was about – just NO. I guess I was not “qualified” in his mind. So this SGM pastor was judge, jury, dictator, CEO, director, moderator, controller, decison maker, etc etc for the entire fellowship. What he said went, and he did not need to check with anyone else.
And actually, when he was apart from his pastoral office, he was a very nice guy. It was this so called office that turned him into a tyrant. Definitly a Jeckyl and Hyde situation. So if we can straighten out this polity issue, I think it will resolve a multitude of problems.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Dennis and Ex: great insight! I think you are both nailing it perfectly. Most of the older SG “pastors” are rooted in the sheparding movement of the 70s and 80s, and once you’re mired in all of that, it is very hard to break away. These men really believed that God flowed through them to the sheep. The sheep depended on them to hear from God. I have heard it said recently, by one of the SG “apostles,” that something supernatural happens when he (or any SG pastor) speaks from the pulpit, unlike if just you or I spoke from that location. He said that is why it is so important to be there on Sunday mornings.
How old covenant is that? Good grief! Really sad!
I know a SG “pastor” now who is trying very hard to break free, but the tendencies are like sticky glue: it doesn’t come off easily. He preaches grace and then mixes it all up with law, and the two do NOT mix–they aren’t meant to.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Good discussion, Dennis, Ex, and GD. The list in Eph. 4 is a list of functions NOT offices. There is no hierarchy or authority structure you can find attached to them.
I don’t doubt that the shepherding movement influenced the older SG pastors. I just think that there’s more to it than that. When I was in PDI they kept playing up the need to be “a NT church” and if the early church had apostles then we should too, and if Paul was the best model for apostle then modern ap0stles should emulate him–hence planting churches, overseeing them, and correcting them like Paul did. But modern apostolic authority to the degree we see in SGM–navel-gazing guarding of doctrine and sin management, etc–is read into scripture not derived from it. In fact, much of scripture contradicts this model.
Anyway, my point would be that the practice of misinterpreting Bible verses due to a wooden literalism (outside the context of the whole scripture, culture, history, and plain old common sense), is to blame for the faulty SGM polity. It has to do with the way they view biblical authority and their perceived need to accept certain verses/passages at face value and therefore out of context. In my experience PDI was notorious for doing really bad exegesis and hermeneutics.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Just wanted to pop in to say that I hope to join the discussion soon. Ex its definitely me…hope you are doing well. How’s law school treatin ya? Anyways, talk to y’all soon.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Hey Joey, hope you’re doing well too. Law school is, well, brutal, but life is good and God is gracious
Michael: “Anyway, my point would be that the practice of misinterpreting Bible verses due to a wooden literalism (outside the context of the whole scripture, culture, history, and plain old common sense), is to blame for the faulty SGM polity. It has to do with the way they view biblical authority and their perceived need to accept certain verses/passages at face value and therefore out of context. In my experience PDI was notorious for doing really bad exegesis and hermeneutics.” I agree wholeheartedly. But I also think there’s more to it than that.
Part of me wonders if the way Sunday morning worship services are structured in most evangelical churches doesn’t feed in to the problem of polity. The way it usually goes-SGM included-is you’ve got a few songs, some announcements, then a big, fat long sermon by a professional speaker who enthralls us with his knowledge of the Bible. Man, or rather, a man, is the climax of the service.
Contrast that with the services of the ancient churches, the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans: the sermon is brief (20 minutes is a long one) and comes towards the beginning of the service, and the focus of the service and big time-taker is meeting God in communion. God Himself is the climax.
Now obviously, no one’s had authority problems quite like those of the Catholic church. Don’t here what I’m not saying. That wasn’t meant to suggest we should all go back to Rome, because I certainly haven’t, and am not planning to. But how is it that we, as Protestants, who believe (or say we believe)in Sola Scriptura, have fallen in to the same trap? Is a contributing factor perhaps that we’ve made a celebrity out of the senior pastor simply by our order of worship? Maybe the place to start changing polity is to change the way that things are run on a Sunday morning, so that people come away saying “man, our God is awesome” rather than “man, Pastor Bob sure can preach.”
In SGM, I think this mindset is particularly strong because it is reinforced in the care groups: almost every care group meeting throughout SGM (and correct me if I’m wrong, maybe this is different in churches outside of FL, where I was) is devoted to talking about the pastor’s sermon from the previous Sunday. And of course, it starts with, at least in my experience, the obligatory praising of the pastor’s preaching ability. “Well, let’s talk about that incredible sermon Bob preached Sunday…” And it goes from there. “I thought the point Bob made when he said X was great, because it convicted me of sin Y.” So the glory of the pastor isn’t just exalted on Sunday mornings, it resounds on Wednesday nights as well…Pastor worship is a part of the culture. And abuses of authority/bad polity are all too easy when pastor worship is the norm.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
I’m still looking for a sr pastor is Scripture. Anyone ever find one?
This obviously has nothing to do with SGM’s unique polity, as sr pastors are the norm today.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 am
I can find only one Sr. Pastor in the Bible…Jesus Christ…
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Greetings, exintern,
As a fellow believer in Jesus and his life, death, resurrection, and forgiveness, I would like to respectfully respond to your comments.
I have been a member of a SGM church (CLC) for more than 30 years. I can state from my own personal experience that there is no worship of pastors taking place. Our gatherings, whenever they occur, are Christ centered.
We don’t just sing a few songs. We worship Jesus in spirit and in truth. We praise and adore him with words, actions, and emotions, all expressed intimately to him for who he is and what he has done.
In our hearts, we desire be doers of his word. Those announcements give details on ways we can serve God, the community, and the church.
We view the sermon as God’s word spoken directly to us. We ask ourselves – what is God saying to me? How can I apply this to my life? What better way can we practically demonstrate our love for the Lord than being a doer of his word. When we gather as a care group, our focus is on what, if anything, did God say to us, and how we can respond to this word.
Scripture says to give honor where honor is due. You may hear comments expressing gratefulness for a pastor, and for his work in presenting the word of God to us. But this is in no way, shape, or form, worship of our pastors.
We are grateful for our pastors and for the sacrifices they make to fulfill the biblical qualifications of their role. But they are not perfect, and they regularly make that clear. They are no closer to God than me or anyone else.
I get the impression on this board that one can not have a personal relationship with God and be a member of a church at the same time. The most important part of my life is my own, personal relationship with Jesus. My pastor’s goal is to make sure that relationship remains as most important.
We, at CLC, are not hiring “professionals” to think for us. We are Christians who gather to worship God, grow in our own personal relationship with him, and do great things for him. Pastors are there to see to it that these things happens.
I can give 30 years of specific examples and testimonies to back up what I have shared here.
In his grace……………..30 years
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
30 Years said-
“I get the impression on this board that one can not have a personal relationship with God and be a member of a church at the same time.”
I apologize that you have that impression. A diverse group comments here, but the owner of this blog (me) would strongly disagree with that concept. I’ve said time and time again that SGM is composed of our brothers and sisters.
Pastor worship is rampant in America, and CLC is no exception. I’m very happy that you personally do not struggle with it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
30 years…..scripture also says to rebuke a leader publicly when they have sinned and broken trust with those they serve (I’m paraphrasing)….I don’t find SGM very consistent in this practice. For all their teaching on Matthew 18-it only seems to flow from the top down and seldom the other way.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Greetings, Jim,
You are publically declaring that CLC “worships their pastors”. What evidence are you personally aware of that backs up this claim?
There are many who I know who do not struggle with this. Not just me. We respect their leadership and their own personal walk with the Lord. And they are treated no differently than any other brother in Christ. Normal, every-day interaction.
Who is worshipping the pastors? What are they doing? What justifies this serious charge against the good folks at CLC who love Jesus and worship only him?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
If I made such a broad brushing statement, again, I apologize. Since CJ and Jeff believe that when a pastor speaks from the pulpit, he “stands in the very stead of God”, and you yourself believe that “we view the sermon as God’s word spoken directly to us”, we might need to define the word worship, which is something that you don’t struggle with.
I know many at CLC who blindly follow a pastor’s advice, as they are clearly taught to obey him and to make his job a joy. I know many who have been given horrible advice from fallible men.
Again, if one thinks that allowing a man to sit in the seat of Moses, hearing from God on behalf of “his people”, and accepting such a man’s words as “God’s words spoken directly to us” is not a form of worship, then perhaps we should define the term.
By your own organization’s documents, your sr pastor is “the first among equals”. In those same documents, you are not one of the “equals”.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
30years,
Why do you need a pastor/teacher? After 30 years, shouldn’t you be teaching by now?
Very rarely do I hear ANY pastor teach something that I do not already know. In fact, many times, they do not know proper exegesis of the text, and their hermeneutics are severely lacking. C J’s teaching on Hebrews 13:17 is just one glaring example. Not one word about the Greek text or grammatical structure and context. How can someone who has not even been through his own pastor’s college, be the head of a Christian “family of churches”. His teachings show no indepth knowledge of the original languages, which is imperative to sound exegesis and sound doctrine.
There are many people like yourselves that have been in SGM for 30 plus years, who are still sitting in the pews as babes in Christ. That is not a put down to you, just a fault in the SGM system and polity structure. The people remain dependant on the “pastor” for spiritual imput and guidance, when they should be mature enough to be teachers themselves.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Dennis–well said!
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Jim,
Thank you for your comments.
When I hear a sermon, I am in faith that God is going to use this pastor to speak to me. And to the rest of the congregation. I can do this and listen and focus on God without thinking more highly of this pastor than I should.
I may evaluate his speaking skills, good, bad or otherwise. Maybe I don’t like the way he’s dressed. Maybe I really appreciate this person’s sense of humor. But I don’t worship him. He is no more important, or higher up, or closer in any way to God just because he has been chosen to bring a word from the Lord to us. The majority of the congregation would agree with this.
How many are blindly following the pastors advice? How many of those are actually in agreement with the pastor and are in faith that God is using this pastor to help them? How much good, God-glorifying, Holy Spirit-inspired councel has been given as compared to the horrible advice?
My point in asking these questions is this: how can you, way down in Florida, know what is really going on here at CLC? How can you possibly be aware of the day-to-day intimate details? How can you know the various sides to what you hear?
How can you truly justfy the statement that many at CLC blindly follow their pastors and in some way worship them? You agree that broadbrushing is wrong. But how can you draw a line between using a wide brush and a narrow brush? You can’t.
How can you justify making this and all the other claims about CLC and SGM to an audience of 70,000+? By allowing even the smallest of accusations, or misrepresentation, the members of SGM are hurt and seeds of division among the body of Christ are sown.
Thank you for your time……………..30
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Jesus was probably an AWESOME sr pastor. I bet that little local church in Nazereth that he sr pastored just LOVED him.
obviously I’m being facesitious.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
30 years,
Thanks for your gracefully spoken comments. First, let me say that I truly do admire the kind of commitment, so rare in our culture, to stick with anything, be it job, marrriage, or church, for 30 years. Second, although my roughly 6 years in SGM is a mere fraction of the time you’ve spent there, I hope you’ll understand that my time there gave me an in-depth perspective that came from being an assistant care group leader, intern in the church’s office, leading a young men’s accountability group, going on mission:x trips, and basically having my life revolve around the church for those years. And afterall, 6 out of my 23 years is basically most of my life
Please don’t hear what I’m not saying: clearly Christ is worshipped at SGM churches. And just as clearly, no one is kneeling before their pastor a la Baal and making a literal god out of him. I cannot speak for others, but when I use the phrase “pastor worship,” I mean something more subtle than crass pagan practice. I mean a mindset and practice that gives the pastor a primacy in the worship service and the life of a believer that should be reserved for God alone.
As I said in a previous post, the pastor and his interpretations take up an enormous part of the time spent at a Sunday meeting. And the sermon’s position as the temporal climax of the service means that everything builds up to the pastor giving the sermon. That’s the highlight of Sunday worship. I see absolutely no scriptural justification for organizing a meeting like this. It was unheard of in church history prior to the reformation. This criticism applies to most churches in America. But I think it’s several orders of magnitude worse at SGM churches… I was once at a SGM church elsewhere in FL from where I was attending, and the sermon was about how “your entire week should revolve around the Sunday service.” Think about that: that means that, in essence, my entire week should revolve around hearing what the pastor, a sinful man, has to say.I personally believe my week should revolve around communing with my Heavenly Father, not a man.
SGM has used the phrase (do they still?) that pastors “stand in the stead of God.” This criticism has been repeated ad nauseum on the blogs, but where is the scriptural justification for this statement? That’s just straight “Pope as vicar of Christ.” If I had the desire to be Catholic, I’d just go to mass…I personally think God stands very well in his own stead.
I mentioned the care group example earlier, so I won’t repeat myself. Consider also the fact that prophetic words are screened and edited by pastors, or at least high-ranking care group leaders (and in my experience, there is a hierarchy). Again, where is the Scriptural justification for this? It’s the pastor taking the place of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit, as God, can inspire and edit His own prophetic words without the help of a pastor.
Or consider, and I know this post is getting way too long, the role SGM members give their pastors in decision-making in their personal lives. Most of the people I went to church with wouldn’t buy an icecream cone without “godly counsel” from their pastors. The pastors are the de facto experts of the church in everything from buying cars and houses, changing careers, and saving for retirement to proper sexual techniques and the way to raise your children. The last time I checked my Bible, Isaish called Jesus “Wonderful Counselor,” not any sinful man.
So you see, it isn’t that I’m saying that men kneel down and offer sacrifices to SGM pastors, it’s that they occupy roles that only God should for the believer.
Blessings,
Ryan (exintern)
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Jesus used to be the Sr Pastor of the church, but now the Pope and C J have taken His place.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
30 years-
I’m still not sure where I said that members of CLC are more prone to pastor worship thank members of First Baptist of Wherever.
I really don’t know where you see in Scripture that elders are gifted to bring a word from God to you, but I won’t ask you to respond, as you haven’t responded to my quotation of SGM’s own teaching about pastors. Elders are able to teach, and some labor at it. That’s what I see in Scripture, not the Moses model of bringing God’s Word to you. Anyone does this when they publicly read Scripture, but when they begin to teach, all bets are off. Your faith in this area is an unbiblical expectation. Please correct me, from the NT, if you believe that I’m wrong.
I obviously don’t have the statistical data you’re asking for.
I hope I’ve answered your questions. I’m sorry, but I’m done with the “how can you do this” question. I’ve answered it far too many times. You’ll see it answered over and over again on this blog, with later responses linking to older responses already given.
I’m not the one who has to answer for anything. There are not 100’s of emails and blog posts and phone calls saying, “I was hurt by sgm refuge”
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
I certainly can draw a line between a broad brush and a fine one. I don’t say “all SGM pastors do this or that”. I can say what they are all taught, to some degree, but it silly to think that hundreds of men march in lockstep.
Regarding how I know what I know, you mentioned the size of our audience. Being someone who was care group leader and then a sgc staff member, along with the fact that I see many good things in SGM, might be one reason that I talk to so many people in so many different SGM churches. Attenders, members, care group leaders, and pastors.
I know far more than I would prefer about many sgcs, including CLC.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Dennis, and you were doing so well.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I’m sorry, my last post was cut off.
30 years, I’ll answer all of your questions that I can, except the “how can you do this?” question.
It’s been answered over and over again.
Here’s a thought that might be helpful for those who read here and think, “how can he say those things.” I would suggest that your outrage is misguided.
There are not 100’s of blog posts and emails and phone calls saying, “I was hurt by sgm refuge”.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Sovereign Grace Ministries.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Regarding the first among equals concept and the worship of pastors:
“Part of me wonders if the way Sunday morning worship services are structured in most evangelical churches doesn’t feed in to the problem of polity. The way it usually goes-SGM included-is you’ve got a few songs, some announcements, then a big, fat long sermon by a professional speaker who enthralls us with his knowledge of the Bible. Man, or rather, a man, is the climax of the service.
Contrast that with the services of the ancient churches, the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans: the sermon is brief (20 minutes is a long one) and comes towards the beginning of the service, and the focus of the service and big time-taker is meeting God in communion. God Himself is the climax.
Now obviously, no one’s had authority problems quite like those of the Catholic church. Don’t here what I’m not saying. That wasn’t meant to suggest we should all go back to Rome, because I certainly haven’t, and am not planning to. But how is it that we, as Protestants, who believe (or say we believe)in Sola Scriptura, have fallen in to the same trap” – Exintern
Interesting idea. I think that anytime we get into a pattern and don’t periodically remind ourselves why we do things the way we do there is the possibility for confusion and problems. But if you look at the reasons why most protestant churches structure their meetings this way, it is exactly to elevate Sola Scriptura. Not to elevate the preaching. The whole point of the reformation was that we don’t need a priest as an intermediary, we already have Christ…and we don’t need the church to interpret the Scripture for us, we have the Holy Spirit to illumune the word to us. Now, if you view preaching as “a big, fat long sermon by a professional speaker who entralls us with his knowledge of the Bible” then you might wonder why, after making such a big deal about Sola Scriptura, all the protestant churches make a big deal about elevating preaching. But if you view preaching as the word of God being taught, expounded on, explored, explained, so that every man, woman and child can learn, grow, and be nourished in their personal walk with God, then you might have a more favourable view of the importance of preaching.
That doesn’t mean that preaching necessarliy has to come last in a service. In fact, ironically, my church is doing the sermon first and the singing last this coming Sunday, simply because we want to remember that there is nothing sacred about the order of a service. There are reasons we do what we do, but that doesn’t make it sacred, or the way it has to be done. We believe the preaching of the word is the most important part of regular gatherings of our church. But that doesn’t mean other aspects, singing and praying, communion are not important. But the very reasons we believe preaching is so important go against the idea of any one person or group of people getting too much authority. Scripture alone is the authority. Scripture itself (I believe) delegates a sctructure of authority (that details of which are fairly hazy, but that doesn’t mean you go with no structure) for the purpose of the healthy and vast spread of Gospel.
More later hopefully.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Ryan,
Thank you for your well-stated response. I understand what you mean when you say “worship the pastor”.
When those folks gathered as a care group, what comments were made that clearly indicated this form of pastor worship? Did they go on and on about how wonderful the pastor was?
Wasn’t the focus of that gathering on discussing the content of what was said and the application of that word? Was there ministry and prayer relating to what was discussed? This has been my experience.
A pastor getting up to speak is not the highlight of the Sunday worship service at CLC.
When we gather in his name, he is there in our midst to hear our praise and adoration, first and foremost. We begin our time together by telling Jesus that we love him and are thankful for all he has done for us. It is done in song and spoken word. Music. Hands raised. Clapping. Now, that is the highlight.
It is God who is glorified, honored and exulted at CLC. Hearing God’s word preached, hearts changed, folks going forward to give their lives to the Lord, folks asking for prayer, and concluding with more worship.
I know of no one whose life is micro-managed by a pastor at CLC. There are folks who need help in one or more of the areas you listed. Perhaps a pastor could help by pointing them in a particular direction, our referring them to someone who could help. But, how do you know these people are substituting the pastor for our wonderful councellor? God can use other people to provide help.
Again, how do you know that your assesment of all SGM Florida churches are as you describe? Are you saying that the majority of all SGM Florida churches are man-centered? Perhaps you have mis-interpreted what you have observed?
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
30 Years
Since the topic here is about “polity” have you ever wondered or asked about all or at least some of those people that have come and gone from CLC? How about the numbers that have been “asked” to leave CLC? What do you think about SGM’s polity and practice in those situations.
I am sure some of the excommunications they have done were biblically justified, but as one longer time member pointed out, the leaders at CLC are just too quick to “ask” members that question and have conflicts with leadership to leave. Have you never witnessed any of this?
If you haven’t questioned some of this, maybe this unquestioning shows a form of leader “worship.” There gets to be the view that if a leader or leaders decided to do an action like this, they couldn’t be wrong. Maybe that others don’t question these actions show that others have a form of leader “worship.”
Joey
Glad to see you are still around. I posed on question to you on the SGM Survivors blog and didn’t hear back.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
30years wrote, “When I hear a sermon, I am in faith that God is going to use this pastor to speak to me. And to the rest of the congregation. I can do this and listen and focus on God without thinking more highly of this pastor than I should.
Not me. I am more like, “Father, help me glean from what is being said the truth and NOT the opinion of man. These men are loaded down with biases like all other men. Way too many of us have been led astray by men behind the pulpits.
Doesn’t Paul speak about praying without ceasing? Doesn’t that imply constant interaction with our Father, moment by moment, 24/7, seven days a week. Why this focus on what the “holy man” behind the pulpit says as coming from God, and us not interfacing all week with our Father? Could it be that we have our receivers “turned off or turned down,” and then we turn them on when we expect to hear from God through the “holy man?”
Things that make you go Mmmmmmmmmm!
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Steve,
Sorry, I don’t typically stay involved on the survivors site for too long and it appears I left you hanging…I apologize for appearing to judge your motives, I was only trying to take you at your word in regards to your assessment of the situation in question. Anyways that is a discussion for over there. I’ll pop min tomorrow if I’m not too busy and try and respond. I’ll also look more closely at what I said and apologize over there for any judgmentalism on my part.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Hey Joey,
Thanks for your thoughts. It’s good to hear from you
“The whole point of the reformation was that we don’t need a priest as an intermediary, we already have Christ…and we don’t need the church to interpret the Scripture for us, we have the Holy Spirit to illumune the word to us.”
Exactly right. So let me pose this question to you then: why does the Scripture come to us primarily filtered through the hands of an intermediary–the senior pastor–rather than directly to us on Sunday mornings? Don’t misunderstand me: preaching is God-ordained. But why, again, does it hold the primary spot in the Sunday service, at least temporally if a church is switching things up for a change?
Why aren’t straight readings also done, as in more liturgical traditions? Why does SGM filter prophetic words through an intermediary?
“Now, if you view preaching as “a big, fat long sermon by a professional speaker who entralls us with his knowledge of the Bible” then you might wonder why, after making such a big deal about Sola Scriptura, all the protestant churches make a big deal about elevating preaching.”
First off, I don’t view all preaching like that. Just those sermons and preachers who fit the description:) I believe that preaching should be a simple, clear explanation of the Scripture…what modern American preachers have turned it in to is a form of entertainment, an hour-long show rife with personal examples and stories, jokes, anecdotes, and controversial opinions treated as canon…this is true even of many churches that consider themselves more theologically oriented.
And you’re mistaken that “all the protestant churches” treat preaching in a similar manner to SGM. That would certainly be true of the Calvinistic branch of Protestantism, which church historians regard as only one of the four main branches of the Reformation. Two others–Anglican and Lutheran churches–treat preaching like I described previously: short, clear, edifying, about the Word and not about the preacher, and an early part of a service whose climax is Communion with God. (The last branch, of course, was the Anabaptists, who all just seem to do their own thing…).
“Scripture itself (I believe) delegates a sctructure of authority (that details of which are fairly hazy, but that doesn’t mean you go with no structure) for the purpose of the healthy and vast spread of Gospel.”
I don’t think anyone hear is advocating no structure–well, maybe Dennis is
– but I disagree that the details are all that hazy. If nothing else, three major themes run throughout the New Testament: a three-fold structure of deacons, elders, and bishops, congregational authority and accountability, and leaders making decisions in a concilliar fashion, i.e. the Jerusalem Council in Acts. My problems with SGM’s polity are that it doesn’t even make an attempt at the last two, it’s definitions of the deacons, elders, and bishops are sketchy at best, and it’s use of government isn’t being used to spread the Gospel (though I agree wholeheartedly, as I said in my first post, that the purpose of polity is to serve the furtherance of witness to the Risen Lord).
Talk to you soon.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
1 Cor 14:26 – “Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”
EACH ONE HAS???? Paul must have made a mistake. The Pastor has the teaching and the worship team has the psalms. Who has the revelation? Well, when it came to going out under the power of the Spirit, only
C J was allowed to bring such an absurd revelation. Our church had already deemed it all as nonsense until C J opened our eyes. When
C J speaks, we all listen. When he said “it is over”, it was over. Tongues and interpretation? Not at our church.
1 Cor 14:29 – “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.”
The OTHERS? What others? At our church, one man made the call if we could use the “prophecy mike”, after he read our prophecy. He was the sole judge as to who could prophesy.
vs 30 – “But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.”
At our SGM church, it was easier just to be keep silent in the first place. No sense in walking up to the prophecy mike and then be told to go sit down.
vs 32 – “and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets”
Wrong again Paul! Do you want there to be chaos? The prophecy mike manager controls the spirits of prophets. No one else is allowed to even hear the prophecy if the prophecy mike manager says no. We can’t have prophets just spitting out prophecies.
1 Cor 12:28 “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.”
Uh oh! Paul forgot Pastors??? Paul, what about Assistant Pastors and Sr Pastors? Or maybe we should have Sr Prophets and Assistant Prophets also, while we are busy instituting man made positions. And don’t forget the Prophets College.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Hi, 30 years–welcome back. I’ll speak up as a former CLC member (I was there from 1986 to 2007)–and you’ve said in the past that you know some of my story and know my name, although you haven’t shared your name with me. Please remember that there are a number of your former CLC mates here and on survivors.
I found the CLC pastors to be friendly, but they — and their families — do travel in their own circles, cut off from the rest of the flock. The honoring and the serving flow up far more than it flows to the “least of these”–and I’ve been in both the leaders meetings back when I served with Chuck Thompson and in the “least of these” circles. There is a “hero-worship” adulation for the pastors and their families throughout the church–though clearly not songs about how great and awesome the pastors are (except, now that I think about it, at the Leadership dinners set to show tunes by Mrs. Spiro).
I am so grateful to be in my little Anglican church here in Gaithersburg–with voting laity and a board of elders (elected), with weekly readings from the scriptures (a Psalm, a Lesson, and the Gospel reading–and we all stand for the Gospel), with confession and communion and singing each week–and a 15 minute sermon focusing on one of the Bible lessons for the day.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I was thinking about the differences between SGM’s Sunday morning service and the midweek care group meetings. The care groups are not pastor led nor overseen by a pastor. No worship team, no sermon, no offering, no prophecies, no falling out in the Spirit (during that phase), no church bulletin, no altar call, no sitting in rows, no pulpit, etc etc.
Isn’t it amazing how different things are when SGM moves from the church building on Sunday into a house setting during midweek? What’s up with that? My, oh my, oh my!
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Dennis: just nodding my head in agreement….
Acme: my wife and I go to an Anglican church now too, and we love it! We’re really blessed by all the things you mentioned. Are you guys AMiA, or one of the other groups?
November 4th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Hello all,
I am over 20 years in Sovereign Grace Ministries, almost 2 years out. I represent a church in the south, not Jims, not ex interns, not Joeys, the point being all together ANOTHER sovereign grace church with hugh problems stemming from the Sr Pastor.
30 years, I am in the south, and I can attest to the idea that the church is sick with adoration for CJ. He is quoted often, if not every single sunday, his books are sold, phrases he uses are said even amoung the very young. The women are put in line so to speak, with the ever so insiteful Carolyn Mahaney, like some ficticious guru she has most answers on sex, romance and hospitality. She has not touched on intricate subjects like homosexuality, cutters, drug users or anexoria. Her June cleaver like lifestyle is not condusive to mercy for these types, and that has shown in the church I left.
Somehow you have to experience a first degree Sovereign Grace Ministry burn to understand. The staff that was created for shepherding was used to beat the flock, and the horn that was created to turn breath into worship, was used to announce the greatness of a man.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Exintern,
If you want feel free to ask Jim for my email, I’ve always enjoyed dialouge with you and will continue this discussion here, but I’d also just like to get caught up with you in general, its been awhile and I feel deprived.
First I would like to say:
“And you’re mistaken that “all the protestant churches” treat preaching in a similar manner to SGM.”
You are right. I stated that way too generally. I will try to avoid sweeping generalization in the future
All you people are the same!!!!! Oh, whoops, there I go again…
Anyways, one thing I would want to throw out there to you is that the whole preaching thing, this perspective that we lend too much weight to man when it comes to delineating the Word for us, is ignoring the fact that in this day and age we can read the Bible for ourselves whenever we want…we have to an incredible array of resources for Bible study at our disposal…and our pastors, at least all of the ones I know, and that’s a few, are regularly encouraging folks to pursue and study the Word as much as possible. None of these pastors telling folks to just listen to them. None of them are discouraging personal pursuit and study of the Word. When we get ready to go through a book of the Bible on Sundays the pastors make commentaries available and encourage people to read through the book (like say Hebrews) several times all by themselves and then to read a commentary on it. None of these commentaries are written by SGM folks.
So its difficult for me to see why listening to a 50 minute sermon once a week should lend itself to idolizing the preacher. Of course the possiblity of hero worship is there, but when each week, on average, you spend and hour in singing (between cg and sunday) an hour in group study (at cg, which in my experience has been anything from a book study to discussion of the sermon, to going through a ten week evangilism course etc) and 25 min doing communion, baby dedications, baptisms, scripture reading (yes we just read the Bible on Sundays sometimes) and 50 minutes listening to preaching…I don’t find an argument that the structure of service lends itself to idolizing the preacher compelling. I think anytime someone is doing anything consistantly public there is a tendancy to idolize. But I don’t think saying preaching is very important, and putting it at the end of the meeting is equivolent to placing the man preaching on a pedestal. We want to place the Word of God on pedestal, because the Word of God draws attention to Christ, and he is the one who we want to live for all day every day.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Greetings acme,
Thank you for the welcome. I am very happy for you and your new church.
I would like to respectfully ask you about something you wrote. You have implied that Mrs. Spiro took the lead in presenting a form of pastoral worship at a CLC gathering.
Have you discussed this with Mrs. Spiro? Have you talked with Mrs. Spiro regarding her motives behind those shows? How do you know it wasn’t just some silly spoof put together for entertainment and some laughs?
And why would you report what she did, using her name, on this very public forum? How would she feel if she or a family member were to read that?
The scenario listed above is typical of what is happening on this board. Unproven, disrespecful accusations about the members and leaders of SGM, publically proclaimed to an audience of thousands. How is this biblical love towards your own brothers and sisters in Christ?
Here I why this entire blog, and the other one, are wrong:
1) Look at the attitude behind the banner of “I survived SGM” or “come here where it is safe, you who have been cast aside from SGM”. This is not biblical love.
2) It is impossible to verify the truth behind each and every one of the stories and accusations presented here. Those 100’s and 100’s of emails- how many represent actual cases of pastoral abuse? Some in fact are. But how many?
Not only must the truth be presented, which requires real investigation and hearing from ALL points of view, but you must also prove that these accusations are widespread thoughout each congregation in all of SGM in order to justify this public persecution of all that is SGM.
3)These accusations are made publically, without any proper verification whatsoever, complete with names and family member names.
4)Talk about nit picking and hair splitting and majoring on the minor, it goes on and on here.
5)The former members here all went through the intro course. After the first year or so, you could easily see what SGM is all about. You could have left at any time. But, sadly, some trial comes up and you find yourself outside. And you say unkind things here about your brothers and sisters in the Lord. This is not biblical love.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Has anyone ever heard anyone within SGM disagree with anything that C J taught? I was in SGM for about 10 years, and never once did anyone ever correct or disagree with any of C J’s points. At least not publicly.
I once heard C J say that every time he sinned, he realized that he had put the nails deeper into Jesus’s hands. Well that sure sounds humble and contrite, but is it Biblical? Does anyone at SGM ever question the great C J? Not while I was there. While that alone may not be considered “leadership worship”, it sure seems to come pretty close.
C J once did an entire series on idol worship. Does he not see that he himself has become an idol that is worshipped by SGM? This goes WAY beyond respect and honor, I am afraid. But they would never acknowledge that.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
30years,
You said: 1) Look at the attitude behind the banner of “I survived SGM” or “come here where it is safe, you who have been cast aside from SGM”. This is not biblical love.”
Yes, it absolutely is Biblical love. Jesus came to set the captives free and to heal the broken hearted. That is exactly what this site and Kris’s site are doing for those who have been spiritually manipulated and abused by SGM’s controlling and domineering leadership tactics.
“Not only must the truth be presented, which requires real investigation and hearing from ALL points of view, but you must also prove that these accusations are widespread thoughout each congregation in all of SGM in order to justify this public persecution of all that is SGM.”
The Bible teaches not to accept an accusation against an elder except on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses. As you can easily see, we have surpassed that number long long ago. They all confirm what everyone has gone through as being “lorded over” by the controlling and domineering leadership of SGM and it’s false polity practices.
“4)Talk about nit picking and hair splitting and majoring on the minor, it goes on and on here.”
You call spiritual abuse, neglect, control, domination, coercion, labeling, brow beating, shunning, etc etc “minor” and “nit picking”???? You have got to be joking! The intro for new members said NOTHING about such atrocities! So it is YOUR post that lacks Biblical love. Biblical love protects and defends those that have been abused, neglected, and ill treated. You are turning a deaf ear and a blind eye in order to defend abusive leadership practices. I implore you to repent.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Dennis,
CJ holds to a Third Wave view on baptism in the Holy Spirit. I completely disagree with his view.
That’s just off the top of my head. Good try though
.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Hi Lawrence,
Have you expressed your disagreement publicly to SGM?
November 4th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Dennis,
No. Well, it depends on what you mean by SGM. I’ve had discussions with the pastors at my church about it (but then they agree with me and disagree with CJ.) I, ironically enough, just had a discussion with one of my best friends about the issue. So, if by SGM you simply mean some of the people that make up SGM, then yes.
Have I told Ceeje or Purswell or any of the leaders? No. What would I? They have their opinions. I have mine. They don’t mandate that I, or the pastors of my church, believe what they believe. I don’t see any reason to just tell them that I disagree with them. I also disagree with CJ on the issue of limited atonement. But I don’t see the need to tell him I disagree with him. We all of us have our opinions.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Joey said:
The whole point of the reformation was that we don’t need a priest as an intermediary, we already have Christ…and we don’t need the church to interpret the Scripture for us, we have the Holy Spirit to illumune the word to us.
C.J. believes that pastors stand in the very stead of God. SGM gives Pastors way more authority than the Bible does, to the point of become mediators for the sheep.
SGM will not allow people to have bible studies in their homes without a Pastor involved, because they believe that the sheep cannot interpret scripture correctly.
That was my experience in my over sixteen years membership in PDI/SGM. The Holy Spirit was squeezed out of most all activities in the church I was attending. If He “illumined” a word to us individually and the pastor disagreed, that was, as they say, that. The pastors my husband and I spoke with put no weight at all upon our own sense of what the Holy Spirit was wanting for us. The control began as subtle manipulation in the early years but, by the time we left, there was no trying to hide how much the pastors thought of their own agenda and position of authority over others.
I’m just describing what my husband and I saw and experienced.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Lawrence and Dennis,
It is common knowledge that SGM leaves room for both views.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Good grief, 30 years, I totally understand that the show tunes are spoofs, exaggerations to make a point. I’ve been on the drama team. I get that.
I don’t think any of the Spiros would have a problem with my citation, because if you re-read it carefully, I didn’t say anything hurtful about her. I would be sorry if I had.
You have majored in missing the point yet again.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Jim,
Good call
. That’s why I was a little bit confused.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Jim,
I couldn’t help but think and now write, “Oh how benevolent of them!” i.e to allow both views of limited atonement within the ranks of SGM, just more evidance of theological divides within the BODY of Christ. Most of us would rather be right on the “L” part of the TULIP than to have genuine intimacy with the resurrected Lord Jesus and each other.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Hi Lawrence,
Well good for you. And I mean that sincerely.
I personally never heard any disagreements at all while I was at SGM except for one man that left over the “falling out in the Spirit”. I also heard much later about 2 churches that wanted to continue with this activity after C J said it had run it’s course. They ended up separating themselves from SGM.
Have you ever heard a pastor state from the pulpit any disagreements with any of C J’s beliefs or doctrinal stances? I had one teacher say he agreed with me about tithing not being for today, but he would never state that from the pulpit.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I was not so concerned with minor agreed upon gray areas of doctrine. But limited atonement sure seems to be a biggie. I was surprised by that one being discussed. So they allow for 4 point Calvinism views? 3 point? Just how much freedom do they allow to disagree and still be a member in good standing?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Dear acme,
Here is what you wrote:
“There is a “hero-worship” adulation for the pastors and their families throughout the church–though clearly not songs about how great and awesome the pastors are (except, now that I think about it, at the Leadership dinners set to show tunes by Mrs. Spiro)”.
From this quote, I concluded that you implied that Mrs Spiro was participating in some form of musical “hero-worship”.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Dennis,
When I referenced “two views” I was talking about third wave/second experience.
Having said that, a Florida sr p told me in 1999? that he was a 3 point Calvinist. This was a semi public setting, with a room full of cgl’s and another sr p.
These guys are not as lock step as a lot of people think. Metro in Orlando was hyper-charismatic in 2005, and may very well be today.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Dennis,
Regarding the 5 point, the 4 points, and so on, I remember hearing Brent Detwiller say this: “WE DON’T INSIST THAT YOU ALL AGREE ON THE ‘L” IN THE TULIP!”
I thought to myself, oh wow! thanks for not insisting! I then thought, although hoping that no one heard my thoughts
, jeez, that sounds a little controlling! My arrogance detector went off, but I ignored it because I was in the SGM adoration stage, at that point.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Dennis,
Don’t get Joey started on what he thinks about my views on Limited Atonement haha. But Jim’s right, “these guys” are not as lock step as some might think. As far as whether I’ve heard them state from the pulpit disagreements with CJ’s doctrinal stances, that depends on what you mean. They’ve clearly articulated their beliefs on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and those beliefs are different from CJ’s. Did they end it by saying “fyi, CJ doesn’t believe this”? No. Also, one of the pastors is a 4 pt calvinist, and this came across in one of his messages. But no, he did not implicitly say he disagreed with CJ, or even the 5 pt pastors on staff at Metro. I don’t think there was any need too. As I’ve said before, we each of us have our opinions. I don’t think the pastors feel the need to point out that their opinions do or do not line up with CJ’s, or anyone else’s for that matter.
Jim, I think Metro is as “hyper-charismatic” as we were in 2005 lol, for better or worse
.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Joey,
I’ll definitely send you an email as soon as Jim sends me your address. I’d love to catch up with you as well! It has indeed been way too long since we’ve talked.
“We want to place the Word of God on pedestal, because the Word of God draws attention to Christ, and he is the one who we want to live for all day every day.”
Amen. I agree with this wholeheartedly. But let me ask again: why is a 50 minute sermon, filled with personal stories, jokes, and anecdotes, the best way to do this?
Here’s the main criticism I have with this form of sermon: it isn’t biblical. Look at the sermons the New Testament has preserved. The ones that come to mind immediately are the Sermon on the Mount, the sermons of Stephen, Peter, and Paul in Acts, and the book of Hebrews, which most scholars believe was a transcribed sermon. Hebrews is easily the longest. I haven’t tried it all the way through, but I think I could read it aloud at a moderate pace, with pauses in various places for emphasis, in about 20-25 minutes. It’s so devoid of personal stories and anecdotes that we don’t even know who the author/speaker was. And it may well be the least funny thing I’ve ever read. (obviously that last sentence is hyperbole) .
The other canonical sermons are evn shorter, and likewise devoid of the personal stuff. They give an edifying explanation of Scripture, an application, and then they end. So why are we so fond of departing from the biblical model? How is this the best way to give the Word priority?
As Acme mentioned above, in Anglican services the Word is given huge priority: the congregation reads a Psalm together responsively, then readings are done from the Old Testament, an NT epistle, and finally from one of the Gospels, for which the congregation stands. The pastor then gives a 15-20 minute sermon which provides exegesis and application from one of the readings. I think I’ve heard one personal story, which I timed, and which lasted all of 13 seconds.
I’m not saying the Anglican church has everything figured out. Far from it. By God’s grace, I’ll never be sold out to a denomination like I was to SGM again. But that service structure highlights the Word. The 50-min. sermons I’m talking about highlight the Word AND the pastor’s sense of humor, AND the pastor’s ability to tell a story, AND the pastor’s personal opinions on courtship, homeschooling, women having jobs, and, and, and…
I agree that personal study aids are available to American Christians like no other group in the history of the Church. Yet the commentaries provided by SGM bookstores are always pre-screened and fit the pastor’s personal views on the subject. Once again, there’s an intermediary between you and the Word. I personally was never encouraged to consider opposig view points and come to my own conclusions from being a Berean; I was, however, encouraged plenty of times to swallow the entire pill of SGM doctrine, with books being offered as further support if I had any doubts.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“SGM will not allow people to have bible studies in their homes without a Pastor involved, because they believe that the sheep cannot interpret scripture correctly.” – Canary
This goes against everything I have ever seen at the 3 different SGM churches I have been apart of, and against what SGM explicetly teaches. SGM doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a member of an SGM affiliated church has a Bible study. I know of many, many Bible studies that have taken place in all 3 of the churches I have been in, and don’t think that any of the folks involved even thought of asking whether it was a good idea or not. They just do it. And they assume, rightly, that the pastors will love the fact that folks want to do a Bible study.
Now, I can imagine if someone wanted to present a specific course material that was in some way specifically against a particular teaching of the church…or something along those lines…then the pastors would rightly say, wait a second if you are going to be a member here you can’t be doing a Bible study that goes against what we teach. Hello.
But something along those lines would be the only reason I can think of that a Bible study would be discouraged.
I’m not saying you didn’t experience what you experienced…I’m just saying you can’t make a sweeping generalization based on that experience.
And as far as the whole standing in the stead of God, and all that, it has nothing to do with pastors being elevated spiritually above anybody else…it has to do with the fact that throughout history God has used the public declaration of His Word to reach His people…all the way back to Moses. And anyone who preaches is filling that role. I don’t think that is a very controversial perspective. It should be sobering to those who preach.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Dennis,
I have expressed remorse here on this blog more than once towards those who have been hurt by those in SGM. Even one instance is tragic.
I am now focussing on the hundreds of brothers and sisters in Christ who are current members and leaders of SGM who are being abused, ill-treated, and mis-represented on this blog.
You have made serious and significant charges against SGM. What evidenced do you have that clearly shows these charges are widespread throughout all of SGM? Enough evidence to justify this ongoing persecution of SGM?
In my thirty years of life in CLC, I can say, based on my personal interaction and observation with my eyes wide open, that those accusations you have made against SGM are not widespread throughout CLC.
My personal relationship with Jesus does not hinge on some title given to Josh Harris. This is one example of nit picking. What church would ever survive the level of scrutiny given to SGM?
November 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Joey,
Thank you for confirming my view of the Moses Principle.
Unheard of in regards to NT elders.
Pick a covenant.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
30years,
What evidence you ask???? Are you serious???? I have 10 years of personal experience, along with the multitude of testimonies on the various blogs, as well as many of my SGM friends that I saw being abused first hand. So are all these ex-SGMers lying? Are they rebellious and vidictive? What is their agenda? Do they love gossip and slander? NOT!
Your eyes have been wide open, but you have not seen, and ears that have not heard. Brainwashing sees what it has been told to see and what it wants to see. I thought everything was fine while I was in SGM also. Why else would I have stayed there with my family for those 10 years? My eyes did not TRULY see until after I left.
Do you think Tom Cruise sees the problems with Scientology? NO! Why not? The same reason that you do not see the problems in SGM. The same reason that I did not see the problems in SGM. The same goes for Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, etc etc etc. It all looks so wonderful on the inside. It is like the frog in the kettle analogy. Brainwashing and mind control are very subtle and difficult to discern. Especially after 30 years! The ex-Witnesses, ex-Moonies, and ex-Mormons will tell you the REAL story about what they have experienced! Those still in the cults will not. (FYI – I am not saying that SGM is a cult – just making a comparison to show how powerful brainwashing is.)
Was Jesus being abusive to the Pharisees when He called then white washed tombs and a brood of vipers? Were they being ill treated and misrepresented? PLEASE! It was the religious leaders that Jesus blasted for lording over people. If the leaders in SGM are being misrepresented, then please, prove me wrong, and prove everyone else on these blogs wrong.
Please pray that God opens your eyes and heart to see the truth.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
30 years,
As Acme said, I think we all took those songs sung to the pastors as a joke. I remember one Celebration where there was a public skit in a main session poking fun at Jeff Purswell. An actor who was dressed in a black graduation cap-and-gown jumped down onto the stage while swinging from a rope. In the background people were singing “dean, dean, dean of the college…” to the tune of George of the Jungle ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....s&NR=1 ). Those songs were good for a few laughs but I’m sure many of them were actually meant to um, … “keep the pastors humble”, not to worship them.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
30years-
You said to Dennis that leaders are misrepresented on this blog.
I’ve said over and over and over again that I don’t speak for my guests who comment here, and that they don’t speak for me.
I name names. The names of the leaders of your denomination. Please show me one instance where I have misrepresented the facts. You can do it here, by phone, or via email. All of my contact info is on the “about” page.
If I have misrepresented facts about someone I’ve named, I will recant. If you find a pattern of misrepresentation, I’ll shut the blog down. I’ve made this promise to current SGM pastors, in person and on the phone.
Call me a liar and prove it, or go cry about your poor little leaders elsewhere.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Jim,
Excellent!!! Prove me wrong or shut your pie hole. Enough already.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
We were “encouraged” not to sit under other men’s teachings outside of SGM. We were NOT allowed to hold our own bible studies with other members of the church. This was in the Fairfax and the Charlotte church, in the early to mid nineties. This is the truth. Others have written on this blog about experiencing the same thing. I am being more specific so that I won’t be accused again of making the “broad sweep”.
No pastor “stands in the very stead of God”. Yet, I have seen friends corrected by their care group leader for not asking if they could move to another neighborhood. I have seen a monthly women’s meeting ended because one woman complained about a prophecy she was given. Another friend was called by the Lord two times to do missions work. Both times, her pastor told her “no”, and she obeyed him! I can tell you of at least three different times in as many years that a pastor, a mere man, stood up and stopped the moving of the Holy Spirit in a group, simply by deciding he wanted to go a different direction.
Sure, this is my experience, my own opinion. I SAW these things. Leaders took on authority that God did not give them. People followed like dumb, blind sheep, myself included. This ought not to be.
There are some sgm churches that claim not to experience these problems. I hope this is true, and wish them all the best. There are too many similar stories on this site to ignore the real issue – pastoral/authoritative abuse goes on far too often in this group of churches. It ought not to be.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:13 am
You weren’t allowed to have a bible study in the Fairfax church? How ironic
…we can go back and forth about whether Bible studies are allowed in SGM churches. Clearly they are, b/c they happen all the time, and every single pastor I know is thrilled when they do happen. Like Joey said, if specific times have raised concerns with pastors, ok fine. I’m sure that’s happened. But to say that “SGM will not allow Bible studies in homes without pastoral involvment” is not true. Heck, I’m going to one tomorrow, a study of 2 Thessalonians. The oldest person there will be 22. And this is just one of countless examples. I’m sure there are many reasons that you’re concerned about SGM, but this doesn’t need to be one of them.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Canary, I can tell you that independent Bible studies are allowed in the Charlotte church. I participated in one last year. I have no idea whether or not the pastors knew about it and I don’t know if anyone thought about getting their permission. MC made it very clear in a family meeting earlier this year that people should feel free to do this and not feel as though they need to get permission. That said, the fact that people believed that they needed pastoral approval speaks of the control that has been there in the past. It is ridiculous for Joey to pretend that there is no reason for anyone to have ever felt that independent Bible studies weren’t allowed.
I have no doubt that all the things you experienced happened and probably still happen. I see some good changes which I partly attribute to the fact that we’re all getting older and we don’t have as many illusions (I include the older pastors in this - MC is pushing 60 - their illusions have been shattered too). Mostly, I attribute this to the work of God in all our hearts and the power of prayer. God is faithful. He doesn’t go away just because you join an sg church or pastor an sg church.
If you’re concerned about sg, then please, please, pray for us. Another thing I’d suggest is doing like I’ve heard Jim is doing in trying to keep a positive dialog going with people in sg leadership. Whatever you may think about their leadership style or the underpinnings of what they believe about leading a church, hopefully, we can all agree that these men are genuine believers, that they are trying to do the right thing and that God is at work in their hearts just like he is in yours.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Canary,
With over a decade in the Fairfax church, I can completely back you up. Not only were individual womens/bible studies not happening, none of these women ever went to anything outside of SG.
Only church run/sanctioned events.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Jim, I enjoy being under the New Covenant
How is this a controversial perspective?
I wasn’t even really making a theological statemant in regards the “Moses Principle.” I was simply pointing out that if you the Bible, Old and New Testemant, there is a pattern of God using the public declaration of His Word to reach His people. Do you disagree with that?
Assuming you agree with the above, wouldn’t it follow logically that anyone publically declaring the Truth of God’s word (which doesn’t have to be a pastor, anyone who preaches the Word…me, you, anyone who is publicly evangilizing, any Christian proclaiming the Word of God) is following in the footsteps of those who did the same in Scripture? Now that we are in the New Covenant and have the canon, any Christian, not just a select group, can participate in the role. The priesthood of all believers thing
November 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Sorry for the grammar and spelling mistakes in the previous post. I didn’t proof it. Always a mistake.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Greetings, Jim,
No one on this board is lying. Fellow believers in Christ are sharing their perspective on what they have experienced at CLC. I am challenging what is being written here because the conclusions made on this blog run completely contrary to my 30 years of experience at CLC.
Anyone reading through these posts can easily conclude that those who post here believe the majority of all pastors within SGM lead their congregation with a heavy hand and closely manage even the day to day details of their lives. Some have declared that the majority of the pastors are abusive.
If only one or two pastors fit the above description, obviously, this blog would not exist. You and others believe that enough heavy handedness and abuse takes place at SGM to justify telling 70,000+ people all about it.
I am asking for proof – evidence that supports and justifies this claim. You say 100’s of emails. I am challenging that evidence, because you simply can not accept at face value that every one of those notes represent pastoral abuse. I don’t deny that these good folks are hurt. But you can not assume pastoral abuse is the reason. You must investigate and hear from all parties involved, including the pastor, before reaching any conclusions.
This kind of investigation is not taking place at CLC. Because in my 30 years of experience, this kind of abusive pastoral leadership is not happening to the extent that justifies making this kind of public accusation. That is why I say that CLC is grossly mis-represented in this area and also in regard to all the other accusations I previously talked about.
Again, what real, hard evidence do you have that the majority of believers at CLC are being ill-treated, dominated, controlled, are legalistic, blind, deaf, man-centered, following a false gospel, worship their pastors, can’t think for themselves, and on and on..?
Each and every one of these claims – and more – have been proclaimed publically on this board. This is offensive and hurtful to the believers at CLC. I have 30 years of evidence to the conrary of each and every one of these claims.
These serious charges demand a complete and thorough explaination, with evidence that clearly show the vast majority of SGM members are experiencing these charges.
What evidence do you have?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:35 am
30years,
I have recordings. I have emails written by pastors. I have multiple witnesses.
You have no idea what is being investigated in any given church.
You want me to go nuclear at start posting recordings and ludicrous statements made in writing by pastors? I’m doing you a favor. I’m being patient and giving SGM time to clean their house.
People you love will benefit from a clean house.
You’re welcome.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Thank you, God, for “being patient and giving sgm time to clean their house.”
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Joey,
Why is it that, the vast majority of the time, the pastor is only one declaring the truth of God’s word from the pulpit? Why is it out of hundreds of Christians, that only this one man is declaring God’s word on Sunday morning? Why do the rest sit in silence with nothing to say? Is God only speaking to and through the pastor? Why are there no prophets bringing a Sunday morning sermon? What happened to 1 Cor 14 about letting 2 or 3 prophets speak while the others judge? And where are the other teachers? I knew more about the Bible than my SGM pastor, but I was never allowed to teach on Sunday morning. My care group leader let me teach at his house, but never the pastor on Sunsday morning. Why do you think that is? Is God not speaking to and through any of the others in the body of Christ? Why is Sunday morning reserved mainly for the Pastor to teach? Is that Biblical?
Thank God for blogs and cyber-church where everyone is allowed to share what is on their heart, openly and freely without reservation! Even on Sunday morning!
November 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
30 years, Jim has already commented on your tiring re-packaged posts. He has been more than patient with you. You, and many in SGM, have been conditioned so well in circling the wagons around your beloved leaders. I applaud your loyalty but find it misplaced. Sometimes, the garbage stinks, you know it’s there, but you just can’t locate its exact origin. The problem, often, is that when you’ve smelled the odor long enough, you think it is the way it should be. As for me, I once thought SGM was the best “church” around; now I see it VERY differently.
Jim said it well? “Call me a liar and prove it, or go cry about your poor little leaders elsewhere.”
November 5th, 2009 at 11:47 am
30years,
Do you wish to defend Brent Detwiler as well? How long was that situation taking place before he was told to step down? Do you want to deny that as well? How many people had been hurt before his removal? Does it have to get that vile before any action is taken by SGM to remove abusive leaders? What took so long?
November 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Missus,
I am really, really glad to hear that there is some change in the Charlotte church. My husband and I left in ‘97. I do not doubt that things could change. I only talk about my experiences there, and in Fairfax. So, if the control is loosening up, I am so glad. I only wish to see my brethren there walk in freedom and grace, to become everything each individual was meant to be! Thanks so much for your post.
Lawrence said:
But to say that “SGM will not allow Bible studies in homes without pastoral involvement” is not true.
I narrowed my statement by naming the two churches I was involved with for nearly two decades. One cannot pretend that, just because there are independent bible studies allowed now, that they have always been allowed! If the two churches I mentioned have loosened their control over people, that is very wonderful. Just do not ignore or void the experiences those of us share here because it has not happened to you.
This is about polity, right? Kris posted over at Survivor’s a recent message from CJ about pastoral authority. It is very clear what he believes, and what sgm teaches their pastors to believe. I strongly disagree with their interpretation of scriptures on this topic. It is not God’s heart to have a leader tell one of his children where they can live, when they can have a Christmas party (I kid you not!), if they can go out on missions work, or anything that has to do with a person’s personal life. No man has that right.
I feel as though you are negating every experience we here have posted, like none of it ever happened, that it has all been our imagination. If I’m wrong about this, then please forgive me. If changes are happening in sgm, that is what we all want. But do not treat us or our memories of past wrongs done to us with disrespect. I realize you wish to defend your church group. That is understandable.
If things are changing, it would be so nice to see leaders repent of their past misuse of authority, to have a few come on this site and post their thoughts. Change is good. Repentance and seeking forgiveness is even better.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Dear Gratefully,
What about the re-packaged garbage that is being tossed in the direction of my beloved pastors and my equally beloved brothers and sisters at CLC on a regular basis?
I assume from your post you believe that this stench you are talking about is found all throughout CLC. Do you personally have any real evidence that justifies this public claim?
Would it make any difference at all to you if I listed 30 years worth of real, specific testimonies of the great work God has done at CLC? Marriages restored, people growing in their personal relationship with Jesus, conflicts resolved, people being saved, families restored, testimonies of God’s faithfulness from children in grade school on up to seniors……..
Suppose all that I listed above equalled 95% of what goes on at CLC, given that we are walking in his grace and who we are in Christ? Suppose the overwhelming majority of what is seen at CLC is good fruit, with a very small percentage of bad fruit? Does any of this make a difference to you?
Jim, thank you for all you doing to bring about reform at SGM.
I see you have real, hard evidence. So that I do not bore anyone else on this blog, I will ask you two questions for the last time.
1) Do you think the evidence you have reveals widespread pastoral abuse, meaning throughout most of the pastoral leadership at CLC and SGM, that justifies the public calling-out of these men?
2) Does the evidence justify the public charges of legalism, man-centered, blind and deaf, brainwashed, false Gospel, etc., leveled towards CLC/SGM members?
Thank you for your time and allowing my thoughts to be posted.
In his grace, 30
November 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Joey,
I’ll just give you my email address here in such a way that google won’t find it: it’s rgmclaughlin followed by the number twelve and it’s at gmail. Anyone else is free to email me as well, for that matter
November 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
30 years asked,
1) Do you think the evidence you have reveals widespread pastoral abuse, meaning throughout most of the pastoral leadership at CLC and SGM, that justifies the public callig-out of these men?
Again, we define things in differing ways. Widespread? Yes. Most of the pastoral leadership? I have no idea. The men who I have “called out” deserved it. Some are better men because of it. Justified? Paul’s command to Timothy regarding elders who persist in sin is clear. The real question is, how does SGM justify sweeping pastoral abuse under the rug, allowing men to either continue, or to “retire”, rather than obey Scripture. Broad-brush disclaimer-they don’t always do this. CJ and the national leadership of SGM were warned long ago, back when they use to pretend that the blogs were gnats on their nose, that if I chose to, I would “tell it to the church”. Nothing I write should come as a surprise to anyone. I think that they are probably surprised that I don’t write everything I know.
2) Does the evidence justify the public charges of legalism, man-centered, blind and deaf, brainwashed, false Gospel, etc., towards CLC and SGM?
Have I made these charges? I have highlighted some man centered statements. I’ve referenced legalism. I’ve never, ever said that SGM preaches a false Gospel. Many SGM pastors preach a truncated Gospel, which is common knowledge. Why is it wrong to highlight these errors?
November 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
30-years,
Even though I am only hanging around trying to understand how to pray for those still hurting from their SGM experiences I feel compelled to ask you a few questions and make a few comments. Which I do wish great trepidation.
You make a big deal about your 30 years at CLC so I must ask: How does your miniscule 30 yrs. at one SGM church stack up to the collective hundreds of years at multiple SGM churches that the posters on this blog have? Are you so naive, or arrogant, that you think your minimal experiences trump their more comprehensive experiences?
You insist on proof but shun what you’re given: What are you looking for? What do you want to see? Were this evidence introduced as testimony in a court of law the jury would have many people who can show bad to (predominantly) abusive treatment at the hands of SGM leaders with only a few testimonies, like yourself, of good and non-abusive treatment – the decision would still go against SGM leaders. Unless, like you, they simply ignore the testamony of those who have been hurt simply because they haven’t been. What hard evidence is needed when testimony of those involved is all that you can get? And how can you honestly ignore these testimonies when the people you are trying to defend won’t answer the questions of those they hurt and/or abused? Go ask CLC leaders for answers to the questions raised here and for the other side of the testimonies given here – but be careful, you may find out the truth of the stories firsthand.
You imply that you want to hear the “other” side on these posts: Can you get one or more or SGM’s leaders to actually post a response? Can you get them to even acknowledge that an answer is or isn’t needed? If you read through this blog then you can easily conclude that these people are using this blog as a last ditch effort to get responses from SGM leadership who have refused to provide input on these issues in the past – multiple times from multiple people in private. Can you find out why?
I, too, haven’t seen or experienced much of what has been posted on this site and Survivors – but I can’t say it hasn’t occured in the SGM church I attend. I’ve seen evidence of it, although very low key, for years – and have questioned it. The biggest problem is that people involved in the kind of abuse noted here are afraid to mention it to others for fear of retribution. I’ve had to approach it obtusely through multiple, mostly second hand, sources to be able to find any. Or, worse, contact people who have left the church to discuss the reasons why, and even then many are still fearful. I have had dear friends cease attending the SGM church I attend who still will not discuss the reasons why for fear of a reprisal from the local leadership. This is changing but it is still there.
As for the issue of “pastor worship” I have to say that any long-time SGM member who denies it is either more deceived than Eve was or is so totally into it themselves that they think it is something good and honorable to do. Pastor worship and worship of leadership in general is so prevalent within SGM that we joke about it. Even when we agree we probably go overboard with it, we act like it isn’t wrong. (BTW – I do not attend an SGM church in Florida, I attend one a lot closer to CLC, and have visited CLC occationally, and found leaders worshiped at CLC too.)
For the regular posters here, I am seeing changes afoot in the SGM church I attend. I’m sure it is mostly driven by the new paastoral team but I think there is a more foundational change occuring as well. New blood is moving in and taking over leadership positions. The old guard (those who came into leadership during PDI’s dalliance in the Shepherding movement) is slowly moving out or being moved out (I’ll use Brent as an example here) and being replaced with leaders who either hold to the teachings of the Shepherding movement less than the original leaders or don’t hold to much of it at all. Corporately the change will be slower than at any one locality but I believe we are seeing the start of major change directed bye the Spirit now we just have to see if the leadership follows the Spirit or quenches Him.
Lastly, since I don’t know each of those who have suffered, I can only offer to continue praying for you as the Lord leads. I also want to offer this verse that the Lord has used to quiet (as in “give peace to”) me when I have been walking through suffering:
1 I love you, Lord;
you are my strength.
2 The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my savior;
my God is my rock, in whom I find protection.
He is my shield, the power that saves me,
and my place of safety.
3 I called on the Lord, who is worthy of praise,
and he saved me from my enemies.
Psa. 18:1-3
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14)
(Matt. 10:16)
November 5th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Standing By-
Excellent!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Standing By: What a grace-filled, articulate post.
30Years: I do not have the energy or the desire to engage you any longer–YAWN.
I’ll defer to Standing By
November 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Canary,
. The point I was making was that isn’t studying the Bible one of the things that pastors really want to see the flock doing? You know, working out their salvation and all that jazz? That’s only a very integral part of living out your (our) faith. (Hopefully I don’t have to build any bridges here so that I don’t come across as sounding legalistic.) In other words, I shouldn’t need any expieriance in SGM to say that bible studies would actually be encouraged, as many as possible all the time every night non stop by all members. It’s a foreign idea to me that pastors would have a problem with Christians studying the Bible. Unless they’re Catholic and we just way back in time.
I’m really sorry, I don’t mean to discount your or anyone else’s experiance at SGM. I also don’t mean to spell horribly, but apparently sometimes I do both accidentally. The irony of the Fairfax comment was that I used to be pretty familiar with that church
Luckily, though, I can also point to many, many bible studies that have taken place at least since 1989 in Sovereign Grace. Apparently, there are expieriances in which a pastor, in your perspective, unfairly shot down people who wanted to study the Bible, and I’m sorry that that’s the case. In my opinion, however, I would say that most pastors in any evangelical church anywhere would be happy that their flock wanted to study the Bible.
That’s all I was saying. I’m not trying to doubt you, or discount your expieriance. But if your in sgm (which obviously I know you specifically are not), and you want to start a bible study, just start one. Have a sweet time.
I like canaries, btw. Nice picture.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Jim,
Why not go ahead and publish what you know? Why hold back? One of the problems with having so much power concentrated at the top is that the pastors don’t tell the congregation much.
The Missus
November 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I thought the so used to smelling garbage analogy was a good way to explain why people who have been so long in SGM can’t see the problems with their group. The have been exposed to this for so long that they are use to the smell and don’t realize that it is there.
I worked one summer with someone who was so use to the smell of gasoline that he couldn’t smell what what I could smell.
Jim
This is good news to hear you indicate that SGM is working to get its house in order. I hope as part of that there is some public statements of repentance etc. Also I hope that when appropriate, elders/pastors who have continued in sin are called out as scripture says should be done
I can be skeptical but this does sound like good news. Perhaps the attention of other groups has finally gotten their attention. Lets hope SGM makes the changes they need to make and publicly confesses rather than just makes changes. In the past SGM might make some changes but typically wouldn’t make any type of public confession.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Lawrence,
In your recent response to Canary you made the following statements (please forgive me if you believe I’ve pulled them out of context):
“The point I was making was that isn’t studying the Bible one of the things that pastors really want to see the flock doing?”
“I shouldn’t need any expieriance (sic) in SGM to say that bible studies would actually be encouraged, as many as possible all the time every night non stop by all members. It’s a foreign idea to me that pastors would have a problem with Christians studying the Bible.”
“In my opinion, however, I would say that most pastors in any evangelical church anywhere would be happy that their flock wanted to study the Bible.”
In general I would agree with you. However, as these statements relate to SGM they fall outside my experience. To give the most recent example, when the SGM church I attend was going through some issues at the beginning of this year a lot of people were asking questions of the pastors to clarify the, and I apologize to those that don’t like this phrase, local church’s stance on various issues. I can state, as fact, that when one of the pastors was asked about bible studies his response was a punch in the gut: “We don’t do that.”
In the SGM church I attend, and have since 1996, there has never been a bible study that one of the pastors did not at least attend, if not lead, or wasn’t lead by a caregroup leader asking questions that a pastor had provided (which means the pastor was actually leading it). This has been one of, if not the, top reasons families, that I have been able to talk to, left the church I attend since the beginning of the year.
We all agree that bible study should be desired and encouraged by all pastors. We all agree that every pastor should be happy, even elated, if members of the part of the body he is the undershepherd of want to have a bible study. What Canary’s, my, and other former and current SGM member’s experience includes, that yours doesn’t, is that there are some SGM pastors who do not want, allow, sanction, are uncomfortable with, whatever phrase you want to use, bible studies not under the helm of a pastor.
Your opinions are all valid, they just are not experienced by some in SGM.
I’d like to make one clarification here, over the past few months my pastoral team has been expressing a desire for more personal bible study by all members. They have offered to help anyone needing it but they have also suggested that members ask each other, cgl or not, for help as well. I am in faith that this will eventually lead to me being able to report bible studies underway by whomever wants to have one, on whatever topic the Spirit leads them to.
PS: Don’t worry about the misspellings, obviously I don’t.
(Matt. 10:16)
November 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I can tell you firsthand that a prayer/Bible study group was disbanded.
It happened in the late ’80’s.
It was a group of women.
One of the women tattled on us because we had discussed someone’s situation before praying for her.
The situation was an embarassment to the leadership.
The tattle tale’s husband became a care group leader very quickly after the breakup of this group.
Oh, yes, and to tie it bak to the original title of this long-lived thread, the pastor that thought it wise to disband a prayer meeting/Bible study was the same fellow that wrote the Polity book.
I could name the names of all the players (pastor, person being prayed for, person that hosted the prayer group/Bible study, person that dimed out the group, at least 8 or so people that actively partiicipated in the group.)
November 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Stand By-
I’m glad to hear that things in your church may be changing for the better, and I’m glad that you feel some new blood has come in that holds the Shepherding movements errors.
My only question would be this-
What about CJ Mahaney?
If he’s still the captain of the ship-then how does any of the younger leaders matter?
Has he acknowledged the errors of the Shepherding movement and sought to reconcile with those who were hurt by his teaching and abuse of authority- in the local churches he leads?
If not-why?
Thanks again for you empathetic tone towards those of us here on the boards….
peace to you-mm
November 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
DB posted!
The Missus- I think I’ve said a lot here. To spill everything I know would, 1) betray confidences and 2) not give sgm time to work on some things they are working on.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Standing By,
. Thanks for your response.
.
I love when other people use comma’s as generously as I do
I guess it’s like I told Canary; I don’t doubt that these things happen. I don’t think that people are just making this stuff up, for the heck of it. But even what you typed is super weird and antithetical to the purpose of church leadership to the point that it becomes humerous (not funny that you said it, but funny that it happened.) Even the idea that bible studies are generally large enough that they need a caregroup leader asking predetermined questions. That just sounds like, oh, caregroup. Even the idea that people would go to pastors and ask “Hey brah, do you mind if a couple of use have a little bible study every once in a while?” is foreign to me. The idea that they would then say no just blows my mind. But I don’t know every single pastor or every single church in sgm; I only know most of them
November 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Lawrence.
I think some of what happens/happened was that you just didn’t think to do things outside the SG box. It’s similar to the careful selection of books that go in the bookstore,only pre-approved, selective reading. I can remember people criticizing John Eldredge and men being told not to read his books in our SG church. As if the man had nothing good to say and that people lacked their own discernment or ability to extract anything good from this brother. I can remember men who stopped reading him, just based on that.
I can remember being at an event with a SG pastors wife, she was talking to a care-group leaders wife, who was sharing how excited she was about a new book she was reading. This pastors wife began to warn her about this book, and I got the impression this pastors wife had not read the book for herself, just passing on what she had “heard” And that would be all it would take….
So many things we were told or books we were handed, had not been read or studied by the pastor handing it out, it was just the “prescribed reading.” Especially when it came to the heavy issues. No one on our staff had any professional counseling training whatsoever and were handling depression, suicide, abuse. They make their own reality and it’s not working for the hurting.
Also,I know your family, and although they are all dear people, leadership/family simply can not relate to the way the regular Joe’s are treated. Believe me, the difference is staggering.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Dear standing by,
Judging by the response of that letter -writing campaign to CJ, I would be curious as to how many would actually show up at that court room. Whereas, I know that there would be hundreds and hundreds from CLC who would gladly testify of God’s faithfulness and goodness at CLC.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
30 years, do you understand that if Person A robs another person (for example) but generously shares with hundreds of others, Person A is still guilty of robbery? This isn’t a tug-of-war game–so that whoever has the most people on their side wins.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Wow, 30 years, tell us what you really think of the posters, here…:(
Standing By, you said it well.
DB, I wonder if you and I were at the same womens’ meeting that was disbanded? One woman, who I thought of as a tattle-tale, caused the leaders to break up a wonderful experience, simply because she didn’t like a prophecy prayed over her. God was moving. Then He wasn’t allowed to, anymore.
Lawrence, you just don’t get it. Sigh. I wish you the very best for you and yours.
Cardinal, I hear you. We were not allowed to think for ourselves, even when it came to reading material. I remember that we were warned not to go to some outside meetings being held in the area, because we weren’t suppose to sit under anyone else’s teachings. Some meetings were permitted, eventually. We had to get the pastor’s okay. I think that was carrying authority a little too far. The pitiful thing is that I bought into it all so readily. It wasn’t until a few years after leaving sgm that I realized how little I thought for myself, and how much I truly needed to learn about our Living God. Today, I celebrate His goodness!
November 5th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Also, I agree with what someone posted above about change happening, yet no repentance or speaking of the abuses of church authority following as well. Is that how we should treat our history? Just pretend that none of it happened? That makes me very sad.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
30 years-much of the lack of response to the letters to CJ thing was because of fear. Yes, I have evidence of this, and no, you can’t see it.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Dear Canary,
I love the folks here on this blog. I’ve expressed this before, and truly mean this.
I came here motivated by this love to ask some questions and gain some better understanding, and perhaps help bring some sort of resolution.
I also love the folks at CLC, as well. As a long-time member (sorry for over-using 30years), I wanted to share my perspective and defend who we are and what we do. I’ve done my best.
Thank you for listening.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Canary, I gave you a date and geographic area, is it possible?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
30years,
Are you intentionally refusing to respond to the many questions that you have been asked? You seem focused at trying to remove the spec from our eye, while ignoring the forest in the eye of SGM. Why no response to my question about Brent Detwiler?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
DB, I don’t remember the date, but the church was in Charlotte. Had to have been the early to mid ’90’s. Ring a bell?
30 years,
I understand your desire to defend your position. I once would have done the same. Jim is partly right that fear has kept some from writing CJ. The other thing is that some of us did not desire to revisit a confrontation type situation because when we tried to deal with our pastors in the past, it was heart-wrenching. The fact is, hopelessness is a factor in my not writing CJ, that and a desire never again to feel so dismissed and misunderstood by people I thought cared for my soul. I hardly survived the first go-around. That’s it in a nut shell.
I do appreciate that you have posted here. Really. Sometimes, though, it seems like we just go around in circles and get nowhere. You believe what you believe, and we believe something else. One day, we will meet on the other side, in heaven, and will understand each other perfectly. Until that day, this Canary will sing out her freedom in Christ to anyone who will listen! The Lord bless and keep you.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Different time, different place, different bad actors, same story. Eerily similar, Canary.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:19 am
In thinking about the polity in relation to some folks referencing “pope CJ”, I wondered if perhaps CJ likes the catholic church, but he was not interested in being a priest for obvious reasons (it is well documented that Carolyn never says ‘no’)…so he made his own church and subsequent family of churches to have his cake and eat it to…
November 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am
What is the old saying that for every rat you find there are probably at least 10 you didn’t find?
Thus for all the abuse that has been shared on these blogs, I am sure there is quite a lot more that hasn’t been reported.
For example, recently on the Survivors’ blog one action of a certain “apostle’s” wife have been shared. Kris indicated that she had received at least a dozen or so other emails reporting similar though maybe not as egregious cases of abuse from this same apostle’s wife.
I hope that SGM takes this into consideration.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:06 am
It seems like many Christians are so afraid of being “devisive” or “unsubmissive”, that they are made to be afraid of talking about any leaders in a negative way. They suppress the truth, bury it, and live with it. It is much easier and much safer just to go with the flow and not make waves. The thinking is that, if this leader is standing in God’s stead, then probably we deserve the abuse we are getting. After all, WE are the sinful ones, never the leaders.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Canary,
Thanks. We appreciate the prayers
.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
musicman,
I’m not in a position that allows me to comment on where CJ is in identifying offences, seeking forgiveness, and rebuilding relationships. These are issues between him and the Lord and I am in faith that the Lord will prevail.
I can say that, from my perspective, he doesn’t appear to have the same impact on SGM churches that he used to have. He’s become the “face” of SGM and no longer the “captain”. And it also appears to me that others on the leadership team, still part of the “old guard”, don’t have the impact CJ had on SGM churches because they aren’t CJ (which I see as a good thing).
This is part of why I believe the younger leaders, those who have a more, dare I say, vibrant view of the good news of Jesus Christ are able to influence the individual SGM churches more than they were able in the past.
(Matt. 10:16)
November 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Standing -
I agree. CJ seems to have faded into the background somewhat. He is rarely mentioned from the pulpit and I don’t hear people talking about him very often. Except on these blogs
November 6th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I just went to the Sovereign Grace web site, and C J’s picture came zooming out front and center. In my understanding, C J IS Sovereign Grace. He is the creator, mastermind, founder, backbone, heart, and soul of SGM. All the planets of SGM revolve around C J, even if they do not discuss him as much. C J is to SGM what L Ron Hubbard is to Scientology.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
DB,
Too eerily similar…what are the odds that it happened in two different churches? The very same kind of situation? Hearing “Twilight Zone” music in my head…
November 7th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Lawrence, my leaving is more recent history. I was in my SG church for multiple years. Never saw a bible study, was never invited to a bible study, the church never “offered” one. I know of others from my church who attended bible studies at other churches because they were so desperate for the Word, only to be corrected by others at SG. If two or three guys or gals wanted to study, no one would likely know or care and it could just fly under the radar. If someone attempted to “organize” something, recruiting or offering it openly to the congregation, well that just wouldn’t happen. Even if leadership didn’t say “you can’t have a bible study,” it was understood. There are unwritten rules that are a part of the culture, yet they’re clearly understood. If it’s so permissible at your church, I wonder, do you see bible studies offered in your Sunday bulletin?? (I’m not talking about a pastor-taught class.) I’d be surprised if you can answer yes. I’ve visited many non-SG churches and know it is not at all uncommon to see a bible study gathering promoted in the bulletin. When Christian lay people have opportunity to serve in this way, they do. We didn’t see bible studies offered in the bulletin at SG, because there was no freedom granted for lay people to serve in this way. It’s one thing at SG if you keep it small and out of sight, but ask the church to actually support a bible study in any way, uh-uh, forget it. I think the people from my former church are so programmed that this is a no-no; we knew you don’t ask, it’s against the rules. Must protect sound doctrine, ya know. When you make a suggestion and it’s shot down, and you feel the weight of every eye in the room on you like a ton of bricks, because you dared to speak, well…you figure out quickly that you’re not supposed to do that. So, to be a part of this culture, (which you signed on for) you must stay within the prescribed boundaries. We were trained and cooperative. We became programmed to play by the rules, we gave up asking and thinking. Maybe you didn’t live in the same dynamic, so perhaps you weren’t trained like the rest of us. Nope, zero bible studies where I came from, if they had existed I would have attended. I’m attending one now, because I’m free.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:58 am
SGM is crippled by its papal — no, dictator polity. If the hierarchy is not dismantled and the government restructured, the entire organization may crumble and fall. It matters not whether it is Mahaney or some other guy — the one-man rule situation is dangerous.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Hey all! Been missing you guys!
Hope,
Thank you for what you shared. For those of us who tend to get marginalized by the pro-SGM folk because our experiences were so long ago, it is good to have more recent accounts being told that verify our points. It’s sad too. I’m glad you are free to pursue God in whatever way He leads you.
Square Peg,
My story is old. 20 some odd years ago, after a series of conflicts with our senior pastor, we told him that PDI seemed to operate more in a dictatorship (control) rather than the true liberty we felt we had in Christ. We were kicked out for that. And now, all these years later, the same sentiment is being repeated loudly and much more publically here on the blogs. Makes you wonder what would have happened if they had exhibited a teensy bit of humility and taken a closer look at the concerns many of us expressed in previous decades. Probably would be no blogs today. Matthew 18 applies to them too, whether they like it or not.
And while it is true that my experience is long over and I am well, my extended family continues to suffer. Just yesterday, a dear family member received another shunning. And this from a member of one of the churches who are supposedly changing. From my admittedly distant vantage point, I am not yet seeing the fruit of change trickle down from the pastors to the members and into my wounded family. I’m thinking that the legalist, ungracious behavior that has been displayed in this particular SGM church is going to take some time to unravel. I truly hope it does. For my family’s sake and many other divided families as well.
Come, Jesus!
November 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
The ONE common denominator we have all agreed upon here is DICTATORSHIP. The ONE man rule. The buck STARTS here. If we take away this so called “pastoral” role from SGM, 99% of the problems are solved. Let’s go back to the coffee house gatherings, beach church, Christian bars, and other types of settings where we can all freely hang out together without fear of domineering control.
Isn’t it amazing how this one single doctrine of polity, and how it is wrongly perceived, structured, and taught, can screw up an entire family of churches! It is like the domino effect – everyone gets knocked down.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Hello, Dennis
I really appreciate your enthusiasm and some of your ideas regarding how to do church. If you find one as you describe, or start your own, let me know. I would love to visit.
Regarding Brent Detwiler, I have not seen or heard from him in years. I have not talked with him regarding his present situation. I will not even begin to comment on that. I respect him as a brother in the Lord whom God has used to speak into my life. I have prayed for he and his family as well as the church he was leading.
You speak harshly and unkindly towards SGM because they don’t do things the way you think they should. Is this fair? The leadership of SGM love God with all of their heart, soul mind, and strenth. They desire to please and glorify God in all they do, including leading their church.
The polity of SGM is fully explained in great detail at the intro course. No, they don’t say welcome to the church of the confused and abused. They don’t say this because that is not what we are about. Myself and hundreds and hundreds of others can testify otherwise.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Gracie,
Hi there, girl! Missed you!
I’m sorry to hear about the shunning. Been there…yuck. There is grace and freedom away from that awful control. Tell your family member to soak it all up. The goodness of God is endless. Hugs to you!
November 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Hope,
Love that freedom!
November 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
30 years,
Please answer one question for me, as someone who understands SGM’s current polity.
CJ is the president of SGM. Dave Harvey is the leader of the apostolic team, which includes men such as Gene Emerson, Danny Jones, Steve Shank, etc.
Does Dave Harvey or CJ have any authority at all over Gene Emerson? Do they have any authority at all over a local Sr Pastor, such as Mark Mullery?
This is not a trick question. The way SGM’s polity functions seems to be changing.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Gracie said,
“Just yesterday, a dear family member received another shunning. And this from a member of one of the churches who are supposedly changing. From my admittedly distant vantage point, I am not yet seeing the fruit of change trickle down from the pastors to the members and into my wounded family. I’m thinking that the legalist, ungracious behavior that has been displayed in this particular SGM church is going to take some time to unravel.”
Gracie,
Unfortunately, I’m not seeing any “real fruit” either…hearing a lot of TALK about “change,” but not SEEING any change.
Yes, I’m afraid the arrogance, shunning, legalism, and ungracious behavior will DEFINITELY take some time to unravel.
Missus, I will be praying for you and the others who are trying to bring about change. Change is hard! It takes time. And God is the ONLY one who can change hearts…it starts with true repentance.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
30Years,although I said I would not engage you again, I feel a need to try one more time.
You wrote to Dennis, “You speak harshly and unkindly towards SGM because they don’t do things the way you think they should. Is this fair? The leadership of SGM love God with all of their heart, soul mind, and stren(g)th…”
Harshly and unkindly???? Really???? When men crush the spirits of God’s people and someone identifies and points it out, is that classified as speaking harshly and unkindly? Jesus is guilty!!!! He spoke the truth about the VERY leaders of his day with much passion and “harshness!”
SGM leadership loves God with ALL of their hearts, ALL of their souls, ALL of their minds, and ALLof their strength? REALLY????? Do any of us really??? Do you, my friend? ALL, really?????
November 7th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
30Years, one more thing: how do you know why Dennis spoke “harshly and unkindly?” You wrote that the reason is that SGM doesn’t do things the way Dennis thinks they should. Could there be any other reason, like Dennis is saddened by the way SGM has crushed the spirits of other brothers and sisters?
How do you KNOW that? Are you concluding something that you don’t really know? Isn’t that a harsh judgement against Dennis? All you know for sure are words written in a blog; you do NOT know why they were written!
November 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
30 years,
You do not understand that what your experience has been just does not line up with our horror stories. Talking to leadership in an attempt to work things out has been the single most frustrating encounter of my entire life.
It’s as if these people live in Disney World and have no clue about what is really going on in the outside world.
After months and months of emails and meetings, our former Sr. Pastor informed us he is just not gifted to handle this. He also defended a pastor who actions would grieve a hardened criminal. So, we were left with nothing, no resolution, no explanation. This was within this past year.
He can Sr. Pastor a huge church, live off tithe money, claim to have all the answers you will ever need (yes, he said that in a counseling session) but when pushed for real answers, he turns into George McFly from Back to the Future.
They fear no one…they don’t have to. They are autonomous and are accountable to no one.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
John 13:35
“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
From “Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible”:
“Christ had been glorified in many miracles he wrought, yet he speaks of his being glorified now in his sufferings, as if that were more than all his other glories in his humbled state. Satisfaction was thereby made for the wrong done to God by the sin of man. We cannot now follow our Lord to his heavenly happiness, but if we truly believe in him, we shall follow him hereafter; meanwhile we must wait his time, and do his work. Before Christ left the disciples, he would give them a new commandment. They were to love each other for Christ’s sake, and according to his example, seeking what might benefit others, and promoting the cause of the gospel, as one body, animated by one soul. But this commandment still appears new to many professors. Men in general notice any of Christ’s words rather than these. By this it appears, that if the followers of Christ do not show love one to another, they give cause to suspect their sincerity.”
I personally feel the saddest testimony to Sovereign Grace Ministries is their failure to show love to their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, both inside and outside of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
There are SGM’ers that concern themselves with the PR damage done by the blogs, but they should be worried about their “testimony.” And it’s not just the blogs that should concern them. As with most abuse, the accounts you read about are just a small percentage of what’s really out there. Think of how many folks there are sharing with all those they know the terrible way in which they were treated by their “brothers and sisters” in SGM. The poor testimony is far reaching. (”Word-of-mouth” is very effective…it spread the gospel. The internet just speeds things up a bit.)
The blogs are just a small group of “like-wounded” folks who happened to stumble across one another and began sharing stories. (Actually, God led them…I believe in God’s sovereignty.)
November 7th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
30years,
Polity may be explained in the intro course, but not the spirit behind that polity. There is no mention of coercion, control, domination, manipulation, brow beating, shunning, labeling, scare tactics, lording it over those in their care, inner circles, cliques, pressures to conform to SGM’s culture, etc etc etc.
There is no way a intro course is going to explain the ungodly spirit and the mind games played. I speak from 10 years of experience, and the others here speak from their experience as well. Like I said earlier, Tom Cruise has nothing but great things to say about Scientology. Those who have left tell the REAL story of the horrors going on behind closed doors. I also was in a cult for 10 years. While there, I thought we were God’s chosen few, as do most cults. Everything seems rosey until the Lord gives you discernment of spirits, and opens your eyes to the truth.
Have you prayed and asked God to show you if what we are sharing is true? Or are you relying on what YOU see, feel, and hear? Many tried to warn me about the cult I was in, but I thought they were wrong. I was having a great time! If it were not attractive and seductive, I guess no cults would exist in the first place. Again, I am not calling SGM a cult, I am just comparing the reasons for the blindness.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Gracie,
You’re so welcome sister,
Canary,
Thanks, I will and I am, freedom is sweet…and thanks to you both (and you all) for being here while I was lurking and still in.
…Now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. Rom. 6:22
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Gal. 5:1
November 8th, 2009 at 12:24 am
You blindly accept that all of these stories of abuse represent actual cases of real pastoral abuse – without hearing from all parties involved. There are many possibilities as to what is really happening regarding those stories. I have listed many examples of what they could represent in previous posts.
You think that because these former members are hurting that it is automatically the fault of the pastors and make public accusations. And pile on with other unproven accusations and labels that are abusive and disrespectful to SGM members.
You turn a blind eye to the vast and abundant good fruit at SGM.
Jim, there are many others who could better and more completely answer that question, but I know that CJ has authority over those whom you have mentioned.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:34 am
30 years has me shaking my head in disbelief that the legitimate cries of abused saints are being met with more of the same denial and derision they experienced at the hands of abusers. He/she has learned the lessons well.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
30 years:
Just a wee note: I don’t think anyone here is blind nor blindly believing stories – no – those here, for the most part, are relating their OWN SGM horror stories and have intimate knowledge of both sides of their own stories and (it appears) have emails from the SGM side clearly stating that viewpoint.
Most here tell stories about spending months, if not years, trying to reconcile their experiences with SGM leadership. They themselves have BTDT.
Just sayin’.
I like Dennis’ suggestion to you: Pray and ask the Lord God Almighty to reveal directly to your heart, with God’s Gift of Discernment given by the Holy Spirit, the reality.
30 years, you seem like a truly loving and caring person, passionate and wise. Add to that [human] wisdom, a Godly dose of discernment.
I, who TRY to love GOD (not a church) with all my heart, soul, mind and strength,
Remnant
November 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am
30years,
I would like to share a bit of my cult experience with you, to show how powerful deception works. We had an “apostle” who had his Doctorate in Divinity from Abeline Christian College. He had a “revelation” from God about the priesthood after the order of Melchisedek mentioned in Hebrews. Every man was a priest, and every man had at least one of the 5 fold ministies. We were the PRIESTHOOOD!
When we had the Lord’s Supper, we broke bread with every single individual in the church, and gave our committment to them, and shared our love with them. We each had our own little loaf of bread which represented our lives. We were giving our hearts and lives to one another. Everyone had to share any grievances they had with each other verbally, and be forgiven and receive forgiveness. We all loved each other deeply. We sang many songs to the Lord, prayed, shared, hugged, wept, laughed, etc. It was a Lord’s Supper like you have never seen.
Like I said earlier, it was quite wonderful. Now for the bad side. If someone had a sin or personailty problem, they may be confronted for hours at one of our very lenghty priesthood meetings. We were purging out the sin from the body. No stone left unturned. Everyones life was examined with a fine tooth comb, finances, work ethics, living conditions, marriages, children, etc etc. And it all was made public. Privacy was a thing of the past, and everyone’s life was now an open book.
But the rest was so dynamic and so marvelous, that we readily accepted this other nonsense. After all, what is wrong with purging sin from the body?
We could make no major decision without the agreement of the entire priestood – big purchases like cars and homes had to be submitted for approval. Moving, dating for singles, job changes, and such also had to be approved by the entire priesthhod. Everyone had to be in agreement. It was called “spritual covering”. Otherwise we would not have God’s protection. Kinda like all of the evil that will befall you if you did not tithe, which we also believed.
A “LITTLE” leaven which we gladly accepted because it was part of the big and wonderful package. Again, I am sharing this with you to show the dynamics of blindness and how brainwashing takes place.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Dennis,
Powerful and intense–thanks for sharing all of that!
November 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
30 years,
Have you read the post Jim posted today from the survivors site, “Signs you may be covering for a pastor who abuses the flock spiritually”?
In Christian love and concern as your sister-in-Christ, I’m asking you to read it and praying for the Holy Spirit to illuminate any areas that may apply to you.
- Kindred
November 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I have a question that I’ve been pondering for a few days. We know a tree by its fruit, right? While I was in SGM, we rarely, if ever, had new believers come in. Christians came, but I saw little successful evangelism. New church plants grew by poaching Christians from other places. Is this still happening? Is the fruit of SGM’s gospel bringing in new believers, saving souls? Or do they continue to preach the gospel to themselves?
This is a very important fruit to consider…
November 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
We saw few if any converts. Of course, with the only clearly defined mission being the evangelism of your own family, not so surprising. However, even that future seems uncertain as so many youth sadly seem to be walking away from the faith of their families. The vast majority of attenders and members were assimilated; that’s the current status at my dearly departed. We specialized in assimilation, picked the fruit from the neighbor’s tree.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Hope,
. I guess different churches have different “cultures” and “unwritten rules” as you call them. The bible study I’m in consist of 10-16 people on a given night (none of which are pastors, CGL, or even anyone over the age of 22. We’re not “leaders”.) We didn’t think of asking to post it in the church bullentin, partly b/c we didn’t think of asking to have one. However, we do use our church building some of the nights we meet, so it’s certainly not “flying under the rader”. The way I look at it, we are the church, in one sense. We are part of what makes up the church. It doesn’t need to be in the church bullentin to be a church event. We are the church, we’re having the bible study, therefore it’s a church bible study. And we’re just one bible study. There’s 4 going on that I know about, which probably means there’s lots more.
Lol I begin to feel like I’m treading on difficult water answering questions about bible studies
Canary,
While I don’t accept the premise that the fruit of successful evangelism is higher attendence of new believers in your church, I can say that we’ve seen fruit fairly recently in our evangelistic endevours. A group from our church goes downtown every friday night, and it definitely seems to be having an affect. One affect is that we’ve seen the amazing saving grace of God at work in people, and several of them have chosen to join our church.
But, obviously, I can’t speak for churches I don’t attend. I do have a lot of respect for the zeal for evangelism seen in churches like Philadelphia and Miami. But that’s more just personal evaluation on my part.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:39 am
I should add, Canary, though, that you’re absolutely right. I think evangelism should be a much higher priority in general
. I should’ve prefaced my statement with that.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Hi Lawrence, you said, “It doesn’t need to be in the church bullentin to be a church event. We are the church, we’re having the bible study, therefore it’s a church bible study.”
Is it though? Does all of your congregation have this same opportunity? It’s great that you do have that opportunity at your church! What about Joe Doe though, the thirty, forty or fifty something guy who’s not in college, working every day and caring for his family. Is anything offered for him? Is there a bible study that is made available to everyone and anyone? You’re confirming that there is nothing in the bulletin. Therefore Joe Doe can’t say “Oh, a bible study is being offered on Wed., I’d like to attend.” There are plenty of folks ready to lead a bible study, as you are attesting to. However it’s not sanctioned, so it’s NOT made available to most people; they’ll never know about it since they don’t hang with your crowd. It’s nice that your group has that freedom of movement in your congregation. However older folks generally don’t have a flock of friends circling around them like college age students do, who are sharing much more of life together just because they’re in school. Maybe Joe Doe would like to offer a study, but doesn’t have that kind of circle. Maybe he’d just like to serve his brethren by opening it up and inviting others from outside his circle to learn together. Would your church allow (invite) him to put it in the announcements, bulletin, bulletin board etc? You can’t really answer that since you’re not Joe; I’m just wondering if your perspective is comparable to Joe’s. Isn’t bible study something that the church should promote, making available to all? The importance of bible study will be preached, but without the support of the church, availability of group study is limited. It isn’t promoted if Joe has no means to promote it. Thanks for being gracious.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Hi Lawrence,
May I ask who organized the Bible study you are in, and how it is conducted? Is it centered on the teachings of SGM, or just an independant Bible study? Are there any people there that know hermeneutics, linguistics, morphology, exegesis, indepth Greek and Hebrew grammar, semantics, etc. Or is it just everyone throwing in there 2 cents? Can you give me some details as to how your particular Bible study might progress through the evening?
November 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Hope,
) The pastors can organize meetings and go through weekly or bi weekly studies on different topics and they can counsel and meet with people and all that, and they do do those things, but there’s so much more to church life than just studies, meetings or counsel that the pastors organize and put on. This is about the whole church joining hands and discipling and being discipled, helping each other, studying the Bible together in small or in bigger contexts, and doing so themselves without always relying on “church-sanctioned” or pastor/leader-driven studies or events. Like you said, I can’t really speak for our hypothetical “Joe Doe.” (I always thought it was Jane Doe, and maybe Joe Sixpack, but I digress 
) I’m sure he does find it difficult to gather in a group of friends, or even not-friends in bible studies or maybe just a context to disciple/hold one another accountable. But I don’t think it’s impossible. It just takes more work than someone like me, who has nothing to do with his life besides go to school and comment on blogs 
. I certainly hope that when I’m 35 and serving my wife while raising kids that I’ll still have time to get together with my boys to study the Bible together. I do know that one of the bible studies is with a collection of 25-30 year old dads. Most of them have 2-3 kids.
(especially when we study Hebrews 13 
) but hey, we’re trying.
Thanks for being gracious, yourself! What’s awesome is that you’re basically describing what our church has been getting more excited about recently! (although that’s a horrible term and I wish I had more time to write better
Dennis,
A college student friend of mine “started” it, but it was really a joint effort by the group. It’s not centered on SGM teaching, we just systematically go through a book of the Bible (we are now currently on 1 John.) None of us know Greek or Hebrew fluently, and we’re far from being Biblical scholars. We’re just a group of kids trying to better understand and love the Word of God, trying to apply it to our lives, and trying to help each other do so. We’re certainly not perfect in our understanding or application, and I’m sure we sprout all sorts of heresies to each other
November 9th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Excellent point, Hope. I hadn’t thought of that.
The SGM college ministry at CW definitely has more freedom in that respect. As a matter of fact, there are SGM “interns” who are students at the local university that conduct various bible studies on a weekly/monthly basis.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Hi Lawrence,
I have a small group that I meet with, and we are all very interested in learning how to perform major operations on the human body. Right now, we are practicing each week on patients that need brain or heart surgery. Everyone we have operated on so far has died, but hey, we are trying.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:01 am
A few years ago, some dear friends left our SGM church — before we woke up and smelled the coffee. One of their comments was “We never study the Bible anymore. At homegroup, we’re always doing some book. We’d just like to have a real Bible study.” I hadn’t even noticed– through many years of being a Christian in different churches, I’d been in groups that studied the Bible by itself – with or without leaders who understood Greek, Hebrew, and exegesis –and in “Bible study” groups that used ”handbooks” that explained scripture, doctrine, or topic, and some of those were excellent. It seems to me there’s a place for both. I had thought of it just as a seasonal kind of thing. But the SGM season never changed, and we continued with the SGM book thing or the Sunday sermon thing. When it comes to caregroup, the practice of re-hashing the Sunday sermon, to me, became a silly exercise.
When Martin Luther put the Bible back in the hands of ordinary people, I’m glad he didn’t worry that they might not be able to digest it without proper knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, hermaneutics and exegesis. All that knowledge is great, and I love it when a scholar can explain and expound on scripture. But when it comes down to just plain old Bible reading, the Word is the Word, sharper than any two-edged sword, and the Holy Spirit guides. Sure, people may make mistakes in interpreting, digesting, applying — but if we are overly fearful of that, then we might as well go back to the old idea that the Bible belongs solely to the clergy. And I’m afraid that’s exactly what has happened in those churches where “extra” Bible studies are banned.
I’ve noticed in many posts, people mention the “house church” idea. I have nothing against that –actually see alot “for” it — and also see that many large churches grew out of such beginnings, so I’m not sure that “once a house church always a house church” if God decides to expand the numbers or if a particular teacher/preacher/gifted person or group draws big crowds. (And I know it’s not all about numbers and structure, just musing…) But it’s interesting to me that back in the charismatic renewal days of the 70’s, the house churches I knew were the ones that embraced the shepherding movement and became controlling and cultic.
Dennis: I was fascinated with your account of the cult experience. Wow. Is that group still in existence, or did it self-implode?
Many years ago, I had some close friends who became involved in an actual cult. Thankfully, the Lord protected me from becoming involved though I watched closely, & even went to some meetings. I’ve seen the word “cult” thrown around sometimes when people discuss SGM. I abhore the abuses that have occurred through SGM, and I disagree totally with SGM polity and many of their practices, and I do not mean to minimize anything that approaches criminal activity. But I will say that nothing I personally have seen approaches the horror of the cult I saw in action. I do believe that many things described on Refuge and Survivors are “cult-like”, I personally cannot currently apply the word “cult” to SGM. I hope they do not get any closer to the definition of the word, but a couple of possibilities concern me: one-man rule becoming more and more pronounced, and the strange near-reverence for every word that proceeds from the pen /mouth of one or two men. The cult I observed started out as an evangelical Christian church with a leader who, as in Dennis’ case, had “legitimate” theological training.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of so many of the posts here, and the tone of kindness most of you exhibit. Evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, and proof that, though you have been deeply wounded, you extend grace to those who have hurt you. Like Jesus did.
For all the saints, who thee before the world confess – Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blessed! Alleluia!
November 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Hi Dennis,
I hate to say I disagree with you, but I disagree with you. I think it’s awesome that Lawrence and his buddies are getting together to study the Word together. They have the best instructor there is: the Holy Spirit! Just because they get together on this level in no way means they cannot be learning a deeper understanding of the Word from other sources over time. If we go by your criteria for bible study, most of us would never even open our bibles! His Word is illuminating! All bible study need not be in classroom format with Greek grammar lessons. Is that kind of study good? Yes, of course! Is it necessary every time we open our bibles? I sure hope not because I plan to go open mine up now. I’m not really fearful that I may have it wrong, because I have a good teacher. I’m not as equipped as I could be and I desire to be better equipped, but I’m not gonna keep my bible on the shelf until I am a Greek scholar. Some people will never be able to grasp even an elementary level of Greek. Should they not study their bibles? Do they need to find a Greek scholar to teach them before they start? Be gentle with Lawrence he’s our brother, and a young man with a God given desire for the Word, which is to be encouraged, not crushed.
For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. Matt 18:20
November 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Hi Square Peg,
I agree wholeheartedly that I do not want to see Bible studies that only the clergy or leaders run. Yes, it is very good for the common man to be able to study the Bible on his own or in a group setting. And I am glad that Lawrence is meeting with his group, and that he is not getting any flack from SGM. My fear with ANY Bible study, is the blind leading the blind.
There are many cults, like the one I was in, that are made up of Holy Spirit filled, born again believers. We thought we had the truth. We believed we were being led by the Holy Spirit. We were wrong.
Yes, the cult I was in disbanned shortly after the “apostle” died. There was a major power struggle. After the group broke up, some left the faith entirely, some marriages split up, and there was a lot of anger and unforgiveness. 3 people ended up commmitting suicide. Very sad indeed.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Hi Hope,
I agree with you. I think I came on a little strong. I too am very glad that Lawrence and his buddies are getting together for Bible study. But like I said in my last post, having the Holy Spirit is no guarantee that there will be no deception. The Lord is continually showing me things that I have been deceived about. I am sure there is much more to come.
I think all believers should try to learn the original languages in some form. Even basic word studies are a great help to a deeper understanding. Commentaries on the Greek and Hebrew text are another great tool, along with lexicons, bible encyclopedias, theological dictionaries, a Greek concordance, etc etc.
When you go to college to study, you have many indepth respources. If someone wants to be an expert in DNA for example, it takes years of college and graduate school. Why should studying the Bible be taken any less lightly? My book shelves are filled with books on hermenutics, grammars, commentaries, lexicons, exegetical teaching, etc. It has opened up God’s word to a whole new level for me.
Does much study keep anyone from deception? Of course not. There are many very well educated theology majors that are still in the Catholic church.
One last point. Why do you think there are so many English translations? Over 100 and growing. The experts cannot even agree on what the text says. I want to know God’s word for myself, and not have to rely on some translation committee or someone’s theological bent on what the bible REALLY says.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
No matter what Jim says about evidence he has, no matter how many stories (some totally verifiable due to their public nature) are shared, 30years continues to believe that just because SGM/CLC has blessed lots of people, that excuses the leaders’ sinful unrepented-of behavior.
That argument in court may get you a reduced sentence, but it won’t eliminate a “guilty” verdict — no matter how many of your supporters pack the gallery.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Hi Lawrence,
I wanted to let you know that I appreciate very much your dialogue with us. You have been very respectful and easy going. Please forgive me when I get on my high horse. I do not mean to be offensive in any way. You seem to be a very nice young man. I am an old, grumpy, and cynical man. When I go back and read some of my posts, even I am offended! I will try and be more easy going, like you are.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Dennis,
.
Hey man no worries! I am not a very easily offended person, and I understand that it’s easier to take offence at something that’s written, b/c obviously you can’t convey tone or anything over the internet.
As to your concern, I actually somewhat agree (at least insofar as to what I think your actual concern is.) I think especially young people, what’s called a “bible study” can actually turn into “Well here’s what I think about this passage” or “this is what this verse means to me”, which isn’t neccessarily a bad thing, but certainly can’t, or shouldn’t, be the only, or even primary, thing that goes on. We try to guard against that. And while I agree with you that knowing the original language is beneficial, I don’t think it’s neccessary. Most of the differences in translation (trying to be careful here) is technical in nature. In other words, the core message of the Gospel is conveyed in ESV, NIV, KJV, NAS etc. etc. The differences they have are secondary, and can actually be beneficial if you have multiple translations with you. So hopefully whatever exegetical mistakes we do make won’t include chopping out someone’s heart or severing anyone’s brain
November 10th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I just counted, and I have more than 1,300 ( I am not exaggerating) books, including almost every Bible, Commentary, Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, Bible dictionary, and on and on and on.
You know what? It doesn’t matter? The Christian LIFE flows from intimacy with Him because HE is LIFE. Jesus said in John 5:39-40, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and
it is they that bear witness about me yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
Without His LIFE manifesting itself out through me, I am doing my Christian thing in the power of the flesh. Some of us have been in the “church system” so long that when we read His written word, we miss the Living Word right in front of us. We worship the written word and miss the Living Word pursuing intimacy with us. Perhaps our desire to know and be right blinds us from the truth.
Dennis, please don’t try to be like Lawrence; be like Dennis, allowing the Lord Jesus’ LIFE to flow out through you. It will always come out OK because HIS LIFE produces nothing but good fruit.
It is always sweet, full of compassion, kindness, patience, and humility. I know some of our brokeness sometimes spills out onto others. When it does, we are reminded that without HIM, we can do nothing. 
Grace and Peace to you!
November 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Hi Lawrence,
Thanks for the gracious response.
As far as brain severing is concerned, mine was severed many times at many different churches.
Maybe that is why I am so cynical and so skeptical. Issues like salvation, tithing, Hell, and polity, have been a major wrestling match for me over the last several years. I have spent literally hundreds of hours researching these topics. I agonize over this stuff.
I tried to talk to a good friend of mine yesterday about pastoral authority, and where it is in the scriptures. He replied that he did not care. All was fine, as far as he was concerned, so why look for termites in the wood. If the house is still standing, then don’t worry about it.
My cult experience made me look at doctrine in a much different light. Seeing marriages and lives destoyed of close friends really got my attention. I went right into SGM after that experience because I thought they were the ones with the correct doctrine. It took 10 years for me to once again, see there were major problems right under my nose. So now, I trust no one. I question everything and everybody. Maybe that is why I can be so offensive at times. I want to get to the bottom of everything, even little doctrinal issues.
Again Lawrence, thank you for your patience and understanding. I really want to be an encourager, not just a fault finder. Maybe someday!
November 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Hi GDfSGM,
Great post! I do probably spend to much time examining the word and miss the Lord in the process. Very well said.
And thank you very much for the encoragement. I really aprreciate those kind words.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Canary asked: “While I was in SGM, we rarely, if ever, had new believers come in. Christians came, but I saw little successful evangelism. New church plants grew by poaching Christians from other places. Is this still happening?”
Well, I just learned that Eric Simmons is going to Arlington, VA to lead a new SGM church-plant. (Arlington is just across the Potomac from Washington DC, and jam-packed with dual-earning, upper-middle-income households. Oh yes, it also has low-income and high-Vietnamese areas, but we know the new church will not be reaching out to these demographics.)
November 11th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Dennis,
Thanks for your humility, it really is an example to me. And I really am sorry for whatever negative expieriances you’ve had at SGM, but I do respect your obvious hunger for God and for the Word that He’s graciously given us.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Keepinstep,
…sorry I was channeling my inner Dennis 
j/k of course.
Yeah for real. They’ll probably avoid low-income and Asian people like the plague. I mean, it’s not like on of the other churches in Virginia has a high Asian attendance…o wait a second…
November 11th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Gratefully Disillusioned: Wonderful post! Thank you for reminding us that intimacy with HIM is what we need. Fellowship with other Christians is the outgrowth of intimacy with Christ.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Square Peg, thanks for your kind words. How are things going with you? Did everyone survive “the event?”
November 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Can we go back to Hebrews 13:17 for a moment? Who are these “leaders”? Are they apostles? Prophets? Teachers? Is it remotely possible that this text refers to civil leaders? Hebrews never says who or what these leaders are. There is no mention of elders, bishops, pastors, apostles, etc.
And who would have chosen these leaders? How did they get appointed? The leaders at my Catholic church wanted me to come back. Do I need to “obey” these leaders and return to being Catholic? Was Martin Luther in rebellion and being disobedient to the command of Hebrews 13:17 when he confronted and left the Catholic Church?
So who are the leaders of the ONE true church today? The Baptist leaders? SGM leaders? Presbyterian leaders? Just who and where are my leaders?
November 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17 NASB
The word THEY refers to leaders, so it seems reasonable to conclude that those who watch over your souls and who will give an account (THEY) are not civil/secular leaders; rather, men whom God raises up in ANY body of believers. I think the paragraph below from The Bible reader’s companion nails the spirit of the verse perfectly. It is a far cry from what is taught in many “church machines” of our day!
“Obey your leaders and submit” (13:17). The original makes it clear that this is not blind obedience, or a surrender of one’s personal responsibility to obey Christ as Lord. We can catch the sense of the Gk. in this paraphrase: “Remain responsive to those God has given you as guides and let yourself be persuaded by them.” This is appropriate, for leaders are commissioned to watch over us and must give an account to God. Those who prove by their exemplary life and sound teaching to be worthy of respect most certainly deserve it.
Richards, L. (1991). The Bible reader’s companion. Includes index. (867). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Hi GDfSGM,
So should the Catholics be persuaded by their priests, bishops, cardinals and pope? Which denomination’s leadership has this “sound teaching”? The Baptists? The Lutherans or the Presbyterians? SGM’s?
There are over 5000 different denominations worldwide. Why so many splits and reorganizations? Why weren’t these people being persuaded by their original denomination’s leaders teachings? Leaders are continually disagreeing and splitting from other leaders, and starting another new church. So who do we follow? Which ones do we allow ourselves to be persuaded by?
November 11th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Very simple: Be persuaded by those whom God raises up in your life. They will become evident to you as they emulate God’s truth and direct you to the Lord Jesus, not to themselves or their “church machine.”
Denominations??? They are man created. I don’t see them ANYWHERE in scripture. We have made a mess out of this thing we call “church.” I personally avoid them like I do most salesmen.
Be persuaded by Godly men, those sheep dogs, who drive you back to the SHEPARD! They are real servant, and they catch your attention like real grace does. They are rare in our day because most who call themselves leaders are trying to build an organization. Then they become addicted to its benefits and spend the rest of their lives protecting it, often serving IT over those they start out to minister to.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
GDfSGM,
Outstanding! Very well said!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Greatly Disillusioned
Thanks for posting that interpretation of the Greek for Hebrews 13:17. From what I have read about that passage in various Greek helps and other people writing on it that provides the better translation of the verse along what the original intent was of the author.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Please forgive me for beating the same drum again, but I would really like some feedback on the role of the prophet in todays church.
Everyone at SGM knows who the pastor of their church is, but ask them who their prophet is and you will get a blank stare. SGM says they believe that prophets still function in the church today, but who are they? Does the prophet have authority over the pastor? The church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets – Eph 2:20. 1 Cor 12:28 says that God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. Prophet is always mentioned before pastor/teacher. So does he have more authority in the church? If he does, then how come no one knows who he is? Why no senior prophet or associate prophet? Why no profit in training or prophets college?
So who is the prophet and what is his function? Is he a leader in the church? What authority does he have?
Thoughts anyone?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Dennis,
I think the key word is foundation. The church gathered today is led by elders. Elders are members of a local Christian community whose qualifications are recognized by that community. They lead by example and by instruction, never lording over their fellow brethren, who are their peers. They are not professionals, or even “bi vocational”. They follow Paul’s instruction to elders in Acts 20 and provide for themselves, since they participate in interactive meetings and have no desire to be the center of attention.
They are hard to find, unless you really know how to look for them, because our land is full of professionals with buildings we call churches (or the church building) and staff and budgets and office hours who give 45 minute lectures on Sundays. These men call themselves pastors, which means shepherd in English. Since we speak English in the US, we should introduce these men to our friends in this manner: “this is Bob. He’s my shepherd”.
Adding “I shall not want” is optional, as is: “he was hired by our church to be our shepherd, but would rather not be called a hireling”.
IMHO
November 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Hi Jim,
Do you think that any of these elders are also prophets? Do you think the calling of prophet is still functional in the church today, and if so, how does it function? If a church had a Sr Prophet, would that be just as Biblical as a Sr Pastor?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Dennis,
For what it’s worth, I don’t. I don’t think that there is any such thing as a prophet today, although I believe that the gift of prophecy is alive and well.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Jim,
Can you point to scripture to back up your belief that there are no prophets today? I’m really interested.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
A Presbyterian preacher tells me that “prophecy” means to “tell forth” (not necessarily to foretell) – therefore, preaching = prophecy. If that’s the case, then a preacher is a prophet. When I was growing up, folks would refer to someone as “Preacher Brown.” Nowadays, it’s “Pastor Brown.” Several preachers I know are more comfortable with the preaching/teaching aspect of their calling than the pastor/shepherd part — and some are the other way around. We’re all gifted differently.
The Senior Pastor terminology doesn’t bother me – it’s simply a designation within an organizational structure, not an addition to scripture or gifting. What DOES bother me is the POWER and CONTROL that is often assumed by the bearer of such title. It’s difficult, in human nature to be both a leader AND a servant. Leading is easier to us as fleshly creatures.
Concerning prophecy: I remember when Clinton was elected, a document was circulated around our SGM church, containing a “prophecy” from a NON-SGM person of some note in charismatic circles (don’t remember who), that phrophesied that Clinton would have some kind of major spiritual change, and do all kinds of “Christian” things etc. I don’t remember the specifics of the “prophesy”, but I do know that things didn’t quite turn out that way! But nobody ever came back and admitted that So-And-So gave a false prophecy and is therefore, according to scripture, not an actual prophet.
So, in an SGM setting, someone on the “prophecy team” steps up to a microphone after being given approval by the head prophet — and tells forth something they think God “would say” — or reads something God DID say from scripture. I know people who speak of their “prophetic gift” – but I’ve never heard any of them refer to themselves as a prophet. It’s muddy water – difficult to discern – difficult to define. And, as I learned long ago, when there is freedom in a worship setting, large or small, there are sometimes abuses of that freedom, anything can happen, and some of it is purely of the flesh. After being in worship settings where someone who wasn’t wrapped real tight stepped up with a few very off-the-wall & lengthy ”thus saith the Lord”s, the prophecy screening seemed reasonable to me, but it begs alot of questions.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Dear Canary,
Jim is a very busy man, so please do not waste his time by making him look for scriptures that do not exist.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis
Sr Prophet
November 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Snap from Dennis.
Canary,
I can’t give you a verse off the top of my head, which is why I’m using terms like “IMHO” and “for what it’s worth”. I think my position is Biblically informed, but Dennis is right in once sense-I don’t have time right now to explain why I feel this is correct.
Besides, everyone knows I’m right anyway
November 13th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Okay Jim, I’ll give you a pass on this one!
Square Peg,
I heard someone entirely different say similar things about Pres. Clinton. His life isn’t over, yet. When God gifts us with His heart on a matter, we sometimes expect it to happen in a certain time frame. That really trips us up. A prophecy can be given and not actually be fulfilled for years. So we can still hope for the spiritual awakening of this very influential man in God’s timing, as long as he is still on this earth. That’s how I like to look at it!
Dennis, Ha-ha!
Everyone,
I’d like to think that the New Testament church was a blueprint for us today. There is nothing in there that said any of it would stop, just because it was forgotten for a time. The church in America has relatively little power. Wonder why that is? My husband says that it is because most people don’t believe in miracles anymore. That is sad for us all. I could write a book on what I think of all this, but I’ll restrain myself…:)
November 13th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Canary- briefly, I think it goes back to the office/function/gifting thing. For the record, I think that ALL of the gifts are functional today. I have personally, many times felt that God gave me something to tell someone, usually in a counseling situation. I didn’t hear a voice, but a thought popped into my head that seemed like the perfect thing to say. I’m not that bright. Sometimes it would be a verse to share, and my memory isn’t that great.
There was one time that scared the heck out of me. A small group of folks were praying. One of the guys had cancer. A sentence popped into my head, which wasn’t the type of speech I normally use. I looked at the guy, and said what was in my head. In my words (this isn’t how I said it), I told the guy, “this isn’t going to kill you”. I lost sleep that night….
The guy is cancer free.
God rarely uses me in this way, although I know a couple of people who He uses in this way often.
But I’m not a prophet, and neither are they
November 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Canary — Regarding the Clinton prophecy: I agree completely that it ain’t over till the fat lady sings! But the prophecy I referred to said clearly this would happen during his term in office — otherwise, I wouldn’t have used that example at all. There may have been many versions of that “prophecy” circulated, sort of like an internet virus.
Jim — if I were in a counseling situation with you, I’d sure love to have that kind of “word” spoken to me. What I especially appreciate, is that after that, you did not go around claiming to be a prophet.
Unfortunately, I was once on the receiving end of a ”word from the Lord” that I know for sure was NOT accurate at all — it was so far off base that it’d have been comical if the person who delivered the “message” had not been so sure it was from God. (The basic premise was completely faulty: sort of like assuming someone is childless when they actually have several kids — not one of those “you’ve got pride” things.) But I stood there, listened, and thanked him politely before going outside and having a good laugh. What I SHOULD have done was say, politely, “I’m afraid you’ve got me mixed up with someone else” or even less politely, “Who the heck do you think you are?”
A good friend of mine is a cessationist — I can see his point from time to time — but I believe that God can pretty much do what he wants to!
November 13th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Jim,
I hear you. Didn’t Paul write that we should all desire to prophesy? It is having the ability to share God’s heart and mind to someone in comfort, like your friend who is now cancer free. Very cool.
As far as the offices of a Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher, Apostle.etc., I see nowhere in the New Testament where it says that these offices were meant to die out. However, I have never seen a true Apostle of the way, though I have met a Prophet, once. I suppose these offices are not filled today because we have lost a great deal in the church, which is why the American church seems so powerless (when do we ever see 3000 saved in a day? Now there would be a good reason for a church plant!).
But the only lasting gift that will survive into eternity is love!
November 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I told the story to clarify that I’m not a cessationist. Paul did write that we should desire the gifts, not the “offices”, which I don’t think ever existed in the NT.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Square Peg and Canary (and any others interested);
Your conversation concerning former President Clinton reminded me of something I heard soon after he left office. In brief, it concerned how Mr. Clinton, apparently concerned that prayer and bible reading were being denied in public schools, which he thought was unconstitutional, had gotten the U.S. Dept. of Education and U.S. Attorney General’s office together so that quidelines could be given to schools on what they could and couldn’t legally do. I don’t know if this fits into the “prophesy” that was mentioned but I offer the following information for those that may not know about it. While his actions may not be what most would call “christian” they did allow children to practice their faith uninhibited by the local school government.
Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door. While the government may not use schools to coerce the consciences of our students, or to convey official endorsement of religion, the public schools also may not discriminate against private religious expression during the school day.
Religion is too important in our history and our heritage for us to keep it out of our schools…[I]t shouldn’t be demanded, but as long as it is not sponsored by school officials and doesn’t interfere with other children’s rights, it mustn’t be denied.
President Clinton
July 12, 1995
See these links for more info:
http://www.christiananswers.ne.....ssion.html
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html
And/Or Google with:
clinton, dept of education, bible reading
November 13th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Standing By,
Thanks, that was interesting!
November 14th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Standing By — thanks so much for that information. Don’t know if it was fulfillment of prophecy (can’t find the original document) but it is certainly was an important stand and statement!