Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label Baptyerians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptyerians. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

(British Evangelical Journal): Examination of Piper's "Christian Hedonism"


H/t to Joe Coke for the leads here...two URLs.  Stunningly precise and much-needed criticisms of the high and revered celebrity figure in the American Baptyerian world of Mark Dever, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, Ligonier Ministires, Sproul and others.  His name is John Piper, a reworked revivalist.  The man, on our view, is undisciplined in Reformation Confessions, Prayer Book Churchmanship, or the sobrieties and gravities of Anglican and Reformed piety.  Just too dry for an emotionalist and revivalist like John.  By his standards, he'd piously judge us as "dead in our orthodoxy and sins."  It's such pious Corinthianism and Pharisaicism.  Sorry, John, learn some humility, son. Put this on my tombstone:  "A Reformed, Confessional Anglican, quiet, devout, and believing but not an enthusiast!"

This article gets at the real issues well.

http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/Christian%20Hedonism%201.pdf

http://www.britishreformedfellowship.org.uk/articles/christianhedonism2.pdf

Friday, July 27, 2012

SGM-Mahaneygate: Crashing Revenues & Need of New $$-Sources

"Old Baldy" Mahaney, a man with a long
rap sheet of abusiveness and narcissism.
A man with uncanny instincts as a Mountebank.
Bradshaw is Old Baldy's son-in-law.  The pastoral
portrait below is rather laughable, since "Old
Baldy" has violated these "old but new" rules.
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/7/25/a-portrait-of-pastoral-leadership.html
Wednesday
Jul 25, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 at 11:12AM
Mike Bradshaw and C.J. are putting out pro C.J., pro Carolyn Mahaney, and pro SGM tributes on the website at a rate never seen before in SGM history. Mike resigned as a pastor at Covenant Life Church last August. Need a job? No problem. C.J. hired his son-in-law to be his Director of Communications for SGM. C.J has always been an equal opportunity employer! I’m sure the Board of Directors reviewed applications from a large number of people and discussed this hire at length! Mike and Janelle moved to Louisville on June 29, 2012.
Since then Mike has been hard at work recruiting new church planters for SGM. He’s trying hard to drum up business in an effort to replace all the churches that will leave in the coming months. Churches are the cash cow for SGM. They are expected to give 10% of their income to SGM. Many churches have stopped giving and so have thousands of individuals throughout the movement. Revenues have crashed. People, pastors and churches no longer trust SGM or believe in SGM for good and evident reasons.
On Monday, Mike posted Understanding Sovereign Grace Ministries tool. Here is an excerpt.
"Understanding Sovereign Grace Ministries is a tool designed as an introduction to the doctrines and practices that characterize Sovereign Grace Ministries. The nine units include 21 sections that explain our primary beliefs and doctrinal emphases. The condensed version of the course summarizes each of the nine units in one section. Each section includes content, recommended resources for study, and application questions. The sermons and books listed under each section provide the body of teaching that has helped define our family of churches over the years, and contain a wealth of material for further study. This tool should prove helpful for individuals and ministries who desire to become more oriented toward Sovereign Grace Ministries."
I’ve pasted part of section 16 on the “Portrait of Pastoral Leadership” below.  Of course we know whose portrait comes up when you do a search under this heading. He’s a skinny guy with squinty eyes and a bald head. This same individual has lived in flagrant disregard of this portrait and much of its essential content.
Essential Content:
(1) Keeping a close watch on your life and doctrine is the biblical charge to all leaders of the church.
(2) 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 present nonnegotiable qualifications for leadership in the church. Godly character is prominent in these texts.
(3) Godly leadership accents humility and servanthood, as well as courage and fear of God. Leaders are called by God to model godly character.
(4) Family life is a key area of character. A pastor’s wife and children are his first leadership obligation.
(5) Mutual accountability and transparency on the pastoral team are essential parts of leadership.
(6) Things that can disqualify a leader in the church include family failure, pride, lack of discipline, and deficient gifting.
(7) The leader must continue to study and grow in his knowledge of God’s Word, and in his application of it to his life and the lives of others (1 Timothy 4:15).
(8) Because the pastor is a steward, the measure of successful leadership is faithfulness to God’s Word.
(9) Pastoral responsibilities to the church include feeding the flock by preaching and teaching God’s Word, leading the flock with discernment, protecting the flock against false teaching and harmful people, caring for the flock, and equipping the flock for works of ministry.
Personal Application Questions:
(1) Describe the evaluation you have received from others to determine if you meet the character qualifications for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9. What areas are most likely to disqualify you?
(2) How is a shepherd’s love for God’s people evident in your life? How can you grow in developing a greater care for people?
(3) Who are the people in your life that are up to date on your current struggles and challenges? What sort of things are you most tempted to hide from others for the sake of your reputation?

SGM-Mahaneygate: First SGM Community to Secede (Charlottesville, VA)

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/7/25/news-alert-redeemer-church-of-charlottesville-va-first-to-le.html


The following joint statement was sent out yesterday to all the SGM pastors.
July 24, 2012

A Joint Statement: Redeemer Church of Charlottesville, VA and Sovereign Grace Ministries

We want to let you know that Redeemer Church of Charlottesville has decided to end their association with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Though saddened by this news, we are supportive of their decision. We are very grateful for the humble and careful way they have worked through this and the peaceable and respectful way we have been able to discuss our differences. But mostly, we are grateful for the long relationship we have had with Keith Breault. He continues to be a man whom we love and respect. We wish him, his leadership team, and Redeemer Church great blessings and success in the future. Though separating in formal association, we are not separated in mutual affection, mutual respect, and mutual passion to see God glorified through gospel-centered local churches.

Below is a letter from Keith explaining this separation from their perspective.

##

I’m writing on behalf of Redeemer Church of Charlottesville to inform you that on July 9th we separated from SGM.

As you can imagine, this decision was difficult for every member of our leadership team and for many in our church -- who have a long history with SGM. We have enjoyed a rich partnership with SGM and thank God for the ways in which we have been trained, strengthened and fed through this wonderful group of believers. The relationships we’ve forged within SGM over the years are some of the dearest we possess, and we hope changing our affiliation won’t alter the deep fellowship God has wrought and nurtured.

Over the past year, we have been watching events unfold while simultaneously planting this new church in Charlottesville. Naturally, we have been evaluating SGM’s leadership in light of how it corresponds with our own priorities and values. “Consistent divergence” describes the dynamic between SGM’s leadership and our own instincts and convictions. We love the people of SGM and we love the leaders of SGM, but differences in some key areas make peaceful departure our best option.

This decision and its rationale were expressed in detail to SGM by letter on July 9, with our commitment to uphold respect and goodwill. In phone calls the following day with C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, and Mickey Connolly -- and a conference call Thursday between Mickey and our leadership team -- we exchanged expressions of mutual encouragement and respect for our varied perspectives. We also exchanged commitments to conduct this transition peaceably, with the Gospel in mind, wishing each other maximum joy and fruitfulness as we all continue to follow Jesus.

Thank you for your friendship and support throughout our years of SGM partnership. We invite your prayers as we continue spreading the Gospel in Charlottesville.

With our brotherly love, in Christ
Keith Breault

##

Five Observations

1. It Took Courage to Separate
  • “I’m writing on behalf of Redeemer Church of Charlottesville to inform you that on July 9th we separated from SGM.” (Keith Breault)
  • This took courage and it is a big deal especially since Keith has been a poster boy for SGM for a long time. Furthermore, he wrote this letter to the SGM pastors. There are serious relational implications (or ramifications). Keith and the men around him have little idea what life is like outside of SGM. Others churches will leave SGM and join them but it is still a frightful prospect. What’s best about the decision is it was based upon principle. Keith, Steve Patterson, the other leaders and church are to be commended.
2. The Only Way to Get C.J.’s Attention
  • “In phone calls the following day with C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, and Mickey Connolly -- and a conference call Thursday between Mickey and our leadership team -- we exchanged expressions of mutual encouragement and respect for our varied perspectives.” (Keith Breault)
  • Drastic action is the only way to get C.J.’s, Dave’s and Mickey’s attention. They are unresponsive to correction or criticism until there are negative consequences that affect them. Then you get immediate attention. That’s the way it was with me. Only when I indicated that I planned to share my documents with the SGM pastors did C.J. promise to confess his sins, address my charges of deceit, and provide a thorough response to my writings. That’s the way it’s been in countless situations. You are ignored or rebuffed like Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax until there are negative repercussions for SGM. Then they will negotiate with you. The day after C.J., Dave and Mickey received Keith’s letter they were on the phone. Damage control began immediately. They did not want the details of Keith’s July 9th letter getting out! Last Thursday, Mickey expressed “mutual encouragement and respect for our varied perspectives” because Keith and the leadership team agreed those “varied perspectives” would not be aired in public. 
3. They Evaluated SGM’s Leadership
  • “Over the past year, we have been watching events unfold while simultaneously planting this new church in Charlottesville. Naturally, we have been evaluating SGM’s leadership in light of how it corresponds with our own priorities and values. “Consistent divergence” describes the dynamic between SGM’s leadership and our own instincts and convictions. We love the people of SGM and we love the leaders of SGM, but differences in some key areas make peaceful departure our best option. We love the people of SGM and we love the leaders of SGM, but differences in some key areas make peaceful departure our best option.” (Keith Breault)
  • This is the most important paragraph. Keith and the leadership team have been evaluating [i.e. doing some godly judging] the actions and decisions of SGM leaders for a year. Thank God! Based upon this evaluation they observed a “consistent divergence” between their “priorities and values” and those of C.J., Dave, Mickey and other SGM leaders. Also between their “instincts and convictions” and those of C.J., Dave, Mickey and other SGM leaders. They should openly define these priorities, values, instincts, convictions and differences in key areas instead of remaining silent.
4. SGM Supportive of Decision to Leave
  • “Though saddened by this news, we are supportive of their decision. We are very grateful for the humble and careful way they have worked through this and the peaceable and respectful way we have been able to discuss our differences…. He continues to be a man whom we love and respect.” (C.J., Dave, Mickey, et. al)
  • The only reason SGM is “supportive of their decision” to leave is because of the confidentiality agreement agreed to by Keith and the leadership team. As a result, Keith “continues to be a man whom we love and respect.” If Keith exposed SGM this positive assessment would change immediately! If you want the commendation of SGM you must be willing to conceal their faults and agree to their terms. If you speak openly and honestly about the serious problems that exist in SGM you will be hammered.
5. Exchanging Commitments
  • “This decision and its rationale were expressed in detail to SGM by letter on July 9, with our commitment to uphold respect and goodwill…. We also exchanged commitments to conduct this transition peaceably, with the Gospel in mind, wishing each other maximum joy and fruitfulness as we all continue to follow Jesus.” (Keith Breault)
  • I’m glad Keith and his leadership team expressed their rationale for leaving in detail to SGM but they should also be willing to do the same in public. They need to disturb the peace (not keep an ungodly peace) and call for C.J.’s, Dave’s and Mickey’s repentance “with the Gospel in mind.” That is the only thing that will result in “maximum joy and fruitfulness” for them as individuals and for SGM as an organization. This capitulation won them the support of SGM but lost them favor in the sight of God. I hope other churches follow the example of Redeemer Church of Charlottesville in leaving SGM. I hope no one follows their example in not openly calling for repentance, confession, and restitution like we find throughout the Bible. Keith and the leadership team should post the detailed letter they sent C.J., Dave and Mickey on July 9. That would do far greater good then simply separating from SGM in silence!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Un-Presbyterianizing Presbyterians and Un-Reforming the Reformed

This has been a long time in coming, that is, the un-Presbyterianizing of Presbyterians, the un-Reforming of the Reformed, and un-Confessionalizing of Confessional Churchmen and the Baptyerian/Baptacostalist conquest. No surprises, it's the legacy of Ligon Duncan, Rick Phillips, Alliance of (Non) Confessing Evangelicals, Ref21, John Frame, Vern Pothress, Pete Lillback, Westminster-Philadelphia, R.C. Sproul Sr., and—quite principally—Ligonier Ministries.   ACE and Ligonier lost it years ago.


What happened to popular Presbyterianism? Boice, Ferguson, Sproul, Frame


Somehow "Reformed" today (2012) is more associated with Baptists (or Baptistic folks)


Written by Anthony Bradley, The Institute | Monday, June 25, 2012

In the 1980s and 1990s when I was first introduced to Reformed theology three names dominated the seen were James Montgomery Boice (Senior Minister at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia), Sinclair Ferguson who was teaching full-time at the time at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and R.C. Sproul. They are all Presbyterians. In those days “Calvinism”/”Reformed” and Presbyterian were synonyms.

Something happened, however. The Presbyterians lost their voice some would say and I’m not sure how to explain how that happened. Somehow “Reformed” today (2012) is more associated with Baptists (or Baptistic folks) D.A. Carson, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll.

How did this shift happen? How did the Presbyterians lose their popularity in Reformed America? I’d love your thoughts, insights, and perspective on how that happened. I’m not an historian nor am I familiar with all of the movements in all of the circles that now claim to be “Calvinist” so your thoughts are very helpful!

Can you all help me figure this out? How would you explain the shift? All insights welcomed! Thanks in advance!!! (And yes, this is for a project I’m working on)

(Editor’s Note: We have included the responses from Sunday. We encourage our readers to go the source link (at the end of this posting) and continue the discussion on Anthony’s blog)

James Adams


I think there are several reasons. The most obvious is that John Piper was prominent speaker at the Passion events over the past decade, and a number of young evangelicals, particularly Baptists, discovered their theological vision from his influence, in conferences and books. These young evangelicals are now leaders in the church planting movement, prominent young pastors, or seminary professors. Since they are prominent, the evangelical publishers vigorously promote their books and they and their influence continues.

It is interesting that this brand of “Calvinism” is not a unified Calvinistic vision, as in Kuyper, but is centered on soteriology and missions. I don’t know what to make of this but this could be a reason for the popularity of “baptistic calvinists”, due to their heavy emphasis on missions and evangelism.

Scott F. Oaklna


I think it is basically due to Piper et al’s access to baptistic evangelicalism, which has a much larger reach. It’s ironic that, with all of their numbers and heavyweights in their own right, they were unable to keep me baptistic, and as a result, I’ve been Presbyterian for two years now and never looked back.

Joel Hamernick


Prior to the “Gospel Coalition” and “Together for the Gospel” there was a Boice led conference called “The Philadelphia Conference for Reformed Theology” PCRT. (We hosted one of the sites at our church in Chicago). It then led to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (still hosting this conference).

PCRT did have Baptists, Lutherans and Anglicans, but the primary movers and shakers were Presbyterians. It was not marketed as well, nor attended as well, but was the for-runner. Michael Horton was also an annual part of the conference.

During those years the Dispensationalism-Reformed battles raged. That kept Presbyterians from having too many open Baptist friends and Reformed Baptists hush-hush in large sections of American Evangelicalism. In the same way that Jeb Bush said that Reagan wouldn’t be a welcome part of current Republican circles, Tim Keller and others would not have been a welcome part to MANY in the battle ground years.

GC and TGC have allowed a more vigorous dialogue about the gospel and given a platform for that reformed stance on the gospel to come equally easily from a Baptist or Presbyterian position. (Something virtually impossible in the PCRT format)

Now the Disp-Ref battles are mostly a thing of the past; leaving a comfortable middle ground of discussion. The rise of Crossway books and its ESV with Reformed influences a part of the common dialogue of Evangelicals.

At the end of the day there are simply far more Baptists in the US and many of them have been significantly influenced by Piper, Keller, Stott, Carson and many others in such a way as to move away from strident dispensationalism toward a gospel centered theology.

Take that as a stab in the dark from my vantage point.

Pete Scribner


I’m no historian and may be completely off base, but here’s my guess:

I think you may have a flawed assumption that Presbyterians have lost their popularity to Baptists. My guess is that it’s not a matter of Reformed people becoming Baptists, but of Baptists becoming Reformed (at least in their soteriology). My guess is that Presbyterians like Sproul are actually as (more?) popular as ever in general…they just haven’t had the same level of growth as the YRR Baptists.

Job Dalomba


My perspective is that the SBC the largest denomination in the USA seems to be reflective of the evangelical world. Lifeway Book Store is a SBC run entity. If you review the theological history of the SBC, it’s pretty reflective of evangelicals in general. When the SBC went through its liberal period, much of the prominent preachers in the evangelical world were not reformed. As the Conservative Resurgence happened, the most visible leaders were non reformed evangelicals mainly, Adrian Rogers. As congregants, young pastors and seminary students looked towards the popular writers; they are getting teaching that in many ways was anti reformed. Add to the fact that the Internet hadn’t boomed and the constant sense of evangelistic/missions zeal in evangelical life with a lack of “Calvinistic” pastors who emphasized evangelism and missions and the evangelical culture heads into a non-reformed direction.

Let me wrap it up and say this:
The reformed resurgence has mainly been about soteriology and it seems that the Calvinists have won the day on it in this time in history. Why has it won? Because it answering the evangelistic/mission question that many want: Who saves people? The answer that many have always believed and finally have substance to is God and now they have latched onto reformed soteriology, which best answers the question evangelicals seem to care most about: How does someone go to heaven?

Kenneth Harrell (via Anthony Bradley)

This is From Kenneth Harrell who wrote this on my Facebook Wall: “Anthony, I think that the answer is very simple though so little regarded; while Presbyterians have always been the best scholars among the orthodox Protestants and perhaps always will be, Baptists have always been better preachers.

My point here is that if the average person based their acceptance of Reformed theology on what they heard across the pulpit rather than what they read, the Baptists will always be more popular. I think it is because Baptist preaching is a little more applicable to the actual lives of its adherents. For instance, for all of the robust discussions about the nature of sin and its devastating consequences in Presbyterian circles, these discussions usually end with an acknowledgement of our need for God’s grace and our need to accept and understand the all sufficiency of Christ as a remedy for the sin in our lives.

Baptists take it a step further and come as close to actually naming particular sins as you will get in the Reformed tradition and have an expectation that true believers will actually depart from such iniquity. While church discipline is important for both Baptist and Presbyterian traditions, Baptist preaching sets the parameters for that discipline more explicitly than Presbyterian preaching does. Finally Particular Baptists are more open to the extraordinary work on the Holy Spirit in ways that make Presbyterians uncomfortable.

Generally speaking Reformed Baptists lean towards New Divinity Jonathan Edwards style and against the anti Revivalism of the old school Princeton theology and its legitimate successors. As a result they often see no contradiction in articulating a Calvinistic soteriology while allowing and sometimes encouraging practices in the Revivalistic Evangelical tradition. This is more in line with how American Christians think and feel and resonates with them in a way that Presbyterianism fails to do so.

of us are attracted to the intellectual vitality of the Reformed tradition. Most of us were introduced to it through contact with the Reformed Anglicans such as Ryle, Packer and Stott and by Presbyterianism. Most us soon left them behind once we were introduced to the experimental piety of the Puritans, Edwards and particular Lloyd-Jones. In my case reading the Puritans, Edwards and Lloyd-Jones sent me back to my own tradition which started with John Wesley. I realized after tremendous soul searching that I was not Reformed by conviction but by desire to have an intellectually stimulating faith.

I am now comfortable in my Classical Pentecostal skin. Most of my dear friends, however, have discovered after the same reading that they are indeed Reformed but need an outlet for more emotional worship and an emphasis on historically rooted spiritual disciplines. For them the Reformed Baptists are the best of both worlds, heady and stimulating but also warm in the heart. My point is the popularity of the Baptists should take no one by surprise; Presbyterianism was a worthy schoolmaster pointing the way to the Particular Baptist tradition. Anthony and anyone else, would love to hear your thoughts on my contention.”

Chris Holdridge


Here’s an anecdotal response–you can interpret. When I was at the Desiring God conference of 2006-”The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World,” during Driscoll’s talk he made a comment about having to get rid of all the crazy baby baptizers in his young church before it could grow. I then realized, as a Presbyterian, that things weren’t what I thought they were. Not that I want to hold that remark against Driscoll, but this was one of the largest gatherings of “calvinists” around and that comment just disappeared in the air.

TC

I am an African-American southern Baptist. As a college student in the 90′s, l was looking for a campus ministry that taught the Word of God with depth and didn’t feel like a shallow youth group. For me, RUF was that ministry. I learned about Christ in all of Scripture, allowing your faith to inform every area of your life. That experience completely changed how I view my faith. It had the same effect on many of fellow students.

Chris Holdridge


I would also suggest that perhaps Presbyterian polity and ecclesiology are a little more rigorous and that aspect doesn’t necessarily attract Americans. Even in my PCA church there are folks that complain and yawn when we talk about presbytery, etc.

Tag Tuck

Everybody wants good covenantal theology, but they don’t want to baptize no babies! (So they don’t want to be *too* covenantal.)

Abraham

Fascinating, especially the contribution from Kenneth Harrell. My basic explanation would be that the Baptists won the internet.

Anthony Bradley is an Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics at The King’s College, NYC. This commentary is taken from Bradley’s blog, The Institute and is used with permission of the author. To join the comment stream with your own thoughts, click on The Institute link.


Baptacostal Hillbilly Mahaney Re-Ascends to Episcopal Monarchy



The Baptacostalist Hillbilly, C. J. Mahaney, survives and his hand-selected and sovereign Board returns Mahaney to permanency on the same board.  We are not, in the least, surprised by a breakdown in a relationship between Mahaney and Harvey, the hapless and troubled Board member who governed SGM during Mahaney’s temporary exile.  Further, the relationship between Mahaney and Harris is over too.  Mahaney embodies the attributes, en toto, of a classical narcissist under the DSM-IV.  Anywho, here’s the latest on the Hillbilly.  The non-Confessional Baptyerians love him, as do other Ana


Thursday

Jun 28, 2012

A Divided Board Makes C.J. Mahaney Long Term President


Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 3:19PM

To the SGM Board of Directors:

John Loftness (Chairman), Paul Buckley (Vice Chairman), Ron Boomsma, Craig Cabaniss, Ian McConnell, Mickey Connolly, Ken Mellinger, Al Pino, Phil Sasser

You need to be honest with the SGM pastors and churches regarding your vote in Annapolis last month to return C.J. as the permanent President of SGM. You made this decision without their input or knowledge. You must also tell them a majority were in favor but a minority were opposed like Paul and Ian.

Furthermore, you must make known that the majority prepared a false statement for public release saying there was unanimity on C.J.’s return but this did not occur because the minority opposed such a deceitful statement pledging to go public and correct the misinformation if released.

This is not a new occurrence. The same kind of deceitful activity occurred with the interim Board when they presented decisions as unanimous when in fact it was not the case. Craig and former Board Members like Aron Osborne and Pete Greasley will tell you so if they are honest. Contact them.

You should also know that C.J. and Dave have had a falling out because C.J. feels Dave did not defend him adequately and did not denounce me, Larry Tomczak, etc. more harshly. It is a sad fact that most of you don’t know about this breakdown in relationship. I’ve encourage Dave to be honest with you and not allow C.J.’s mistreatment of him to go unaddressed. It is a continuation of the sinful patterns in C.J.’s life already identified and acknowledged.

You should also know that C.J. and Ken Sande have had a falling out. Ken confronted C.J. on his deceit, etc. and C.J. sinfully reacted by effectively dumping Ken as a friend and counselor. Their relationship is fractured but C.J. has not informed you of this reality either. Therefore, contact Ken since you are responsible for C.J.’s measuring C.J.’s grow in grace. As I’ve said many times, if you correct, disagree, or oppose C.J. in any significant way you will suffer for it. Scores and scores of leaders have experience this harsh reality over the last 30 years.

You need to provide much more accountability for the Leadership Team. For instance, Board Members don’t know how or if Dave Harvey’s responsibilities have been cut back so he can get his priorities right and focus on his family. This was your responsibility to define. And Board Members don’t know if Dave has made changes in managing his family or how each of his children are doing? There has been no accountability from the Board and yet the issues in Dave’s family are ever so serious.

Or how about compensation packages? It is not encouraging that Board Members don’t know what C.J.’s salary and benefits are at this point in time. That should have been divulged and discussed already. So too a reduction in salaries and benefits for all the Leadership Team since the cost of living is lower in Louisville. Why has this gone unaddressed?

Last July, Tommy Hill promised me all of this would be addressed by AoR in their report. It was not. You need to release the new compensation packages for the Leadership Team. People should see the new numbers in comparison to the old numbers so they know the Board is serious about addressing excesses and walking in the light with its donors.

Lastly, what has C.J. (and other leaders in SGM) specifically done to implement the recommendations from the Three Panel Reviews last December and the AoR report from April? I don’t know of any attempts to follow up with anyone in my large relational network. There have been no attempts at reconciliation to my knowledge. You must chart C.J.’s efforts and give occasional reports on his progress. The same is true for all executive employees of SGM (e.g. Bob Kauflin) and former employees (e.g. Gene Emerson). There must be accountability because C.J. has a long history of ignoring recommendations or assignments given to him for reform and reconciliation.

Please let me know you will address all these matters in a forthright way. In particular when will you inform SGM that you have already voted to reinstall C.J. as the permanent President of SGM and deceitfully planned to put out a public relations message that was untrue.

Regards,

Brent

Post Script

I literally finished writing my last sentence when I received your post, "Board Update: Defining Sovereign Grace Leadership; Positioning C.J. Mahaney as President."

Let me quickly respond to this one statement.

“As we take these steps, it is important for you to know of the Board’s strong endorsement of C.J. to continue in this role of President. C.J. was the object of an enormous amount of gossip and slander during this past year, and that has damaged his reputation, undermined his ability to lead, and created an atmosphere of suspicion in some quarters of our family of churches…. This comprehensive process has clearly confirmed C.J.’s fitness to lead and his exceptional character as he has graciously endured major trials.”

As a Board you continue to act on your own. Even this release of information was forced upon you because the word was getting out to SGM pastors that you made a decision for C.J. to return as President two weeks ago without their knowledge and without their input. This press release is a piece of damage control. How can you make a secret decision to install C.J. as the long term President when C.J. promised he would only return as the short term President and not enter into discussion with the SGM pastors before doing so. Your independence is incredulous. You don’t want their input or their accountability.

You also continue to lie. You know there was not unanimous support for C.J.’s return as President when you voted at the June 11-14 retreat in Annapolis! You conceal that in this communique instead of being honest and telling everyone the Board was divided. Instead, you followed through on your deceitful presentation that the Board was united in this decision. The hardline majority persuaded the soft minority to go along with the ruse even though men like Paul and Ian promised to expose it. Unbelievable! No one should trust any of you. This is just more SGM spin and deceit.

Furthermore, you are completely mistaken when you say C.J. was “the object of an enormous amount of gossip and slander.” That is without foundation. I’ve been his main accuser and everything I’ve written is rooted and grounded in fact. Show me where I’ve made a point without providing evidence? That is why you didn’t allow me to present my case against C.J. before objective jurors and threw together the corrupt Three Panel Review where my participation was block and confined. There has been no comprehensive review of C.J. or SGM as you assert. My charges have never been heard or evaluated. C.J. is not the object of gossip and slander; he is the object of countless witnesses whose testimony is right and true. He should not be a sr. pastor let alone the President of SGM.

You have now drawn a line in the sand. You dismiss churches with concerns for C.J. when you say gossip and slander “created an atmosphere of suspicion [regarding C.J.] in some quarters of our family of churches.” That is so bogus. What has been created is an atmosphere of godly discernment pertaining to C.J.s long standing patterns of serious sin against many people. It is just like you as SGM to silence pastors and churches by labeling them “suspicious” when all they are doing is asking hard questions (which you and C.J. won’t answer), requiring genuine accountability and calling for personal and corporate reform. Once again you play the gossip and slander card in order to disparage critics and prevent them from knowing the truth or speaking the truth. You love to censure people and control their lives while you protect the guilty.

As a Board it is clear from this statement today that you are committed to castigate people instead of listening to people – pastors included. You express no concerns for C.J., yourselves or SGM in this post. None. You focus all your attention on the supposed evils of others. Nothing has changed. The SGM elite remain superior to all others and therefore blame everyone else while you totally vindicate C.J. You present C.J. as the victim rather than the victimizer – as the abused rather than the abuser. You have it all backwards.

Like the old and interim Boards (with the exception of Joshua Harris) you’ve determined to take no responsibility for the systematic problems that exist in SGM and especially its top leaders. Only those leaders and churches who leave the movement in the days ahead have really learned from the past. No one should accept C.J. as President on the basis of his character but also because he is breaking his firm promise not to return in this capacity. His determined decision was based upon the counsel of many other leaders, his own limitations in gifting, and his primary calling as a pastor and preacher. You skip over all his past statements about why he would not return as President. As we know so well, it is nothing for C.J. to go back on his word. I think of his three promises to provide a thorough response to my documents and his promise to make a confession to the SGM pastors at the Pastors Conference last year. He breaks promises as quickly as he makes promises. Here are his words.

“In light of all of this, here is how I think I can best serve you in the days ahead: as I step back into the role as president, I will do so only temporarily. I think it would be wise for SGM to have a new president who has gifts better suited to serve Sovereign Grace in this next season…. After supporting the [interim] board through these important transitions, I hope to return to what I believe is my primary calling from God – pastoral ministry and the pulpit. This plays a significant role in why my return as president is temporary. Let me explain. I think preaching and pastoral ministry are where grace is most evident in my life and where my leadership is most effectively expressed. Others seem to agree. And I think I have neglected this call to preach for a number of years as I have endeavored to serve as president. Over the past five years many faithful friends have brought this concern to my attention and impressed upon me the importance of preaching as a primary means of my serving and leading. However moved I was by their concerns and encouragement, the many responsibilities of the presidential role would quickly preoccupy me again and the effect of their counsel would subside. Over the past six months I have seen more clearly than ever the wisdom of their counsel. So I think the most effective way I can serve Sovereign Grace is by planting a church and leading a local congregation through faithful expository preaching and teaching…. I simply can’t wait to get started. And I can proceed into this future confidently when our new board and president are in place. So that is what I am returning to do and why my return as president will be temporary.” (C.J. Mahaney, A note to those in Sovereign Grace Ministries, Ja

The fact remains that C.J. is disqualified from ministry in the sight of God and in light of holy Scripture. No one in the history of SGM has ever been treated with such favoritism. Ed Keinath from AoR told people he and Ted Kober were gravely concerned for the “blind loyalty” shown C.J. They had each of you in mind.

I wasn’t planning on posting my initial correspondence above but it is now necessary to do so. I’ve also include my email to Dave Harvey from this morning.

From: Brent Detwiler [mailto:abrentdetwiler@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:48 AM
To: Dave Harvey
Subject: Falling Out with C.J.
Importance: High

Hello Dave,

I’ve been told about the break down in your relationship with C.J. because he feels you did not defend him adequately and did not denounce me, Larry T, etc. more harshly. This comes as no surprise. You need to bring this to the immediate attention of the entire Board to whom you and C.J. are now accountable. Be honest with them. Don’t cover up for C.J. Put an end to the enablement. You must tell the Board about this mistreatment of you. Dave, you know full well that nothing has changed with C.J. Your assessment and my assessment from 2004 are as relevant today.

Dave’s Assessment

To correct CJ, or to challenge his own self-perception, was to experience a reaction through e-mails, consistent disagreement (without seeking to sufficiently understand), a lack of sufficient follow-up and occasionally, relational withdrawal. Along with this, CJ was poor in volunteering areas of sin, temptation or weakness in himself.

Brent’s Assessment

1.     Can become resentful, distrustful or withdraw when he feels misunderstood, judged, or sinned against by others.

2.     Can judge or prematurely come to conclusions about others based on limited or incomplete information.

3.     When correcting or disagreeing can communicate his assessment or perspective too strongly or categorically.

4.     Can lack gentleness and not perceive the unhelpful effect of his words, actions or decisions upon an individual.

5.     Can be difficult to correct and help because he often disagrees with or has a different perspective on illustrations.

6.     Infrequently makes us aware of specific sins or the correction others are bringing to him.

I have little hope you and C.J. will be transparent with the Board. I imagine this will be glossed over and made to sound like a trifle when it is serious. Please turn the corner on a new lease in life but doing what is right.

Regards,

Brent


Thursday, May 10, 2012

Reformed Seminary, Orlando, FL Sells its Reformed Soul

          What’s the matter with Reformed Theological Seminary?  Does “Reformed” mean anything?  Confessionally?  The Westminster standards?  The Belgic Confession? The Scots Confession?  The Thirty-nine Articles?  This new move strongly suggests the “dumbing down” of Confessional commitments.
          Justin Taylor, John Piper, Acts 29 and Evangelical Free Churchmen at RTS?  Will Al Mohler establish “An Institute for Reformed Studies” at Southern (SBC) Seminary, Lexington, KY?  Will John Piper establish “An Institute for Confessional Anglican Studies” at his seminary in Bethlehem, MN?  John MacArthur frankly stated that he sought involvement with Ligonier Ministries to demonstrate that "Baptists were Reformed."  These parasites on Reformed studies proceed unilaterally and never bilaterally.
The Rev. Dr. Roger
Nicole, 1915-2010.
          The Rev. Dr. Roger Nicole was a family friend. He was kind, educated, humane, always a bit of a quiet jokester, and warm-hearted.  Was he a Christian?  He was pre-eminently Christian.  Why, of course.  Was he beloved?  Indeed and, in fact, more so than a good many crabbed Calvinists, especially the theonomic types...from such we pray, "Good Lord, deliver us!"  However, having said these few things about Dr. Nicole, he sinned by day and by night with his Anabaptistic errors.  As Robert Frost noted, "fences make for good neighbors."  Regrettably, American NAPARCers increasingly appear to have no fences and their Confessions are optional nice-to-haves, as needed now and then. 
            Further, RTS has now endorsed Anabaptist studies and must, of necessity, redefine their alleged Reformed Confessional commitments.   RTS, like Ligon Duncan and others, is suitably called Baptyerian.  Frankly, it is probably about market-share, finances, and advertising. 
Details Announced for the Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies at RTS/Orlando
April 3, 2012
          Reformed Theological Seminary is pleased to announce the opening of The Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies on its Orlando campus for the 2012-13 academic year. The Nicole Institute was named in honor of Dr. Roger Nicole, renowned Reformed Baptist theologian who was a visiting faculty member on the Orlando campus from 1989-2000. He was part of a generation of scholars that led a renaissance of American evangelicalism in the mid-twentieth century. Dr. Nicole has long been regarded as one of the preeminent evangelical systematic theologians in North America.
          This institute provides Baptist and baptistic students the opportunity to learn the riches of Reformed theology and piety while also developing a robust Baptist vision of the church and its ministry. As such, it furthers the on-going mission of RTS: to prepare leaders for the church who are marked with “a mind for truth, and a heart for God.” The institute was approved last spring by the executive committee of the board of RTS.
          In announcing the institute’s launch, RTS Orlando President, Don Sweeting said, “RTS is unique as a seminary in that it is a non-denominational, yet confessional theological seminary that seeks to serve churches in all branches of evangelical Christianity. The Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies will be an important part of our campus in training pastors and leaders for the global 21st century church.”
          There are four primary aspects of this institute:
1) The M.Div. track substitute courses along with occasional electives
2) Campus visits by several Baptist pastors each year to interact with students about ministry
3) A Spurgeon Lectureship held biannually on campus
4) Mentoring partner churches at which these students could serve
          The speaker for the inaugural Spurgeon Lectureship will be Dr. John Piper, popular author and pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in the Minneapolis area. The lecture, which is open to the public, will be Wednesday evening, April 10, 2013, on the RTS Orlando campus. Dr. Piper will speak on “The Life and Ministry of Charles Spurgeon.”
          “To have John Piper speak on Spurgeon,” commented Sweeting, “well, it doesn’t get any better than that. And we are thrilled with the guest faculty who will be with us for the opening of the Nicole Institute.”
          RTS Orlando has posted the schedule for the initial core courses of the institute, which includes:
          • Baptist Confessions (January 14-18, 2013) will be the first class offered in     the January term and taught by Dr. Tom Nettles of the Southern Baptist       Theological Seminary. This class is a survey of the major Baptist   confessions and their Reformed backgrounds.
          • Baptist Theology of Ministry (January 6-10, 2014) will be taught the   following January term by Dr. Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in         Cape Coral, Fla. and founder of the Baptist Founder’s Movement. The         course seeks to familiarize students with different paradigms of Baptist ministry while promoting a Reformed Baptist understanding of the primacy of the church.
          • Baptist Polity (January 13-17, 2014) will be taught by Dr. Samuel        Waldron, currently on faculty at Midwest Center for Theological Studies and          pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, Ky. This course surveys        different approaches to polity in Baptist life and seeks to promote a   distinctively Reformed Baptist governance that is both biblical and practical.
          • Baptist History (February 21-22, 2014) will be taught by Dr. Michael   Haykin of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is a survey of   Baptist history from its English roots to present day American expressions.
          The interim director of the Nicole Institute is Baptist pastor Andy Aikens, RTS Orlando alumnus and pastor of Grace Community Church in St. Cloud. Commenting on the institute Aikens said, “Ever since my days as a student under Dr. Nicole, I have dreamed of a more focused ministry to the Baptist students attending RTS. To that end, we have assembled some of the best Reformed Baptist pastors, theologians and historians to teach in this program. In addition, we are enlisting gifted Reformed Baptist, independent, Acts 29, Evangelical Free and other pastors to mentor incoming students. Join us as we seek to encourage and strengthen our Baptist and independent churches across Florida, the US, and around the world.”

          Others have commended the new institute as well. “When I first heard about the inauguration of The Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies, my heart leapt,” says Nicole biographer Dr. David W. Bailey, author of Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole. “Reformed students in the Baptist tradition will now have the advantages of an RTS education coupled with an emphasis on their own historical and doctrinal distinctives. Dr. Nicole loved Reformed Theological Seminary, and he loved Baptist students. Naming the institute for this beloved father in the faith is a testament to the Seminary's enduring commitment to produce graduates who, like Roger Nicole, have 'a mind for truth, and a heart for God.’”
          RTS students such as Justin Taylor, well-known Gospel Coalition blogger, are equally as excited: “I thank God for the education I have receive at RTS, and I am thrilled at the launch of The Nicole Institute of Baptist Studies.”
          More information about the Nicole Institute can be found by going to the website: www.rts.edu/orlando/nibs.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Jeremy Walker of Ref21: A Recommendation for Lent

Here is an example of several things: (1) Rash Puritanizers, such as this Particular Baptist...whoever Walker is or thinks he is.  Or, whomever Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals thinks he is.  Walker calls himself a "Reformed Baptist" which is Anabaptism with predestination and a few add-ons.(2) As per the below, brash talk that evinces little decency, quietness, moderation, charity towards others and the biblicality of the Prayer Book tradition.  Has Walker no temperate decency or moderation of language?  (3) More evidence of the Baptyerianism of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, not to mention the Baptacostalist Pope of Sovereign Grace Ministries, Sir C.J. Mahaney, a board member.  (4)  Reformed Anglicanism recommends that Walker, in fact, take up reticence, not just for Lent but on wider occasions.  His language is rather brash and unacceptable.  If this is his style and content of communication, we reject him out-of-hand and hands-down.  Mr. Walker, take up "reticence during Lent" for the sake of others.   

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/03/this-lent-i-am-giving-up-retic.php

This Lent I am giving up . . . reticence

Posted by

I will make no bones about it: I am an Old World (for which please read 'continental European') Christian, of Puritan inclination, and a Dissenter - specifically, a Particular or Reformed Baptist. That means several things. By conviction and heritage I belong to those who left the Anglican communion as a matter of conscience, sick of its halfway reformation and unwilling to conform to the general shabbiness and unscriptural demands of the Act of Uniformity. My conscience with regard to the extra-Biblical trappings of mere religiosity is tender. My attachment to simplicity of worship as a gathered church is sincere. I am sensitive to those doctrines and practices over which my forefathers spent their energies and shed their tears and sometimes their blood, both from within and then from without the established folds of their day. I see things with an awareness tuned by walking the streets, graveyards and memorials of men and women who suffered and sometimes died for conscience' sake.

Out of such an atmosphere I cannot help but be sickened by the seeming obsession with Lent and Easter at this time of year, and Christmas at the end of the year. Please do not misunderstand me: conscience also demands that - where the cultural vestiges of a more religious society patterned to some extent on the significant events of the life of Christ provide for it - I take every legitimate opportunity to make Christ known. If an ear is even half-opened by circumstance, I willingly and cheerfully speak into it, and seek to make of it a door for the gospel. I do not see the point of making a point by not preaching about the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord if some benighted soul wanders into the church with at least some expectation of hearing about his humiliation and exaltation.

But what chills my blood is the unholy elevation of things not mandated by the Word of God. I find it odd that some of the very people who obsess about contextualization and resist 'religion' have swallowed hook, line and sinker the empty traditions of men, that the men who wear Mickey Mouse T-shirts (quite literally) all the year round besides dress in sombre suits every April, telling us with one breath that all of life is worship and so tending to level out our experience and the Biblical rhythms of our relationship with God (especially dismissing the one-day-in-seven pattern established at the first and the new creation), and with the next telling us that this is Holy Week, and we are somehow falling short if we do not build it into some unholy jamboree. Meanwhile, those who trumpet their credentials as the true heirs of the Reformation either seem willing to stop with the house half-clean or seem quite keen to redecorate it with the junk that their more enlightened forefathers were in the process of throwing out (establishing the principles of the matter even if they never quite got round to that corner of the attic themselves).

Whether or not it is a vestige of the Emerging/Emergent appetite for a range of 'spiritualities' or an enthusiasm for an over-ripe liturgical renewal, I cannot say, but I wonder if it is in part a matter of distance both of time and space. This alleged 'recovery' of Lent and Easter is not actually a matter of historical sensitivity and an inheritance regained but of historical unawareness and an inheritance lost. Whether or not it is the high-grade muppetry of entire churches being urged to tattoo one of the stations of the cross on some part of their anatomy, or some gore-drenched re-enactment of the unrepeatable sacrifice, or some spotlit image-fest in which a total insensitivity to physical representations of the Christ - the image of the invisible God - is displayed, or some be-robed priest-figure half a step away from incense and obeisance, it does not come from Scripture and it does not belong in Christ's church. It is a replacement of God's order with man's notions, a disruption of God's regular rhythms of true religion with the unholy syncopation of mortal religiosity. As John Owen somewhere says, where genuine spirituality is substantially absent, men will turn either to fanaticism or to ritual - or perhaps to both - in an attempt to fill the void. Whichever way you sniff at it, and whichever way the wind blows, to the trained nostril it all begins to smell a touch Romish.

But there is a solution. This year there are - if you wish to see it this way - fifty three Easters. Most years there are fifty two. Each is a high and holy day, an opportunity to remember and rejoice in the one thing that the saints of God are commanded to remember and rejoice in: the Lord of Glory - the incarnate Son - who was crucified but who rose again, in whom we live eternally, and for whom we perpetually look with eagerness, our eyes straining for the first glimpse of the one whom not having seen, we love, who will shortly appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Each is a day of sober and grateful remembrance and recollection of his being and his doing. We have our regular (if not all of us a weekly) meal at which we remember the Lord's death until he comes, celebrated usually on the day of resurrection. On these days, putting aside the trappings of the world, we begin the cycle of time on our weekly peak, equipped by communion with God in Christ by the Spirit for the challenges and the opportunities of the days ahead.

Frankly, it seems odd to me that many of those who have proved very quick to abandon all manner of patterns and habits and convictions of Christians over decades or centuries, retain Lent, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter (Resurrection) Sunday as set in stone in the calendar, one of the high points of the Christian year (which pattern, we are informed, provides the central event in the church year - the climax of worship, expectation, and celebration, an exercise of the church's discipline). If you're not sold on Easter, you might be dismissed as one of the "diehard Reformed" for whom "this [Easter] Monday is like every other Monday because Easter Sunday is like every other Sunday." To say that Easter Sunday is like every other Sunday is not to suggest an upgraded view of Easter Sunday but a downgraded view of every other one.

I try not to be a Scrooge (although I cannot help but shed a silent tear that I am now literarily reduced to trying not to be a Grinch, but it's only a silent one and fairly dry, because Dickens' plotting makes many modern soap operas look like masterpieces of restraint and reason). I try not to be whatever is the Easter equivalent of a Scrooge or a Grinch (probably something that destroys bunnies or steals eggs). Again, for the record, I delight in the incarnation, and love to explore the excellence and wonder of Christ's coming into the world. I love to do so at any time of year, and find it grievous that I am sometimes not expected to handle those truths or sing incarnation hymns apart from at the dead of winter. Neither do I for one instant deny the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the only Redeemer of God's elect, in the glorious good news that the church of Christ declares.

But when we are told that this is the time of year when Christians begin to think again about the death and resurrection of Christ, does it not prompt the question of what we are supposed to be doing for the rest of the year? When men speak after their so-called Holy Week of the abating euphoria of the resurrection, surely they are explaining why a merely annual remembrance is insufficient? Christ Jesus is the risen Lord for 365 days of every year (plus the extra one when required), and we have a weekly opportunity for the distinct recollection of his death in an atmosphere conditioned by his resurrection. To flatten the whole year, perhaps rising only to a few unnatural annual peaks, is to miss so much, to lose so many things, to gain so little.

Christ died to set us free from empty things. Men died to liberate us from the rigamarole of unscriptural traditions and man-made routines and performances of religiosity. I hope that you will hear a voice from the blood-washed streets of the Old World, where those battles and the cost of their victory are ground into our consciousness, where the issues and enemies are neither distant nor tame, and where the lines remain clearly drawn in the collective memory of some of the Lord's people, and consider whether or not the prizes so hardly won ought to be so quickly abandoned.

Posted March 13, 2012 @ 7:46 AM by Jeremy Walker