Jenn Grover asks 21 excellent and unanswered questions on her FB at: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=695090287&ref=tn_tnmn#!/jenn.grover
21 Questions and Concerns for SGM Pastors
(or, When is enough, enough?)
I have had discussions with SGM pastors and leaders and none have really been able to answer any of these questions and concerns. I can't help but wonder how much is too much before pastors put SGM on notice.
1. Why did CJ, in essence, fire Ted Kober? How is mediation or conflict resolution occurring?
2. If CJ felt the freedom to fire Ted for this, why should anyone believe he will take the report seriously?
3. How will mediation between CJ and CLC members occur?
4. Where is CJ planting his church?
5. Who is funding his church plant? Who will be on his team?
6. Is the SGM headquarters moving?
7. In light of Matt 5, how can a man with unreconciled relationships (so many, so recent) be qualified to plant a church?
8. SGM made it seem like Brent's allegations were untrue when the documents became public. They have yet to present any evidence that contradicts Brent's documents. Will they acknowledge they were wrong?
9. Will CJ or SGM address the Tomczack letter?
10. No one has publicly confessed or apologized to those of us in SGM for only giving us the reasons for Larry's departure from their perspective and thereby misleading us. It appears as though the entire board is culpable in this matter (Steve, Brent, Dave, CJ.) What can we expect in this matter?
11. There have been no specific confessions by any leader since the crisis began in July. There has been no asking of forgiveness. Even in CJ's remarks at the Nov. PC he did not confess that it was his wrongdoing that has affected pastors, he merely apologized that pastors have been affected by the circumstances. If there has been no public confession, no acknowledgement, how can we have any assurance that there has been acceptance of blame or responsibility which is the crucial initial step towards change?
12. The board has misled us by only revealing partial information or parsing words in the case of representing who initiated the idea for the preliminary panel as well as who wrote the questions the three panels addressed. How can we expect them to address these issues? How are we to trust men who have orchestrated such deception?
13. The board said it would comply in full with the AoR initial report. So far, they have not really complied at all.
a. The report indicated that the board members needed to go in person to Brent. Instead of Dave, Steve, and CJ going to Brent, they sent Mickey with a letter.
b. AoR recommended 3 panels of 5 men chosen via blind draw. The board chose 3 panels of 3 men with no blind draw, but men of their own choosing.
c. The board said they would use AoR's questions. The board wrote their own questions.
14. Mark Prater told me, and Dave Harvey indicated on the SGM blog, that after the panel report, they would tell "the other side of the story" that would vindicate CJ in the blackmail matter. That has never occurred. Furthermore, what could possibly vindicate CJ of the blackmail charge? Mark also indicated that disclosing the other side of the story could unfairly affect the panels. Can someone explain why CJ's remarks at the Nov. PC would not have had a greater impact on the panels?
15. The panel found CJ and the board guilty in the case of sinful coercion. The actions they took legally translated into blackmail, which is a felony. Can someone explain how that does not disqualify CJ and the other board members involved based on the Scripture that mandates that leaders must be "above reproach?"
16. CJ and Josh are unreconciled, SGM and CLC are unreconciled, and other interim board members are unreconciled with members and pastors. Can someone explain how their current ministry positions and activities are in harmony with the command in Matt. 18 to "leave your gift at the alter…"? Furthermore, the board's failure to respond to the charges against interim board members seem to signal that they have not learned from this season and still do not take charges seriously.
17. The board has never actually admitted to any mistakes, only that they could have done better. They also blame many of their issues during this season on poor communication, yet, when I spoke with Mark Prater he indicated that the SGM view on transparency and informing members of information has not fundamentally changed. For example, the time when Mark knew he was leaving Providence and they were interviewing and considering other guys for Mark's position was left unknown to the non-vocational board member and congregation. It was only after all decisions had been made final that we were informed. According to Mark, we would not expect that situation to occur much differently today than it happened 10 years ago. Mark still believes that people are not always "served" by being fed information.
18. The charges against Dave and Steve have gone completely unaddressed, except where the panel report touched on them regarding blackmail. Why is that?
19. I have heard repeatedly that pastors are awaiting the AoR report before making any decisions. Can you explain what it is that pastors expect to see in the AoR report?
20. Has the SGM membership agreement changed? Pastors seem to state that SGM has no authority over local churches, yet, as evidenced time and time again, the SGM board has exercised extra-local authority time and time again. When CJ came to make the Mark Prater announcement to Pittsburgh, he claimed ultimate responsibility for the decision. Numerous leaders have been removed due to SGM involvement. Even in Larry's recent open letter, we learned that SGM board felt it had the authority to remove Mark Altrogge and Benny Phillips (although they did not act on that notion.) What has changed that they no longer have this authority?
21. After the instances where it has been proven that the board left out key information or used information out of context for their own advantage, how can pastors continue to trust the same men? How many cases of deception are necessary before pastors stop trusting them? I know Pastors frequently cite key names and their lack of negative experiences with these men, but what about those of us who have had negative experiences with these men? Are we supposed to disregard are own experiences and perceptions in exchange for pastors who may have received better treatment than us?
(or, When is enough, enough?)
I have had discussions with SGM pastors and leaders and none have really been able to answer any of these questions and concerns. I can't help but wonder how much is too much before pastors put SGM on notice.
1. Why did CJ, in essence, fire Ted Kober? How is mediation or conflict resolution occurring?
2. If CJ felt the freedom to fire Ted for this, why should anyone believe he will take the report seriously?
3. How will mediation between CJ and CLC members occur?
4. Where is CJ planting his church?
5. Who is funding his church plant? Who will be on his team?
6. Is the SGM headquarters moving?
7. In light of Matt 5, how can a man with unreconciled relationships (so many, so recent) be qualified to plant a church?
8. SGM made it seem like Brent's allegations were untrue when the documents became public. They have yet to present any evidence that contradicts Brent's documents. Will they acknowledge they were wrong?
9. Will CJ or SGM address the Tomczack letter?
10. No one has publicly confessed or apologized to those of us in SGM for only giving us the reasons for Larry's departure from their perspective and thereby misleading us. It appears as though the entire board is culpable in this matter (Steve, Brent, Dave, CJ.) What can we expect in this matter?
11. There have been no specific confessions by any leader since the crisis began in July. There has been no asking of forgiveness. Even in CJ's remarks at the Nov. PC he did not confess that it was his wrongdoing that has affected pastors, he merely apologized that pastors have been affected by the circumstances. If there has been no public confession, no acknowledgement, how can we have any assurance that there has been acceptance of blame or responsibility which is the crucial initial step towards change?
12. The board has misled us by only revealing partial information or parsing words in the case of representing who initiated the idea for the preliminary panel as well as who wrote the questions the three panels addressed. How can we expect them to address these issues? How are we to trust men who have orchestrated such deception?
13. The board said it would comply in full with the AoR initial report. So far, they have not really complied at all.
a. The report indicated that the board members needed to go in person to Brent. Instead of Dave, Steve, and CJ going to Brent, they sent Mickey with a letter.
b. AoR recommended 3 panels of 5 men chosen via blind draw. The board chose 3 panels of 3 men with no blind draw, but men of their own choosing.
c. The board said they would use AoR's questions. The board wrote their own questions.
14. Mark Prater told me, and Dave Harvey indicated on the SGM blog, that after the panel report, they would tell "the other side of the story" that would vindicate CJ in the blackmail matter. That has never occurred. Furthermore, what could possibly vindicate CJ of the blackmail charge? Mark also indicated that disclosing the other side of the story could unfairly affect the panels. Can someone explain why CJ's remarks at the Nov. PC would not have had a greater impact on the panels?
15. The panel found CJ and the board guilty in the case of sinful coercion. The actions they took legally translated into blackmail, which is a felony. Can someone explain how that does not disqualify CJ and the other board members involved based on the Scripture that mandates that leaders must be "above reproach?"
16. CJ and Josh are unreconciled, SGM and CLC are unreconciled, and other interim board members are unreconciled with members and pastors. Can someone explain how their current ministry positions and activities are in harmony with the command in Matt. 18 to "leave your gift at the alter…"? Furthermore, the board's failure to respond to the charges against interim board members seem to signal that they have not learned from this season and still do not take charges seriously.
17. The board has never actually admitted to any mistakes, only that they could have done better. They also blame many of their issues during this season on poor communication, yet, when I spoke with Mark Prater he indicated that the SGM view on transparency and informing members of information has not fundamentally changed. For example, the time when Mark knew he was leaving Providence and they were interviewing and considering other guys for Mark's position was left unknown to the non-vocational board member and congregation. It was only after all decisions had been made final that we were informed. According to Mark, we would not expect that situation to occur much differently today than it happened 10 years ago. Mark still believes that people are not always "served" by being fed information.
18. The charges against Dave and Steve have gone completely unaddressed, except where the panel report touched on them regarding blackmail. Why is that?
19. I have heard repeatedly that pastors are awaiting the AoR report before making any decisions. Can you explain what it is that pastors expect to see in the AoR report?
20. Has the SGM membership agreement changed? Pastors seem to state that SGM has no authority over local churches, yet, as evidenced time and time again, the SGM board has exercised extra-local authority time and time again. When CJ came to make the Mark Prater announcement to Pittsburgh, he claimed ultimate responsibility for the decision. Numerous leaders have been removed due to SGM involvement. Even in Larry's recent open letter, we learned that SGM board felt it had the authority to remove Mark Altrogge and Benny Phillips (although they did not act on that notion.) What has changed that they no longer have this authority?
21. After the instances where it has been proven that the board left out key information or used information out of context for their own advantage, how can pastors continue to trust the same men? How many cases of deception are necessary before pastors stop trusting them? I know Pastors frequently cite key names and their lack of negative experiences with these men, but what about those of us who have had negative experiences with these men? Are we supposed to disregard are own experiences and perceptions in exchange for pastors who may have received better treatment than us?
No comments:
Post a Comment