SGM: Clarification, And Some Thought-Provoking Comments

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=2532

A Clarification, And Some Thought-Provoking Comments

By Kris, on July 19th, 2011

Aron Osborne emailed me what he had sent to Jim over at SGM Refuge. In reference to the portions of his July 10 message quoted here yesterday, he had this to say:

I want you to know that I have had the opportunity to read some of the posts on the blogs from my comments last Sunday to my local church. I wasn’t speaking representing anyone else.

Simply put, some of the posts hurt, in a good, convicting way, because they are true!

At points my remarks were defensive, exhorting and preachy when all my remarks should have come through a heart of love, grace and understanding that a lot of people are hurting. I may not personally know some of the stories that have created the pain people feel, but I want my words for everyone to be words that help and heal, not words that harm. That didn’t come through like it should have. Pride came through more than humility. I am freshly convicted of how much every word matters, and as importantly, the heart behind the words. So I receive what came through in some of the posts as faithful wounds from friends.

I’ve had a lot to do over the past couple of days and haven’t had much time to interact with the comments here. If you’ve joined us recently, please know that we appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I’ve been reading everything and have thought so many of the new commenters have had such good things to share.

I did want to highlight a couple of points that struck me as particularly noteworthy.

“Unassimilated” shared the following, in response to another reader’s question about where to read about the blackmail charges in Brent Detwiler’s documents:

Part 3, page 158.

The most revealing part to me was this did not seem to be an off the cuff CJ and Larry thing. It was discussed with their Attorneys…

Steve‘s Notes Regarding Counsel from Chip Grange

10/14/97 Gentlemen, here is a bullet form synopsis of our lengthy conversation.

3. Re: us divulging [the child‘s] sins if necessary. He said this is the shakiest part of our perspective. Would STRONGLY recommend we jettison the idea. Court would recognize our responsibility for Larry because he was an employee. [His child] was not an employee. Even though he was a [child] of an employee, it doesn‘t matter. If we divulged what was shared in confidence in a pastoral climate of counsel and confidentiality, we would be very vulnerable…

9.Regarding us disclosing [the child‘s] sin, there is a big red flag here. Even if we state more than Larry has said in his May 15 letter, there are major cautions. Strong recommendation we do not divulge [the child‘s] sins to any degree in any fashion. He was not an employee and we are not responsible for [the child] (legally) unless that has been delegated to us by [the] parents, which it wasn‘t. Voiced major reservations that we do this.We would be vulnerable if we did…

11. The courts would see a strong line of demarcation between divulging Larry‘s sins and revealing [the child‘s]

It is no wonder they think CJ is fit to lead.

Then Joe pointed out:

What you quoted shows that the blackmailing of Larry wasn’t confined to one offhand conversation. They even ran it by the lawyers.

“Stunned” had this to say:

What Unassimilated wrote – wow, wow, wow. This is powerful.

According to LongingforHeaven on July 15th, 2011 at 3:36 pm, he/she said,

“At the family meeting, the charge of blackmail was characterized at CJ making a threat in the heat of an angry moment. One that he was never going to act or follow up on.”

Yet, according to Brent Detweiller’s document’s (part 3, page 158 on), Steve’s (would this be Steve Shank?) notes upon meeting with SGM’s lawyer are as follows:

Steve‘s Notes Regarding Counsel from Chip Grange

10/14/97Gentlemen, here is a bullet form synopsis of our lengthy conversation.

3. Re: us divulging [the child‘s] sins if necessary. He said this is the shakiest part of our perspective. Would STRONGLY recommend we jettison the idea. Court would recognize our responsibility for Larry because he was an employee. [His child] was not an employee. Even though he was a [child] of an employee, it doesn‘t matter. If we divulged what was shared in confidence in a pastoral climate of counsel and confidentiality, we would be very vulnerable…

9.Regarding us disclosing [the child‘s] sin, there is a big red flag here. Even if we state more than Larry has said in his May 15 letter, there are major cautions. Strong recommendation we do not divulge [the child‘s] sins to any degree in any fashion. He was not an employee and we are not responsible for [the child] (legally) unless that has been delegated to us by [the] parents, which it wasn‘t. Voiced major reservations that we do this.We would be vulnerable if we did…

11. The courts would see a strong line of demarcation between divulging Larry‘s sins and revealing [the child‘s]

For those who believe that the leadership of SGM is fit to decide whether CJ Mahaney is qualified or not or even if they themselves are fit to lead you and your family, please note point 3 in Steve (Shank’s?) own notes,

“us divulging [the child‘s] sins if necessary. He said this is the shakiest part of our perspective. Would STRONGLY recommend we jettison the idea. Court would recognize our responsibility for Larry because he was an employee. [His child] was not an employee. Even though he was a [child] of an employee, it doesn‘t matter. If we divulged what was shared in confidence in a pastoral climate of counsel and confidentiality, we would be very vulnerable…”

This was a well thought out threat (well, not well but certainly long deliberated) plan by many people.

Then, according to LongingForHeaven, someone at the family meeting (would this be a CLC pastor?) more than a week ago insinuated that it was CJ who was making a threat in the heat of an angry moment. (Who can’t understand saying something stupid in the heat of a moment then the very next moment regretting it?)

But by Steve’s own notes, we know that not to be true. Therefore, whichever person/pastor said that, they were misled and communicated a lie or outright lied on their own.

CLCers, please, get answers. Either your pastor lied to you or he was lied to by his higherups. Either way, I beg of you to see how huge this is. The yeast, the leaven, the infectious gangreen is not just going to go away simply by you hiding your head in the sand. You know what happens to it if not dealt with immediately? It grows.

Begging you to see and weigh the evidence before you.

ALL these men are implicated. Not one is innocent here. They knew and said nothing. Unless it was a lie.

“One that he was never going to act or follow up on.” The person who said that forgot to add, “Only because our lawyer told us that if we did, we would be in big legal trouble.”

.