Detwiler and SGM's Saul: Confidentiality Controversy

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/9/23/the-confidentiality-controversy.html

The Confidentiality Controversy

Friday, September 23, 2011 at 4:06PM

 

Jim (SGM Refuge), Kris and Guy (Sovereign Grace Survivors),
Some of your readers have it all wrong regarding my use of “confidential” emails with Joshua Harris in my September 21 blog post. Would you please post this comment?

I was the one recommending (not asking for) confidentiality, not Joshua, and only with regard to “my private thoughts” about the future. Even so my request of Joshua was flexible. Why? Because I’ve seen “confidential” used to bind people’s consciences (e.g. "Don't share this with anyone!"), cover up vital information (e.g. some of the inside information Kris has shared on Survivors) that needs to be corrected (e.g. when someone lies or misrepresents the truth like SGM), exposed (e.g. C.J.’s cover-up and blackmail of Larry T.), or shared with others (e.g. Joshua sharing my private thoughts with the other pastors). He was glad I did not bind him to confidentiality.

It is not always necessary or right to keep a matter private. Circumstances may require the involvement others (e.g., the first step of Matthew 18 is confidential but confidentiality is set aside in the third step). Confidentiality has a place but I rarely require it of people. Why? Because I’ve see it abused by those who are afraid to honest with those they should talk to or when people use it as an excuse for gossip.

Here are the two relevant emails in this case with Joshua. All the other emails that follow with “CONFIDENTIAL – The Future” are the result of the reply button. Joshua was not asking me to hold anything in confidence.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:26 PM

To: Joshua Harris

Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - The Future

As things progress I’ll be sharing with you my private thoughts. I’d recommend you keep them confidential but it is not a requirement. You may want to talk with a close circle of confidants.

I’ve changed my thinking regarding C.J. You must be ready to replace him the end of this year. There will also be changes with Dave and Steve. I’d think of working with Aron instead of Dave. With Craig and Tony Walsh instead of Steve. C.J., Dave and Steve are unqualified to maintain their positions. Bob likewise needs to be cut back. He should not be pastoring or doing assessments.

I have more thoughts but I will share them gradually. I don’t want to be overly dramatic, but I think the Lord has rejected C.J. like he did Saul. By this I don’t mean C.J. should be cast aside or has no role to play but God has a major transition in mind. Sovereign Grace is His ministry.

From: Joshua Harris

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:41 AM

To: Brent Detwiler

Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - The Future

Dear Brent,

Thanks for your recent emails. I appreciate you not holding me to confidentiality in these emails exchanges. I am committed to walk openly with all the men involved. I know you understand how damaging to trust it can be when there isn’t open communication. I want to let everyone know what I think and who I’m talking to!

I agree that Sovereign Grace belongs to God. Right now the story is unwritten for all of us…we need to do what is right before God. I believe God is giving us all an opportunity to humble ourselves under his mighty hand. Not just CJ but all of us. Please don’t be offended when I say whatever changes take place can’t happen because of your opinions but only a process that involves all the appropriate leaders in Sovereign Grace (and I would add outside objective counsel like the panel we’re engaging). To replace and remove without a godly process of evaluation would be to repeat the very mistakes now that we’re evaluating in the past. It has to be done in plurality, openly and as the result of a comprehensive review. That’s why I view this independent panel as such an important step for our movement. We need a comprehensive evaluation.

The meeting with CJ is tomorrow and we’ll have someone takes minutes from the meeting. At this point I don’t feel it would be appropriate to send the minutes to you, but we will happily submit them to the panel. And the pastoral team will also send you a follow-up that will summarize our thoughts from the meeting…

God bless you, Brent.

Joshua

Next time I’ll try to give the larger context so people don’t come to wrong conclusions. Finally, it’s good to remember SGM considers all 600 pages of The Documents confidential. In their opinion, none of it should be public. That’s why they have accused me of slander.

I don't take confidences lightly...I've protected the reputation of SGM and C.J. for a very long time but occasionally truth trumps confidentiality and demands that private matters be shared in a public forum because people need to be informed and kept from harm's way.

Thanks
Brent

SGM Chaos: Why Sending Out “The Documents” Was Not Slanderous But Necessary (Part 1)

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/9/22/why-sending-out-the-documents-was-not-slanderous-but-necessa.html

Archive

• Why Sending Out “The Documents” Was Not Slanderous But Necessary (Part 1)
• Getting Rid of Specks Is Expensive
• When Confidentiality Equals Concealment – C.J. versus Joshua
• The Need for Crisis Intervention by the Covenant Life Pastors
• Promises Were Meant to be Broken
• The Three Years Trying to Help C.J. (Dec. 2000 to Dec. 2003)
• In My Own Defense
• A Brief Response to Tim Challies
• The Cardinal Sins of Joshua Harris
• C.J.’s Flight from Covenant Life
• C.J.'s Sons-in Law Resign as Pastors at Covenant Life Church
• The Need for an Independent Board of Directors & Financial Accountability
• My Thoughts on C.J.'s Leave of Absence
• No One Can Question C.J.'s Public Confession of Specific Sin - Really?

• September 2011 (3)
• August 2011 (11)

Thursday

Sep222011

Why Sending Out “The Documents” Was Not Slanderous But Necessary (Part 1)

Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 2:45PM

 

On July 13, 2011, Dave Harvey posted Sovereign Grace Ministries Board of Directors announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney. I will deal with this entire blog post at a later date. For now, I want to address the specific charge of public slander. I will write several posts laying out my reasons for sending The Documents to the SGM pastors on July 6, 2011. I believe my action was required and did not constitute slander.

 I will put forward my case and you can decide based upon the information presented and the teaching of Scripture. Here are the comments regarding slander.

The board of Sovereign Grace has made the following resolutions…. That Brent Detwiler’s distribution of written accusations against C.J. Mahaney to all Sovereign Grace pastors constitutes the public slander of Mahaney’s reputation…the public defamation of his character.

The SGM Board expressed no concerns for my motives or the accuracy of The Documents. The charge of slander was leveled because I distributed my documents to the SGM pastors.

Typically, slander is comprised of three parts: 1) evil motives or malicious intent; 2) false charges known to be bogus or inaccurate; 3) the distribution of damaging information that is unwarranted.

Al Mohler accused me of number one when he told a Louisville newspaper that I had “an obvious vendetta” against C.J. and that was the reason I sent out The Documents.

Ligon Duncan accused me of number one and two when he said on his blog, “It would have been very easy for the leadership of SGM to ignore and dismiss these charges, because so many of them are so evidently self-serving [motive] and spurious [false] accusations.”

The SGM Board, however, makes no mention of numbers one or two. They accused me of slandering C.J. for distributing the documents. They say nothing about my motives or the accuracy of my writings. Therefore, let me give reasons why I believe sending out The Documents was just, necessary and redemptive.

1. The Favoritism Shown C.J. by the Sovereign Grace Board (1 Timothy 5:21)

During my 16 months of appeals to C.J. (March 2010-June 2011) and after 600 pages of writing,[1] the old SGM Board[2] took no disciplinary action against C.J., expressed no concern he might not be above reproach, required no public confession of any kind, and failed to hold C.J. accountable to his word to produce a through response to my writings.

A new SGM Board[3] was announced on Thursday, July 7, 2011. Six days later in the same blog post sighted above they declared, “The board of Sovereign Grace Ministries has reviewed Brent Detwiler’s documents…and finds no reason at this time to deem him [C.J.] unfit for ministry… C.J. Mahaney is a qualified minister of the gospel and this board approves his pastoral and teaching ministry in Sovereign Grace and the wider body of Christ.” The new Board followed the inaction of the old Board but went further.

In less than a week, they claimed to have reviewed my 600 plus pages of documentation and nothing I wrote gave them any pause regarding C.J.’s qualifications for ministry or whether he was above reproach. Joshua Harris was the only exception. This was a new development. He didn’t sign the July 13 blog post and resigned from the Board of Directors the next day. Joshua felt a determination regarding C.J.’s fitness should await an outside, third party, objective panel of evaluators with no history with SGM. He thought it unwise and premature for the SGM Board to declare C.J. fit for ministry.

From the crucial meeting on August 20, 2004[4] until July 6, 2011 when I sent out The Documents, C.J. was consistently treated with partiality and shown favoritism. 

The standards applied to other leaders in SGM over the decades were not applied to him. C.J. was permitted to conceal his sins and suffer no consequences. This was unprecedented in the history of Sovereign Grace Ministries. That is one reason I decided to send out The Documents to the SGM pastors. This preferential treatment needed to be exposed so the truth about C.J. (and others) could be weighed by all the pastors in light of Scripture and SGM practice.

2. The Failure of the Covenant Life Pastors to Enforce 1 Timothy 5:19-21

On June 8, 2011, I sent C.J. and the SGM Board (Dave, Joshua, Jeff) my third document, “Concluding Remarks.” I said the following in the final section entitled, “Brent Sharing His Concerns with the Sovereign Grace Pastors.”

Well, we have reached the end of the road. It is now time for me to share my concerns with the Sovereign Grace pastors. For the longest time, I never entertained this course of action. It was inconceivable. But we are at a different place today. You [C.J.] have refused to address or acknowledge many sins of a serious nature and the Board of Directors has taken insufficient action in its correction and discipline of you. Others [e.g., Dave Harvey, Bob Kauflin, Gene Emerson and Steve Shank] have gone unaddressed as well.

C.J., I rejoice in the “thirty-fold” fruit that has been born in your life as a result of this ten year process. I am glad that friends have finally spoken the truth to you in love.

But the most serious issues I’ve brought to your attention have been ignored, repudiated or denied. Things like deceit, lying, covering-up, hypocrisy, lording, and favoritism. I take no delight in saying this, but you and Sovereign Grace Ministries cannot be trusted until these things are acknowledged. I do not mean to imply the ministry is corrupt or completely untrustworthy. It isn’t. There are many outstanding people of high moral integrity that work for Sovereign Grace Ministries and serve as pastors in Sovereign Grace churches. But given a certain set of temptations related to the love of reputation and self-preservation, I have no confidence you, or those around you, will walk in the light, be truthful, or handle people properly. I’ve said this from the beginning. (Concluding Remarks, p. 201)

Because the SGM Board failed to deal openly, honestly, and righteously with C.J., I turned to the Covenant Life pastors. I sent them RRF&D, AFA, CR, and TUS on June 17. I asked them to implement 1 Timothy 5:19-21 as C.J.’s God ordained pastors. In this regard, I wrote and also sent “Part 5: In Need of a Corporate Rebuke – An Appeal to the Covenant Life Elders” (available at BrentDetwiler.com). 

Instead of going to all the SGM pastors as indicated in Concluding Remarks on June 8, I held back and decided to appeal to the CLC pastors first. Here is part of what I said to them.

Scripture requires the action I am taking when a leader continues in sin and I am under its authority. I wish it were not necessary but I trust in the wisdom of God. It is for C.J.’s good, the good of the movement, and the good of the gospel. I have avoided any public admonition of C.J. among all the elders of Sovereign Grace Ministries over the past 10 years. I have painstakingly sought to protect his reputation and cover his sin. But further action is required now. As an intermediate step I am appealing to you, the Covenant Life Church elders. C.J. and the [SGM] Board are in need of your admonition which may lead them to repentance. You should also require C.J. to acknowledge his sins publically. Anything less is pure favoritism.

A week later on June 24, Joshua Harris wrote me the following.

Because of your concern about the process to date, you have indicated that you plan to send these documents to a broader group of leaders. Would you be willing to postpone that action until we have time to process this fully with CJ and question him directly regarding the specific charges and allegation you are bringing to him? Thank you for your demonstrated commitment to resolving this process as shown by your restraint in not sending these documents out already.

Joshua’s response encouraged my heart. I thought the CLC pastors might deal with C.J. forthrightly, provide him a rebuke, make a determination regarding his fitness for ministry, and require a public confession. I had already delayed sending out The Documents to the SGM pastors. I was glad to postpone further action in the hope the CLC pastors would take strong and decisive action. Tragically, this did not happen. I asked for the official minutes from their upcoming time with C.J. on June 30 but I was denied assess.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:41 AM

To: Harris, Joshua

Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Mtg. with C.J.

What day do you meet with C.J.? Will you record the meeting and provide a transcript to everyone? Or will you ask someone to take official minutes? I’d appreciate a copy of either record.

Thanks

Brent

From: Joshua Harris

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:41 AM

To: Brent Detwiler

Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL - The Future

…The meeting with CJ is tomorrow and we’ll have someone takes minutes from the meeting. At this point I don’t feel it would be appropriate to send the minutes to you, but we will happily submit them to the panel. And the pastoral team will also send you a follow-up that will summarize our thoughts from the meeting…

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:31 AM

To: Joshua Harris

Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL - The Future

[You said,] “I know you understand how damaging to trust it can be when there isn't open communication.” That is why I need you to be open and honest with me. I need you to answer my questions, share your perspective and keep me informed.

You should provide me a copy of the minutes from [tomorrow’s] meeting. I can uniquely provide you important feedback based upon your interaction with C.J. regarding my documents. I tire of the word “inappropriate.” Confessions are inappropriate, providing vital information is inappropriate, involving others is inappropriate. Everything is inappropriate…

I wanted to hear a good report, a detailed report, and an honest report from the Covenant Life pastors because I did not want to send out the documents. I hoped the pastors would come through unlike the SGM Board. Instead, I was left hanging. Joshua sent me a general report but refused to provide any details or the official minutes. As a result, I couldn’t tell if the pastors formally rebuked C.J. or not; and I could not determine how C.J. responded. From what I could tell, the CLC elders did not reprove C.J. except for the blackmail of Larry Tomczak. They questioned him about other matters but there is no evidence in my possession that they corrected him on anything else. If they did they were not willing to share it with me.

After this meeting with C.J. the CLC pastors ceased communicating with me. They decided to turn everything over to outside evaluators. I believe this constituted a clear dereliction of duty. The CLC pastors, not outsiders, have the responsibly to assess and discipline C.J. Since they refused to follow 1 Timothy 5:19-21, their abdication of responsibility left me with little choice. I expressed my disagreement to Joshua.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:31 AM

To: Joshua Harris

Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL - The Future

…Whatever role the independent panel plays must be secondary. They are not elders. They don’t know us. They don’t know C.J. They don’t have a history with us or a future with us. They have not been anointed by God to lead in CLC. You must not expect them to do your job for you or make the hard decisions…. Keep the ball in your court and lead.

Joshua wrote me back. The pastors did not want to deal with C.J. Any decisions they made regarding C.J.’s future would be based upon the results or findings of an outside panel. This irresponsible action was disappointing, but far worse, Joshua presented me as the only one with concerns for C.J.

From: Joshua Harris

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:01 PM

To: Brent Detwiler

Subject: Re: Update

…You asked me about the issue of [C.J.’s] resignation based on what I see. I don’t think that would be right at this time. The results of the panel could change that. But right now, I think a leave of absence is more appropriate. The challenge I face is that all of this documentation is coming from just one witness (you)…

I know the independent panel can’t take the place of us leading. But I feel that as a movement we’re so weak in certain areas, we need outside help to enable us to see things clearly and address all the relevant issues. So I want to urge you again to participate in this independent panel. I think it will be significantly weakened if they only have your documents to work with…

From my perspective, the CLC pastors stopped leading. They turned over their responsibilities to Ambassadors of Reconciliation. As a result the Sovereign Grace Board was able to reassert itself, manipulate the process and break their often stated commitment to use an independent panel to evaluate C.J. and SGM.

Once again it is up to the CLC pastors to lead. They must stand up to the SGM Board and C.J. Their lack of leadership in relation to C.J. over the last seven years has been inexcusable. They were assigned the responsibility of caring for C.J. and holding him accountable to change on August 20, 2004 (see RRF&D, pp. 27-28). Unfortunately, the Covenant Life pastors have never being willing to deal with C.J. I hope and think that is changing.

Because of their unwillingness to be open with me and fulfill 1 Timothy 5:19-21, I was forced to consider afresh my original plan. “Well, we have reached the end of the road. It is now time for me to share my concerns with the Sovereign Grace pastors.” It was hard to see how I could refrain from further action or postpone communicating with the SGM pastors. The intermediate step with the CLC pastors failed.

---

[1] “Response Regarding Friendship & Doctrine” (RRF&D), “A Final Appeal” (AFA), “Concluding Remarks” (CR), and “The Untold Story” (TUS)
[2] Dave Harvey, Joshua Harris, Jeff Purswell, and Pat Ennis (Pat resigned on Feb 28, 2011 but signed the March 11, 2011 board letter (see RRF&D, pp. 50-56)
[3] Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, Craig Cabaniss, Mickey Connelly, Rick Gamache, Pete Greasley, John Loftness, Aron Osborne, Mark Prater, and Steve Shank.
[4] See RRF&D, pp. 16-28.

SGM Survivors: Why Does Mahaney Get Slack from YRR Advocates, e.g. Dr. Mohler, Dr. Duncan, Dr. Trueman, Rev. DeYoung, Rev. Ortlund, CT Editor Colin Hansen, Blogger Tim Challies, Justin Taylor, Sproul, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Ligonier Ministries, and Others. Have They Not Read?

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=2927

Over the past few years, a frequent refrain I’ve heard is, “Sovereign Grace Ministries just can’t have the problems that you people are discussing here, or else guys like Mark Dever and Al Mohler would not continue to support C.J. Mahaney.” I originally wrote the following as a comment on the previous post, but it got to be so lengthy and involved that I decided to make it its own post. Here is my attempt at answering the question of, “What’s up with the Reformed Big Dogs? Why would they continue to exhibit such solidarity with C.J. Mahaney, even with all the voices crying out that Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. have a lot of serious issues?
————————–
I have put a LOT of thought into why the Reformed Big Dogs have so persistently promoted CJ and SGM. I mean, it’s nothing short of bizarre that these guys have seemed so blindly determined to keep supporting CJ, even as anyone who reads Brent Detwiler’s documents can quickly get a sense that CJ did NOT have anyone holding him accountable…which would mean that he could not actually be humble…which would then call into question everything else about CJ’s ministry persona.


It just doesn’t make sense that these men would risk their own credibility by jumping in – as Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, and Kevin DeYoung did – to assure the world that we don’t need to worry our pretty little heads about CJ. Why would they do that? I’ve thought a lot about this, and here are some possible explanations:

1. These RBDs have not really read Brent’s documents. Despite Al Mohler’s assertion that he had read the documents, I have a difficult time believing that even the most genius speed reader (as Mohler purports to be) would have been able to go through all 700-odd pages in the time that it took (less than a day or two?) for Mohler to make his first statement, when he said he’d read everything and basically pooh-poohed Brent’s charges as the ramblings of a disgruntled employee who didn’t like strong leadership. I know people reacted with shock and horror when I first suggested that maybe Mohler wasn’t being totally truthful about having slogged through all of Brent’s documentation like he claimed. I know a lot of people believe that Mohler is so above the rest of us that he would NEVER exaggerate or make a less-than-accurate statement.

But think about it realistically for a moment. No matter how smart he is and no matter what sort of speed reader, Mr. Mohler is undoubtedly a busy guy, as in CEO busy. Stuff gets put on a CEO’s schedule way in advance. The documents were released without much advance notice. While I’m not exactly a speed reader, I am VERY fast, and it took me probably two 8-hour days to read through everything. Let’s give Mohler superhuman reading ability and say that he would be able to make it through 700+ rather wordy pages in half the time that I did. Just how likely is it that this celebrity preacher/seminary president/author would have had a whole day cleared on his calendar when these documents made their surprise appearance?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. I think Mr. Mohler probably manages his time like any other celebrity CEO – with lots of help from assistants and interns. My guess is that some lackeys at Mohler’s office were probably assigned the task of going through the documents and preparing a bullet-point summary for their boss.

So maybe in all of this, the possibility does exist that none of the RBDs actually took the time to thoroughly read and digest everything that Brent compiled. After all, the many nuances of CJ’s tyrannical, entitled leadership, along with the worst of the accusations (blackmailing/coercing Larry T) were not all laid out in one easy-to-find place. Rather, they were tucked here and there, woven throughout hundreds of pages. Maybe the RBDs glanced at the documents, got the quick impression that Brent was a small-minded disgruntled employee, and decided to support their fellow T4G speaker.

It’s possible.

2. The RBDs have indeed read the documents but don’t see anything wrong with CJ’s behavior because they themselves operate in a similar fashion. Here’s another possibility…one that would mean that the RBDs are each at least somewhat corrupt in his own way. I don’t like this possibility, but when you think about the ego that would have to be involved to gain the level of celebrity these guys have attained in certain circles, I think we’re probably kidding ourselves when we assume that a great preacher or great author always translates into a man of exceptional godliness.

Actually, I think it’s interesting to ask ourselves why we’d even make such an assumption? Why would we think that anyone who is OK with all the self-promotion necessary to attain the book deals and speaking gigs would at the same time be the epitome of honorable, humble, and gentle?

Anyone who has ever tried it knows that writing books is hard work. For almost all authors, getting published requires a level of ambition and dogged persistence that frequently goes hand-in-hand with an equal level of self-importance. Likewise a powerful leadership position. A guy like Al Mohler didn’t become the dominant voice in an organization like the Southern Baptist Convention without a good deal of politicking and machinations. These men’s notoriety didn’t happen by accident! It happened because they sought it out…or at the very least, did nothing to stop their promoters or quit doing the things necessary to retain their celebrity, as per their promoters’ instructions.

I think it’s interesting that we expect so much out of Christian celebrities – that we assume so much about them. Why can’t we just be grateful that they wrote books or gave talks that blessed us, without ascribing to them some sort of superior spirituality, some degree of being closer to God and more filled with the Spirit than we are?

Why do we have such an impossible time making the logical connection between a pastor/author’s fame and power and the very real possibility that he might be a driven and self-important person behind the scenes who sees nothing amiss with the idea that a guy like CJ could behave like a bully who was accountable to no one?

3. The RBDs read the documents but because of a complete lack of knowledge of SGM’s foibles, they immediately conclude that Brent is just graceless and crazy. This is another very real possibility. If you don’t understand the basic assumptions about the Christian life that CJ established for his denomination family of churches, you won’t understand why Brent was so totally consumed with correcting CJ’s behavior. We’ve talked about this before, but the Cliff’s Notes version of SGM’s approach to our walk with God is that you’re saved because of what “the Savior” did for you on the cross, but apprehending that salvation requires a lifetime of thinking about sin and hunting down sin, both in your own heart and in the hearts of all those in your circle of accountability. The most important mark of a true Christian, in the SGM way of thinking (which CJ initiated and promoted), is a willingness to be “humbly” confronted by others about your own sins.

So in Brent’s way of thinking, CJ’s “unentreatability” – CJ’s lack of willingness to be confronted about his sin and to agree with others’ assessments of his sin – was basically a sign that CJ was not right with God. SGM’s unique approach to the “local” church, with its emphases on small-group accountability, openness, and confession of sins, was NOT embraced by its founder! That simply could not be right…and was a sign that the founder needed help.

That was the mindset that consumed Brent as he devoted something like a year of his time to proving his case about CJ’s “unentreatability.” If the RBDs don’t understand the SGM mindset about sin and confession, they won’t understand what fueled Brent’s efforts. Brent’s efforts instead will look like the obsession of a Pharisee intent on nitpicking his superior.

4. The RBDs do believe that CJ is guilty of some stuff, but they are confident (as CJ himself seems to be) that there is no actual “smoking gun,” and that CJ will ultimately prevail…and they (the RBDs) have too much to lose in terms of their own influence and celebrity and book sales in order to rock the boat. Again, this is NOT a happy or popular idea, but it fits what we know about how other political and business relationships work. We somehow think that business and politics don’t ever enter in to Christian endeavors…but we are naive.

And I am NOT saying that these guys are necessarily motivated by money in the crass way that initially comes to mind – the Jim and Tammy Faye, I-gotta-drive-me-a-Mercedes-Benz kind of way. I don’t think these guys necessarily have to exhibit a love of fancy cars, Rolexes, and custom-made Italian suits in order to be concerned about their bottom line. I think many of them have viewed their celebrity and influence as tools that God uses to promote the gospel…and it’s also possible that many of them have blurred the lines between the gospel of Jesus and their own ministry organizations, to where the dismaying thought of losing some of their ministry organizations’ influence feels to them like discrediting the gospel.

These are some possibilities for why the Reformed Big Dogs appear to place such a high priority on preserving their professional association with CJ Mahaney (rather than helping their ministry buddy confront his issues and make the necessary corrections), even in light of the very clear and obvious problems that exist in the organization CJ has created.

The Theology of Calvin - B.B. Warfield

Hat tip to Hudson Barton at Anglo-Reformed on this great American scholar, thinker and Calvinist-of-the-first-order.

http://anglo-reformed.org/the-theology-of-calvin-bb-warfield

The Theology of Calvin - B.B. Warfield

BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D.D., LL.D.
Late Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary

Found at http://www.the-highway.com/theocal_Warfield.html

THE subject of this address is the theology of John Calvin and I shall ask leave to take this subject rather broadly, that is to say, to attempt not so much to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as a theologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determining characteristics of the theology which he taught. I wish to speak, in other words, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought which bears John Calvin’s name, and which also—although of course he was not its author, but only one of its chief exponents—bears indelibly impressed upon it the marks of his formative hand and of his systematizing genius. Of all the teachers who have wrought into it their minds and hearts since its revival in that tremendous religious upheaval we call the Reformation, this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and has therefore justly borne since then his name. And of all the services which Calvin has rendered to humanity—and they are neither few nor small—the greatest was undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it is therefore just that he should be most widely remembered by it. When we are seeking to probe to the heart of Calvinism, we are exploring also most thoroughly the heart of John Calvin. Calvinism is his greatest and most significant monument, and he who adequately understands it will best understand him.


It was about a hundred years ago that Max Göbel first set the scholars at work upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle of Calvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhausted themselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogether consistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men have busied themselves rather in indicating the points of difference by which Calvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than in seeking out the germinal principle of which it itself is the unfolding.


The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has been contrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system of Lutheranism, with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Now undoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the distinguishing spirit of Calvinism is due to its formative principle and is not to be accounted for by extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as for example, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superior humanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency to intellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.


In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, it is only its logical implication. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. And so little is it the peculiarity of Calvinism, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement—which was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among the Reformers on this point; Luther and Melanchthon and the compromising Bucer were no less zealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who paused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of the Protestant faith, to give it formal assertion and elaboration.


Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of, instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God’s activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question. “What shall I do to be saved?” and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, “Whence this faith by which I am justified?” And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, “From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself, before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.


If thus the formative principle of Calvinism is not to be identified with the points of difference which it has developed with its sister type of Protestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with those heads of doctrine—severally or in sum—which have been singled out by its own rebellious daughter, Arminianism, as its specially vulnerable points. The “five points of Calvinism,” we have no doubt learned to call them, and not without justice. They are, each and every one of them, essential elements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of their essential details is logically the rejection of the entirety of Calvinism; and in their sum they provide what is far from being a bad epitome of the Calvinistic system. The sovereignty of the election of God, the substitutive definiteness of the atonement of Christ, the inability of the sinful will to good, the creative energy of the saving grace of the Spirit, the safety of the redeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,—are not these the distinctive teachings of Calvinism, as precious to every Calvinist’s heart as they are necessary to the integrity of the system? Selected as the objects of the Arminian assault, these “five-points” have been reaffirmed, therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the whole Calvinistic world. It is well, however, to bear in mind that they owe their prominence in our minds to the Arminian debate, and however well fitted they may prove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Calvinistic doctrine, they are historically at least only the Calvinistic obverse, of “the five points of Arminianism”. And certainly they can put in no claim, either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle of Calvinism, whose out-working in the several departments of doctrine they rather are—though, of course, they may surely and directly conduct us back to that formative principle, as the only root out of which just this body of doctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stock which bears these branches must lie a most profound sense of God and an equally profound sense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whether conceived merely as creature or, more specifically as sinful creature. It is the vision of God and His Majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking.


The exact formulation of the formative principle of Calvinism, as I have said, has taxed the acumen of a long line of distinguished thinkers. Many modes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, its simplest statement is the best. It lies then, let me repeat, in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the poignant realization which inevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained to God by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand, with a sense of his own unworthiness to stand in God’s sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner, and on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who receives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling, willing—in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual—throughout all his individual, social, religious relations—is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist.


If we wish to reduce this statement to a more formal theoretical form, we may say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies three things. In it, (i) objectively speaking, Theism comes to its rights; (ii) subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii) soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability. Theism comes to its rights only in a teleological view of the universe, which recognizes in the whole course of events the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will is consequently conceived as the ultimate cause of all things. The religious relation attains its purity only when an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but is sustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional, executive. And evangelical religion reaches its full manifestation and its stable form only when the sinful soul rests in humble, self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and sole source of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine out upon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is the man who sees God behind all phenomena, and in all that occurs recognizes the hand of God, working out His will; who makes the attitude of the soul to God in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and who casts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace of dependence on self from the whole work of his salvation.


I think it important to insist here that Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith, but the perfect expression of these things. The difference between it and other forms of Theism, religion, evangelicalism, is a difference not of kind but of degree. There are not many kinds of Theism, religion, evangelicalism. each with its own special characteristics, among which men are at liberty to choose, as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of Theism, religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlative species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another.


Calvinism comes forward simply as pure Theism, religion. evangelicalism, as over against less pure Theism, religion. evangelicalism. It does not take its position then by the side of other types of these things, it takes its place over them, as what they too ought to be. It has no difficulty thus, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, the religious note in all really religious manifestations, the evangelical quality of all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically over against these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them in every instance of their emergence as its own, and seeks only to give them their due place in thought and life. Whoever believes in God, whoever recognizes his dependence on God, whoever hears in his heart the echo of the soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession— by whatever name he may call himself, by whatever logical puzzles his understanding may be confused—Calvinism recognizes such as its own, and as only requiring to give full validity to those fundamental principles which underlie and give its body to all true religion to become explicitly a Calvinist.


Calvinism is born, we perceive, of the sense of God. God fills the whole horizon of the Calvinist’s feeling and thought. One of the consequences which flow from this is the high supernaturalism which informs at once his religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinism indeed would not be badly defined as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in the second creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of the supernatural Fact (which is God) removes all embarrassment from it in the presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everything which enters into the process of the recovery of sinful man to good and to God, it is impelled by the force of its first principle to assign the initiative to God. A supernatural revelation in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of the revelation in a supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelation permanence and extension.—such things are to the Calvinist matters of course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of the actual work of redemption; this, of course, in its impetration. It is no strain to his faith to believe in a supernatural Redeemer, breaking His way to earth through a virgin’s womb, bursting the bonds of death and returning to His Father’s side to share the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Nor can he doubt that this supernaturally purchased redemption is applied to the soul in an equally supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.


Thus it comes about that monergistic regeneration—“irresistible grace”, “effectual calling”, our older theologians called it,—becomes the hinge of the Calvinistic soteriology, and lies much more deeply imbedded in the system than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in the popular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination itself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to the immediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of his soteriology is absolute exclusion of creaturely efficiency in the induction of the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of men’s complete dependence as sinners on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of synergism, by which God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to attribute to some power, some act, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which in reality has come to him from pure grace.


There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His Son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself, but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself, but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the Calvinistic soteriology, and it is because this deep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness of indebtedness for all that enters into salvation to the free grace of God is the root of its soteriology. that election becomes to Calvinism the cor cordis of the gospel. He who knows that it is God who has chosen him, and not he who has chosen God, and that he owes every step and stage of his salvation to the working out of this choice of God, would be an ingrate indeed if he gave not the whole glory of his salvation to the inexplicable election of the divine love.


Calvinism, however, is not merely a soteriology. Deep as its interest is in salvation, it cannot escape the question—“Why should God thus intervene in the lives of sinners to rescue them from the consequences of their sin?” And it cannot miss the answer—“Because it is to the praise of the glory of His grace”. Thus it cannot pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. If all things are from God, so to Calvinism all things are also unto God, and to it God will be all in all. It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image. And let us not fail punctually to note, that “it is the only system in which the whole order of the world is thus brought into a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which the glorification of God is carried out with absolute completeness”. Therefore, the future of Christianity—as its past has done—lies in its hands. For, it is certainly true, as has been said by a profound thinker of our own time, that “it is only with such a universal conception of God, established in a living way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all the spiritual dangers and terrors of our times”. “It, however,” as the same thinker continues, “is deep enough and large enough and divine enough, rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the divine Personality.”


This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of which John Calvin gave all his powers nearly four hundred years ago. And it is chiefly because he gave all his powers to commending to us this system of doctrine, that we are here today to thank God for giving to the world the man who has given to the world this precious gift.

CJ Mahaney in Mediation or Arbitration with Protege Josh Harris

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/9/15/when-confidentiality-equals-concealment-cj-versus-joshua.html

Thursday


Sep152011


When Confidentiality Equals Concealment – C.J. versus Joshua


Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 8:50AM


Joshua Harris has wisely postponed reconciliation meetings with C.J. Mahaney over differences regarding confidentiality. That is the very reason I only agreed to consider arbitration with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Arbitration and mediation are different processes. Under arbitration you are not sworn to silence. Under mediation, discussions remain confidential including vital information that should be made public or told to a church. Typically, “necessary interest” (see below) is defined narrowly and must also be agreed upon by both parties. As a result, information is withheld when one party disagrees that other leaders or the church has a “necessary interest” and should be informed.





Therefore, “mediation” can be used to cover up important issues and muzzle critics. This is what happened in Richmond with Gene Emerson at Kingsway Community Church. Bob Dixon, Steve Whitman, and Bud Moreland were not permitted to discuss with the church the dire issues they covered with Gene and the pastors. This prohibition did not serve Gene or the church.




Now C.J. is taking the same approach with Joshua and the pastors of Covenant Life Church. From my perspective, this constitutes an effort to cover up important issues, questions, and illustrations that should be disclosed. Of course, there is a legitimate place for confidentiality when seeking to reconcile relationships between two people. But “confidentiality” can also be abused and used to conceal information that should be made available to others. That will be the case in C.J. versus Joshua unless C.J. changes his mind and is willing to be open and honest about the issues that divide them.




The following was posted yesterday.




September 14 2011 at 11:55 am





A Joint Statement from C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris





At the August 17 Members Meeting [for CLC], I shared that C.J. had concerns with how we had been leading through this crisis. C.J. communicated that he wants to pursue reconciliation with us with the help of a mediator. What some of you might not know is that this week we met as a first step. The following is a joint statement that we prepared to explain the status of the process. Thank you for your prayers! —Joshua

We are grateful for all the people who have expressed support in prayer as C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris pursue reconciliation with the assistance of Ted Kober from Ambassadors of Reconciliation. Joshua was accompanied by his advisor Grant Layman. C.J. was accompanied by his advisor Phil Sasser.



While we both desire the mediation to occur, Joshua asked for the meetings to be postponed because of a difference on how matters of confidentiality will be handled. Normal mediation agreements involve a commitment not to share details of the mediation with anyone that does not have “necessary interest.” Both parties acknowledge that certain outcomes of the mediation need to be shared with others, but we have different viewpoints on when and how that occurs.



Nevertheless, C.J. and his advisor shared documents they had prepared outlining the categories of concern for Joshua and the pastors of Covenant Life.



Both parties agreed to share these documents only with the pastoral team of Covenant Life and the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace. We have agreed to only share these documents with others with the permission of each other. We anticipate that there will be a time after some reflection and possible changes that these documents will be shared more broadly.





The next step in the process will be for the Covenant Life pastoral team to read, consider and pray over the documents C.J. has prepared in writing. We will then work on the next appropriate step for moving the mediation forward.





We ask for people’s prayers as we continue to work together toward resolution of our substantive issues and reconciliation of our personal relationships.

CJ Mahaney Goes after his Protege, Josh Harris

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/9/15/getting-rid-of-specks-is-expensive.html

Thursday


Sep 15,  2011


Getting Rid of Specks Is Expensive



Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 1:00PM

 Ted Kober from Ambassadors of Reconciliation charges $150 per hour. I assume the same is true of his co-worker, Ed Keinath. There may also be additional expenses for support staff from AoR. This doesn’t include travel expenses and incidentals. People who give to SGM should know how much all of this is costing. From my perspective, donors hard earned money is being wasted because C.J. and the SGM Board will not come clean and repent. Instead they have taken control of the process and are currently focused on the wrong Joshua Harris and the Covenant Life pastors have done to C.J. History is repeating itself once again.



To confront C.J. inevitably means you will be confronted by C.J. or his messengers. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. Correction from C.J. comes back upon the person who provides correction to C.J. The focus changes from C.J.’s concrete wrongs to their real or perceived wrongs. This is a long standing pattern with C.J.






During his leave of absence C.J. is supposed to be focused his own heart. If so, there is no indication that enterprise is bearing fruit based upon the public statements from the SGM Board and CLC pastors over the last two months. The same conclusion is true based upon my private interaction with the SGM Board of Directors and CLC pastors.






C.J. has never acknowledged his hypocrisy. This was one of my major concerns in The Documents. He ends up focused on specks when logs are protruding from both eyes. When C.J. starts confessing widely and profusely you can have some assurance he is changing.






For now a lot of money is being spent on getting after the specks in others. C.J. could save a ton of SGM money for gospel proclamation if he just took the logs out of his own eyes.