SGM-Mahaneygate: Wartburg's Bio of SGM Co-Defendants & Silence at Gospel Coalition

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/10/22/is-the-gospel-coalition-ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room/

Is The Gospel Coalition Ignoring the Elephant in the Room?

Posted on Mon Oct 22, 2012 by deb

 

 

“There's a phrase, "the elephant in the living room", which purports to describe what it's like to live with a drug addict, an alcoholic, an abuser. People outside such relationships will sometimes ask, "How could you let such a business go on for so many years? Didn't you see the elephant in the living room?" And it's so hard for anyone living in a more normal situation to understand the answer that comes closest to the truth; "I'm sorry, but it was there when I moved in. I didn't know it was an elephant; I thought it was part of the furniture." There comes an aha-moment for some folks – the lucky ones – when they suddenly recognize the difference.”

 

Stephen King

 

African Bush Elephant (Wikipedia)

 

The Gospel Coalition has an impressive website. In addition to the blogs of reformed leaders, the website provides a plethora of information to keep its readership up-to-date on matters that concern them. For example, there is a section on the website with the heading You Should Know where news items are shared. As I compose this post, the latest You Should Know article is:

Billy Graham's Website Removes Mormonism From Cult List

 

As many of our readers know, news broke last week that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Montgomery County, Maryland against Sovereign Grace Ministries and eight other defendants. A vast array of news sources has covered this development, including The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Christian Post, Associated Baptist Press, Christianity Today and even The Guardian in the United Kingdom, just to name a few. Even though the news has gone viral, The Gospel Coalition has failed to inform its readership about a serious matter that involves one of its council members who will be a speaker at 2013 TGC National Conference.
That is why we have added a new feature on the right hand side of our blog. Here it is:

We Wonder…
How long will it take for The Gospel Coalition/Al Mohler/Ligon Duncan/Mark Dever to mention the SGM/Mahaney 'situation?'

---

In a previous post we explained that three young ladies have brought legal action against Sovereign Grace Ministries and eight individual defendants. We were not familiar with all of the names, so we thought it might be helpful to gather a little information on each of them.

When we began investigating Sovereign Grace Ministries back in the fall of 2008, we started with the Wikipedia article. There was so much wrangling over the information in that article that it became almost humorous. Someone would add incriminating information about SGM, then the article would be scrubbed and sanitized. This went back and forth, back and forth, back and forth so many times that the Wikipedia editor became exasperated! If you click on the Wiki link you will see a flag at the top of the article stating that the "neutrality … is disputed".

What follows is information on the eight individuals named as Defendants (in the order that their names appear in the lawsuit).

CHARLES JOSEPH MAHANEY

"is the president of Sovereign Grace Ministries (formerly People of Destiny International or PDI co-founded with Larry Tomczak), a network formed to establish and support local churches, and was one of the founding pastors and leaders of Covenant Life Church, in Gaithersburg, Maryland and presently is the senior pastor of Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville." (link)

GARY RICUCCI

Gary is the brother-in-law of C.J. Mahaney. He is married by C.J.'s sister Betsy. What follows is information from the website of Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville.

Who are the pastors of this church? What are their roles?

Let me begin with the man who has served by my side in various capacities for over 35 years – Gary Ricucci. Gary will serve as an elder of the church and continue to provide pastoral care for those coming to the Pastors College. I anticipate his pastoral gifting and heart will be experienced by every member of the church. I look forward to how he and Betsy will serve the marriages of the church through their teaching and example. (link)

DAVID HINDERS

Community Life Pastor at Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax

LOUIS GALLO

Community Life Pastor at Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax

* Before the lawsuit was filed, it was rumored that Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax might leave SGM to start their own network of churches.

FRANK ECELBARGER

As far as we can determine Frank Ecelbarger does not serve in any pastoral capacity. However, it appears that he recently led a Bible study at Redeemer Church (located in Florida), which is part of SGM. Here is an excerpt from the church website:

"Join us as we learn how to grow in our relationship with God through prayer on Sunday nights throughout the month of March. Frank Ecelbarger will be teaching this series and equipping us as a church to be a people dependent on the grace of God. We want to be a church that not only recognizes our need for God's grace and help in our lives, but aspires to demonstrate that dependence through humble prayer."

Redeemer Church is pastored by Benny Phillips who started this church in 2011 after leaving Metro Life Church in Casselberry, Florida Meetings are held at the Ultimate Power Martial Arts and Fitness Center. Here is some information from the church website:

"Redeemer Church is a group of believers committed to reaching the Lake Nona area with the gospel by building a gospel-centered church family.
We want to proclaim the message of hope: A message that changes lives and brings redemption to the brokenness of our humanity.

What people really need is not just a change of circumstance, but real hope. Hope that can only be found in the gospel; the message of our Redeemer sent to rescue us from our sins, mistakes and failures."

JOHN LOFTNESS

Chairman of the Board of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Senior Pastor of Solid Rock Church. You may recall that C.J. Mahaney left Covenant Life Church and attended church Capitol Hill Baptist Church for several months. After that he attended Solid Rock Church prior to the big move to Kentucky.

Here is the bio of SGM's Chairman of the Board:

John Loftness received a B.A. from Houghton College in 1978 and has studied extensively at the Masters degree level at Fuller Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary. He began his career as a pastor in 1981 when he joined the staff at Covenant Life Church. Over the years has served in a variety of roles in local churches and in SGM, primarily as a pastor. From 1990-2007 he served exclusively at Covenant Life. In 2007, John left Covenant Life to become the senior pastor of Solid Rock Church in Riverdale, Maryland.

GRANT LAYMAN

Serves as a pastor at Covenant Life Church. (link) He is also Carolyn Mahaney's brother.

LAWRENCE TOMCZAK

"is a pastor and preacher based in the USA. He is the co-founder of the group now known as Sovereign Grace Ministries and of several prominent churches." You can read about his departure from SGM here.

---

Just to give you a head's up, we are currently in touch with the plaintiffs and/or their parents. Please keep them in your prayers.
Lydia's Corner: Leviticus 6:1-7:27 Mark 3:7-30 Psalm 37:1-11 Proverbs 10:3-4

SGM-Mahaney: Appeal to President of Ambassadors of Reconciliation

In an earlier communication and with application to the post below the quote, Mr. Detwiler says: 

"But people must courageously speak up regarding their former or present SGM church and its leaders. This is not a time for silence. This is a time to speak out. Yes, redemptively, but also loudly and clearly!

The hundreds of people who left the Richmond Church must speak. The good folks who were part of Grace Community Church in Mooresville, NC must speak. Brothers and sisters from Gaithersburg, Ashburn, Orlando, Phoenix, San Diego, Charlotte, Denver, Stillwater, Philadelphia, and a host of other cities must lift their voice and send in their thoughts."

The above pertains to the email and post below.

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/10/7/an-appeal-to-the-president-of-ambassadors-of-reconciliation.html


An Appeal to the President of Ambassadors of Reconciliation

Friday, October 7, 2011 at 9:29PM

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:56 PM
To: Ted Kober
Cc: Jim @ SGM Refuge'; Kris@sgmsurvivors.com; Guy; Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Ken Sande; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell
Subject: Group Reconciliation

Dear Ted,

Many people are asking if a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement must be signed in order to participate in the AoR Group Reconciliation for SGM. That includes verbal and written communication. For example, does the “Confidentiality” agreement from the Rules of Procedure apply (see below)? People are holding off on their decision to participate until clear guidelines are put forth by AoR and SGM. This is a deal breaker for many people. Please do not require that people remain silent about the concerns they voice to AoR in person or in writing. I can’t imagine you will since there are many good and necessary reasons for them to share their concerns with others.


I’d appreciate your immediate attention to this important matter. I will post your answer on BrentDetwiler.com. I’m sure SGM Refuge and Survivors will do the same.

Thank you,
Brent

16. Confidentiality (from Rules of Procedure)

A. Because of its biblical nature, Christian conciliation encourages parties to openly and candidly admit their offenses in a particular dispute. Thus, conciliation requires an environment where parties may speak freely, without fear that their words may be used against them in a subsequent legal proceeding. Moreover, because conciliation is expressly designed to keep parties out of court, conciliators serving on behalf of the Administrator would not do so if they believed that any party might later try to force them to testify in any legal proceeding regarding a conciliation case. Therefore, all communications that take place during the conciliation process shall be treated as settlement negotiations and shall be strictly confidential and inadmissible for any purpose in a court of law, except as provided in this Rule.

B. This Rule extends to all oral and written communications made by the parties or by the Administrator, and includes all records, reports, letters, notes, and other documents received or produced by the Administrator as part of the conciliation process, except for those documents that existed prior to the conciliation process and were otherwise open to discovery apart from the conciliation process. The parties may not compel the Administrator to divulge any documents or to testify in regard to the conciliation process in any judicial or adversarial proceeding, whether by personal testimony, deposition, written interrogatory, or sworn affidavit.

C. Mediated settlement agreements reached by the parties and arbitration decisions shall be confidential, except as provided in Rule 17, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, or unless an agreement or decision must be filed with a civil court for purposes of enforcement. If an arbitration decision is contested or appealed pursuant to statute, the Administrator, upon written request from a party, shall furnish to such party, at the party's expense, copies of the conciliation agreement and the arbitration decision.

D. The Administrator may divulge appropriate and necessary information under the following circumstances, and the parties agree to waive confidentiality and hold the Administrator harmless for doing so: (1) when, as part of its normal office operations, the Administrator consults with its staff members or outside experts regarding particular issues or problems related to a case; (2) when compelled by statute or by a court of law; (3) when an arbitration agreement or decision has been contested or appealed; (4) when an action has been brought against the Administrator as a result of its participation in a conciliation case; (5) when the Administrator deems it appropriate to discuss a case with the church leaders of parties who profess to be Christians; and (6) when the Administrator deems it necessary to contact appropriate civil authorities to prevent another person from being harmed.
E. In spite of these confidentiality protections, some of the information discussed during conciliation may not be confidential as a matter of law or may be discoverable outside the conciliation process and used in other legal proceedings, and the Administrator shall have no liability therefore.

SGM-Mahaney: Objections to the SGM-Reconciliation Offensive

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/

Problems with the AoR Group Reconciliation Process

Friday, October 7, 2011 at 3:01PM

I’ve received a ton of inquires like the one below. Steve is exactly right.

October 07, 2011 12:15 PM

Brent

One item that people have brought up about the reconciliation process is that AOR may require as part of the reconciliation process some type of confidentiality agreement. My understanding is that if one enters into the AOR reconciliation process you will be bound to not disclose what is discussed in the reconciliation.

To me this type of agreement should be a major red flag if it exists. One of the problems with SGM is that SGM has been able to hide their questionable actions and sin for a long time. People haven’t known about their abuses. It appears that AOR would keep people from knowing about various SGM sins.

What are your thoughts on this?

Steve

I also read the following post from Jenn Grover. She’s a perceptive young lady. She gave me permission to publish her comments. I’ve add my own in the brackets [ ] with blue ink.

A few problems with the SGM/AoR Group Reconciliation Process

by Jenn Grover on Friday, October 7, 2011 at 8:29am

Comments were closed on the SGM blog, so I will post my problems with the process here. The more I consider this group reconciliation process, the more insulting it becomes:

1. In most cases, it is not the grieved [those sinned against] who have failed to understand biblical peacemaking, it has been the leaders [those who sinned].

[True enough!]

2. I do not see a biblical mandate that before we go to be reconciled to someone the offended party [those sinned against] must first sit through teaching and coaching to ensure I [those who sinned] get the proper response. Why is the focus still on the response of the people who were hurt and NOT on the people who caused the hurt?

[I am also concerned what will be taught at the seminar. In my personal dealings, I’ve not found AoR to be impartial. And to be precise, I am more concerned for how they teach the material. What will they emphasize? What will they leave out? What interpretations of Scripture will be questionable? What practices might they impose or confuse with principles? They could skew the seminar in favor of SGM. In other words, people might come under pressure to do things a certain way that is protective of SGM’s interest but does not do justice to the ways people have been sinned against. The seminar may also enjoin upon consciences an understanding of gossip, slander and confidentiality that are foreign to Scripture or unwarranted under the circumstances. AoR needs to emphasize the need for public repentance, confession and restitution from SGM leaders.

3. “Confidential interviews” = a way for SGM to suppress the breadth of the offenses.

[I would not recommend anyone agree to an interview with AoR if that means you cannot share your comments with others because you are bound by a confidentiality agreement. The same is true about written documents. You should not swear to keep confidential all information you record on a form AoR asks you to fill out.]

4. It excuses SGM from the biblical mandate to go and be reconciled and puts the onus on the aggrieved. SGM made a list of people they suspect fall into this category. If they have a list and know those they have been wronged, what has held them back?

[The SGM Board has a very long list of people wronged going back the last 30 years.]   

5. There is no evidence that should lead anyone who participates to believe that there has been genuine repentance, therefore, it is unlikely that you would see any type of true restoration occur. SGM has NOT changed their positions on most key issues.

[I fully agree with Jenn’s assessment. When you study all their public statements there has been little to no admission of wrong. Certainly none of any significance. I plan to write a blog post on this subject.]

6. There has been no public apology from anyone in SGM for misleading us to the true nature of Larry’s departure. If they cannot even admit wrongdoing in something so heinous why should we expect they will admit it in these more private affairs?

[Larry misled people. We misled people. I was a part of it. People should have known about the blackmail and other factors. I’ve asked C.J. and the SGM Board to publically explain what happened and acknowledge our sins at the Pastors Conference. I believe Larry would be willing to do the same but that’s impossible since C.J. “uninvited” him to the Pastors Conference and vowed to keep all sins secret.] 

7. It just feels like another way SGM can say they have done all they could without any real personal sacrifice from them or investment of their own time or resources. Maybe if these leaders had to foot the bill they would feel differently.

[True. The greater danger is SGM burying all the information AoR gathers through the “Reconciliation Process” by swearing people to an unholy confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. Don’t do it. Protest.]

8. Where do you go from the AoR process? It is occurring outside of the church so there is no next step if SGM fails to respond. If there are, in fact, confidentiality agreements, you are left with no further recourse

[Let there be no doubt, AoR works for SGM. The SGM Board is in control. AoR makes recommendation but they have absolutely no authority. They too are puppets in the hands of SGM. C.J. and the Board cut the CLC pastors out of the process by sending C.J. packing to Capitol Hill Baptist and Mark Dever. He fled the scene of his crimes. Who cares if Josh “sinned” against him especially in light of C.J. sins against Joshua (and the world). Moreover, there are 17 other pastors. The SGM Board removed C.J. from the local church to which he is accountable.]  

I am still waiting for any real signal that something has fundamentally changed in SGM and it is completely absent.

[Said like a pro!]

SGM-Mahaney: Another Fiasco with "Insta-Reconciliation"

Brent Detwiler makes forceful statements about SGM's new "Fast and Ready Reconciliation" efforts just posted by the Acting President of SGM Dave Harvey.  This SGM-move (posted yesterday) is desperate, calculated, uncaring, intentional, and utterly inadequate...for many, many reasons.  Brent, whatever else one thinks of the 600 pages or Brent himself, is spot on here.  (Good luck with the documents; they are detailed notes from an archivalist and historian of the movement.  They can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/sgmwikileaks)

 

Group Reconciliation Assistance Made Easy! (Facetiously Speaking) 

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/

Sunday, October 2, 2011 at 12:15 PM
by Brent Detwiler

Yesterday, Dave Harvey posted “Group Reconciliation Assistance and how you can be involved” on the SGM blog. Under the heading, “How to get involved,” he says, “If you or your spouse are or have been a leader or member in a Sovereign Grace church, you’re invited to participate.”
That’s sounds great! So let’s get going. If you have grievance or offenses with Sovereign Grace Ministries here’s what you need to do. It’s easy.

Act immediately! You don’t get any “coaching and encouragement” and you don’t have a chance to be interviewed by Ambassadors of Reconciliation unless you attend the “Getting to the Heart of Conflict” seminar on November 8. You need to register by October 14. That’s less than two weeks.

So clear your schedule. Hurry up and get to work because you can’t wait to make other arrangements until you hear back from AOR. They may not contact you until the night before the Conference begins. You must proceed in faith not by sight. The Pastors Conference is only five weeks away.

Tomorrow tell your boss you need a week off from work assuming you have vacation time to spare and don’t much care how you use it. Or maybe you can plan to be sick the week of the conference.

Then make arrangements for child care. That’s always simple. Fly Grandma and Grandpa in from Alaska.

Then if you live west of the Mississippi get plane tickets this week if you hope for a discount which normally must be purchased a month in advance. Oops, I forgot to mention. Mid-week travel to D.C. is a killer in terms of cost because of pricey business rates.
  
So if you and your offended wife come to the Pastors Conference, don’t be offended at how much all of this will cost you. You still need a rental car and motel. And don’t forget meals. All extremely inexpensive in the D.C. area! So just go into debt and cancel your family vacation for next year. You can crimp on Christmas too. Just tell the kids they are giving up their presents so you can share your grievance and offenses with AOR. Well, maybe. That is, if you’re selected.

That means you need to start praying and fasting you are selected by AOR for an interview. But keep in mind, Sovereignty and Suffering. You might just get a phone call saying you won’t be interviewed at the Pastors Conference. No big deal. All things work together for good. Cancel all your arrangements and thank the Lord you were left out.

Lastly, I’m sure hundreds of disenfranchised leaders and members who left SGM can’t wait to attend a Sovereign Grace Conference and hang out with people they were cut off by or left because it was too painful to stay.
  
And what are the long terms effects of your labors? Who knows. If you’re granted an interview at the conference that doesn’t mean you will be granted mediation assistance after the conference. Plan more time off, money spent, travel needed, and difficult meetings to attend. Then hope for some success.

Finally, everything you and others share with AOR about your negative experience in SGM will be strictly confidential. Only the SGM Board will get an oral and written report from AOR. So in the end, if any former leaders or members show up at the Pastors Conference to give input, it could be covered over with no public accounting or personal consequences for anyone. Now for a serious thought. If Sovereign Grace Ministries really wants input then they must come up with a far better strategy than this one. When few people show up at the Pastors Conference to provide feedback, they can only blame themselves. And God forbid the SGM Board blames former leaders and members for not taking advantage of “reconciliation assistance” while claiming they made every effort to pursue reconciliation by devising this strategy.

10 Aug 2011: Troubles Still Brew at Sovereign Grace Ministries

The Devolution of SGM: Repudiation of Hyper-Authoritarian Leadership?

Wed, Aug 10 2011

By dee

 

You do not lead by hitting people over the head. That's assault, not leadership. Dwight D. Eisenhower

I was planning on doing a series on how the church views psychological counseling after receiving two very interesting emails, back to back, on the subject from two unconnected people. However, once again, events at SGM intrude and demand coverage as the events seem to be unfolding at a rapid pace. So, I will do the series on counseling after we cover this evolving story.

****************************************

I believe that the SGM turmoil is a lesson for the evangelical church. For years, complaints have been rife on the blogosphere of people who have been deeply wounded by churches within this sphere. Well, not necessarily wounded by the church members but by the church "leadership." Recently, a couple of SGM pastors have admitted that a few of these stories are, in essence, true. These stories include accounts of child molestation and a less than supportive response on the part of church leadership.

Unfortunately there appears to be a culture in which pastors are considered to be the sole arbiters of "correct" Christian behavior. If the myriad of reports are to be believed, there seems to be years of missteps in which many people have been deeply wounded by an all powerful clergy which have become quite adept at sidestepping their failures while placing the onus of "sin"on the membership.

However, I hasten to add that these problems are not endemic to the SGM culture and, in fact, are part of all churches which stress an authoritarian leadership structure. At the beginning of this debacle, none other than the SBC's Albert Mohler weighed in, leading to questions as to why the head of the leading SBC seminary would feel the need to comment. I believe this runs far deeper that Mahaney's monetary contributions to the seminary and his friendship with Mohler.

I believe it is based in the growing movement amongst those we at TWW would deem Calvinistas. These adherents would appear to assert a tightly controlled leadership which centralizes power in the hands of pastors who have been specifically anointed, as in the patriarchs of old.

For more, see:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/08/10/the-devolution-of-sgm-repudiation-of-hyper-authoritarian-leadership/

MacArthur on the Young, Restless, (non-) Reformed

http://apprising.org/2011/07/23/grow-up-settle-down-keep-reforming-advice-for-the-young-restless-reformed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+apprising%2F2+%28Apprising+Ministries%29

GROW UP. SETTLE DOWN. KEEP REFORMING. ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG, RESTLESS, REFORMED

By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Jul 23, 2011 in AM Missives, Current Issues, Features, Youth Ministry

It has been five years since Christianity Today published Collin Hansen’s article titled “Young, Restless, Reformed.” Hansen later expanded the article into a book with the same title (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008). He has carefully documented a very encouraging trend: large numbers of young people (college age and younger) are discovering the doctrines of grace, embracing a more biblical and Christ-centered worldview, and beginning to delve more deeply into serious theology than most 20^th-century evangelicals were prone to do.

In short, Calvinism, not postmodernism, seems to be capturing the hearts of Christian young people.

Hansen cites evidence that Calvinistic seminaries are growing. Several new national conferences feature speakers committed to reformed soteriology (R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and others)—and these conferences are consistently full to overflowing with students. Books rich with meaty doctrinal content rather than relational fluff have begun to show up on Christian best-seller lists. There is even a surge of interest in Jonathan Edwards.

Hansen’s original article gave some definition and a name to this developing movement. That article finally brought attention to a powerful trend that theretofore had been all but ignored by Christianity Today’s editors. (They had been preoccupied for a decade or more with Emergent and postmodern fads, open theism, and various currents drifting in a totally different direction.) But (in Hansen’s words): “While the Emergent ‘conversation’ gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement [is arguably] a larger and more pervasive phenomenon [with] a much stronger institutional base.”

Five years later, the so-called Emergent Church is now in a state of serious disarray and decline. Some have suggested it’s totally dead. Virtually every offshoot of evangelicalism that consciously embraced postmodern values has either fizzled out or openly moved toward liberalism, universalism, and Socinianism. Scores of people who were active in the Emerging movement a decade ago seem to have abandoned Christianity altogether.
But young, restless, Reformed students (YRRs) still seem to be multiplying and gaining influence. I’m very glad for most of what this movement represents. It seems to be a more biblically-oriented, gospel-centered, theologically-grounded approach to Christian discipleship than this generation’s parents typically favored—and that is most certainly to be applauded.

YRRs have by and large eschewed the selfishness and shallowness (though not all the pragmatism) of seeker-sensitive religion. They are generally aware of the dangers posed by postmodernity, political correctness, and moral relativism (even if they don’t always approach such dangers with sufficient caution). And while they sometimes seem to struggle to show discernment, they do seem to understand that truth is different from falsehood; sound doctrine is opposed to heresy; and true faith distinct from mere religious pretense.

It is overall a positive development and a trend to be encouraged—but the YRR movement as it is shaping up also needs to face up to some fairly serious problems and potential pitfalls. So I have some words of encouragement and counsel for YRRs, and I want to take a few days here at the blog to write to them about their movement, its influences, some hazards that lie ahead, some tendencies to avoid, and some qualities to cultivate. (A few men on our staff will also join the discussion with a few thoughts of their own.)

Our chief concerns have to do with immaturity, instability, and inconsistency in the YRR movement. It is clear from Scripture, of course, that people who are young need to aim for maturity (2 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 4:13; Hebrews 5:12-14)—not perpetual adolescence. Scripture likewise makes clear that it’s better to be “like a tree planted by streams of water” (Psalm 1:3) than to be constantly restless. And one cannot be genuinely “Reformed” and deliberately worldly at the same time. The two things are inconsistent and incompatible. To embrace the world’s fashions and values—even under the guise of being “missional”—is to make oneself God’s enemy (James 4:4). Many supposed reformations have faltered on that rock.

No one is truly Reformed who is not constantly reforming.

In all candor, some of the ideas YRRs seem most obsessed with—starting with their standard methods for reaching the unchurched and “redeeming culture”—seem to be holdovers from the pragmatism that dominated their parents’ generation. If we profess theology that recognizes and honors the sovereignty, majesty, and holiness of God, our practice ought to be consistent with that.

It is a wonderful thing to come to grips with the doctrines of grace, and it is a liberating realization when we acknowledge the impotence of the human will. But embracing those truths is merely an initial step toward authentic reformation. We still have a lot of reforming to do.

And let’s face it: the besetting sin of young Calvinists is a brash failure to come to grips with that reality.

I’ll elaborate more on these points in the days to come.

John MacArthur

C.J. Mahaney and Calvin

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/07/20/mahaneys-chicanery-regarding-calvin/

Mahaney’s Chicanery Regarding Calvin

Wed, Jul 20 2011

By deb

It is always the secure who are humble. G K Chesterton

Bluebird eggs in my backyard

Our blogging buddy Steve, who operates a website called I Kissed Dating Goodbye: Wisdom or Foolishness and who also posts comments under the name Steve240, submitted the following article for publication here at The Wartburg Watch. Steve contacted us at our Wartburg Watch e-mail addresses to make a number of astute observations regarding comments C.J. Mahaney has made in the past, particularly on his blog. We found Steve's comments so thought provoking that we asked him to put them in the form of a post so we could share them with our readers. If you have thoughts you'd like to share on any theological topic, please contact us at The Wartburg Watch via our e-mail addresses.

********************************************

With the recent revelations of what has been going on behind the scenes with SGM especially Mahaney I went back and looked at one of the old SGM Survivors posts titled:
C.J. Mahaney – Criticized Because He's Just Like Calvin?

This was a commentary in Mahaney’s blog series entitled "The Pastor & Personal Criticism'. Installment #8, which was posted on February 24, 2011, was entitled: Why Faithful Pastors Will Be Criticized.

It is interesting now to look at Mahaney’s blog entry knowing when Brent started to give Mahaney the various documents that were recently posted for all to see. Mahaney used Calvin’s commentary which can be found here

Mahaney blogged about this Bible passage found in 1 Timothy: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19)

Sadly Mahaney DID NOT comment on these adjoining passages of Scripture:

Verse 20 – Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful /of sinning/.
Verse 21 – I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of /His/ chosen angels, to maintain these /principles/ without bias, doing nothing in a /spirit of/ partiality.
Verse 22 – Do not lay hands upon anyone /too/ hastily and ^[ thereby share ^(/responsibility for/ the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
- 1 Timothy 5:20-22

THE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE VERSES

What I find so revealing, especially now, is how Mahaney so quickly emphasizes the point about “not entertaining”, but chooses not to comment or quote, even in subsequent blog posts, about the verses that follow, which provide a much needed balance. Maybe Mahaney’s blog post revealed his heart including possible self deception?

Certainly there is a need for “not entertaining” but what do you do with pastors who “continue in sin?” Doesn’t the need to rebuke them in the presence of all need to happen? Is that something optional that churches don’t even need to do? With Paul saying that if you do have to rebuke some elders it will serve as a good deterrent so that other elders won’t sin, one would think that it needs to be done when necessary. Also isn’t there a need to rebuke “without bias, doing nothing in a /spirit of/ partiality?”

Isn’t that also important?

Could Mahaney have written this blog entry as a means of silencing his critics and trying to get the body of Christ not to even “entertain” accusations against him?

Here are some interesting dates:

Mahaney’s Blog Post: February 24, 2011
Brent Detwiler Began Sending Documents to Mahaney: March 2010

These dates show that Mahaney wrote this blog entry after he was in possession of at least one of Brent Detwiler’s documents. We are able to deduce here that Mahaney wrote this blog entry in the context of reviewing the allegations that Brent was making about Mahaney. The blog entry was not written before Brent Detwiler started sending Mahaney documents

Someone shared with me that Mahaney’s comments within the article are obviously designed to disqualify ANY critic by the simple fact of their “criticism”, which is an absurd standard. Perhaps we now know why? Could it be a ploy to deflect criticism and make people afraid of listening to any criticism about Mahaney, or was Mahaney that deceived as some allege? Both are possible.

HOW MAHANEY COMPARES HIMSELF TO CALVIN (using only verse 19)

If you read Mahaney’s blog post you will see he is implying that he is being criticized due to:

* His furthering the kingdom of God
* Tricks of Satan to bring his message in contempt
* Sincerity of trying to advance God’s kingdom.
* Satan, i.e. Satan makes most people, in fact nearly everyone, over
credulous so that without investigation, they eagerly condemn their pastors whose good name they ought to be defending
Mahaney also implies:
* If this was the criticism Calvin faced, then no pastor (including Mahaney) should be surprised when criticism arrives.
* He is exposed to slander because he is a godly teacher.
* Wrong is done to innocent people whose reputation is undeservedly injured.

WHAT CALVIN WROTE ABOUT VERSE 20 (one of the verses that Mahaney didn’t include):
This is what Calvin’s commentary says about verse 20:

“Those that sin rebuke before all” (vs.20a) 104 *Whenever any measure is taken for the protection of good men, it is immediately seized by bad men to prevent them from being condemned*. Accordingly, what Paul had said about repelling unjust accusations he modifies by this statement, so that *none* may, on this presence, *escape the punishment due to sin*. And, indeed, we see how great and diversified are the privileges by which Popery surrounds its clergy; so that, although their life be ever so wicked, 105 still they are exempted from all reproof. Certainly, if regard be had to the cautions which are collected by Gratian, 106 (Caus. 2, Quest. 4 and Quest. 7,) there will be no danger of their being ever compelled to give an account of their life. Where will they find the seventy-two witnesses for condemning a bishop, which are demanded by the disgusting bull issued by Pope Sylvester?

Moreover, seeing that the whole order of laymen is debarred from accusing, and as the inferior orders, even of the clergy, are forbidden to give any annoyance to the higher classes of them, what shall hinder them from fearlessly mocking at all decisions?

Some of Calvin’s points for this verse are:

· “Whenever any measure is taken for the protection of good men, it is immediately seized by bad men to prevent them from being condemned.”
· What “Paul had said about repelling unjust accusations he modifies bythis statement, so that none may, on this presence, escape the punishment due to sin.”
· Talks about the popery and “although their life be ever so wicked, still they are exempted from all reproof.” Sound familiar?
· Additionally about the popery “there will be *no danger of their being ever compelled to give an account of their life*” since Calvin indicates that 72 witnesses are required.
It sure sounds like Mahaney may have been doing what Calvin talks about in the above quote. Let’s check each bullet point:
· Using verse 19 to keep him from being condemned? It sure sounds like it. .
· Escape the punishment due to his sin? Sure sounds like it.
· Trying to be exempt from reproof? Again it sure looks like it.
· Wanting no danger of ever being compelled to give an account? Sadly again it looks like this is the case. It now looks as if Mahaney may be one of these “bad men” that Calvin refers to in his writings, or at least it is a possibility.

THE NEED TO NOT IGNORE BALANCING PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE

One should be quite careful, and "alarms go off" when someone teaches one passage, but does not include the balancing portion of the same passage.

· If as a leader you teach Hebrews 13 on submission to leadership, you should also teach and act like one day you will have to give an account to God for your actions.
· If you teach that wives should obey their husbands, then you should also teach the part of scripture that commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
· If you teach that children are to obey their parents, then you should also teach the passage that says fathers aren’t to provoke their children.
One should always be worried when someone’s teaching shows an imbalance.

Calvin put the balance this way about I Tim 5:19-20:

“It is therefore proper, carefully to observe this moderation, that insolent tongues shall be restrained from defaming elders by false accusations, and yet that every one of them who conducts himself badly shall be severely corrected; for I understand this injunction to relate to elders, that they who live a dissolute life shall be openly reproved.

WHY DID MAHANEY TEACH ONLY ONE VERSE AND “FORGET” THE OTHERS?

So why did Mahaney teach only this one verse and give an unbalanced view on “entertaining?” I cannot totally answer that question. Some may say he used this teaching as a ploy to try and silence his critics. Others may claim the man was so deceived that he taught this thinking he was doing the right thing. It might even be that Mahaney decided that he was so right in his own mind, he felt he shouldn’t be criticized.

As I shared earlier about a comment someone made to me saying that Mahaney’s comments in his blog posting are obviously designed to disqualify ANY critic by the simple fact of their *criticism* which is an absurd standard. Despite the motives, it certainly appears that Mahaney may have written his blog entry to deflect any criticism. In other words Mahaney appears to be trying to teach that if you are criticizing Mahaney:
· You must be wrong.

· Here is a possible list of why you are wrong.
· See what Calvin said you just might be doing.

With the recent revelations about Mahaney it is no surprise why he blogged like he did. Like Calvin indicated Mahaney has, “*Seized (this) by bad men to prevent them from being condemned.” *

MY RESPONSE:

Nice try Mahaney. Maybe Mahaney needs to fully read what Calvin says about the whole passage, and not just the portions he wants to use to protect himself. I could stop here but there are other verses. In these verses Paul explains the needs for publicly rebuking elders.
Verse 20b: So That the Rest Also Will be Fearful /of Sinning
In the second part of verse 20 Paul gives the reason for publicly rebuking an elder who continues in sin: It is a proactive way of making other elders fearful of sinning. Hopefully this won’t be one’s only motivation, but if an elder knows that if he “continues in sin” he will be rebuked in front of everyone, then he will be less likely to commit the sin. Maybe this is another reason you hear of so many cases of elder/pastors abusing people in SGM; SGM doesn’t practice this and thus other elders aren’t fearful.
Verse 21: Do This Without Favoritism
“without bias, doing nothing in a /spirit of/ partiality”
To me it is clearly obvious that this scripture passage is saying rebuking should apply to all elders with no bias and no partiality. Despite how far up a leader is in the hierarchy, including being the group’s head or “pope” this should apply. If one read’s Brent’s documents it appears Mahaney does not believe this.

FINAL COMMENTS

* Now that the history behind this blog entry is known the “independent” panel should investigate why Mahaney wrote and said this. Was this something Mahaney did in attempt to shield himself from any criticism?

* Sovereign Grace Ministries is quick to quote Jeremiah 17:9 about the heart being “sick” and “deceitful.” Sadly this apparently shows how one leader’s heart apparently can be deceived. If this wasn’t an intentional act then sadly it shows just how deceived Mahaney’s heart became. I guess the rules of not trusting a person’s heart should apply to leaders also.

* This action reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart who was condemning Jim Bakker’s adultery while he was doing something similar. Ironically, I can remember hearing Mahaney say just how bad Jimmy Swaggart’s hypocritical actions were. Sadly Mahaney is doing something similar in terms of hypocrisy.

* Josh Harris said on Sunday 7/10 that C.J. Mahaney still hasn’t seen and acknowledged all of his sin. This certainly looks like a “good” example of this.

* Since other SGM Leaders didn’t notice this possible deception, maybe they were deceived just like Mahaney appears to be.

* When a leader of a group teaches only one side of this passage, it should be no wonder why the leaders below him were afraid to approach him as Brent Detwiler has alleged.

Lydia’s Corner: 2 Samuel 20:14-21:22 Acts 1:1-26 Psalm 121:1-8 Proverbs 16:18

Written by: deb on Wed, Jul 20 2011.

On the C.J. Mananey Mess

Stand Firm in the Faith on the Mahaney-mess.  We feel that SF's cited source--which we posted already-- has good points, but is too dissmissive of the reports that are coming in.  On commenter has summarized it well:

"The small non-denom charismatic churches in our town had ‘shepherds’ and went through the same constant agonizing intraspection, nit-picking, sniffing the air for any hints of sin and demonic activity - exactly what SGM seems to be going through now. Hurt feelings were ministered to a lot. The incident with CJ Mahaney asking if his son could go along on a trip at church expense shows more about the people making the accusation than it does about CJ Mahaney. This is the kind of accusatory griping whining stuff pastors put up with on a daily basis." 

Throw in the "Apostles," which there church leaders believed themselves to be, these almighty Apostles--under the pretext of humility--divined with sovereign dread and inscrutable infallibility "into others lives"  These leaders "speak the prophet voice into lives."  It has the strong whiff and rank odours of Word of Faith.  Mr. Detwiler, a high level practitioner of the art and associate with Mr. Mahaney, turned the tables on Mahaney after Mahaney degifts and deboarded (from SGM) Detwiler.  Detwiler, however, kept notes.

What else would you expect but chaos and division within this neo-Montanist and charismatic movement?  It goes with their territory.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27609

On the CJ Mahaney Mess

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 • 9:14 pm

---

If you happen to be following the CJ Mahaney drama, then the following is, in my opinion, the best summary of the whole mess I've yet read (although I disagree with the guy's ecclesiology).

If you are not following from home, let me bring you up to speed. CJ, the former pastor of the Sovereign Grace flagship church in Gaithersburg, MD, was the head of the Sovereign Grace network. I say “was” because two weeks ago he stepped down in light of accusations against him. These accusations were made by former pastors who were on his staff. The essence of the accusations? CJ is proud and manipulative.The main accuser, Brent Detwiler, put out over 600 pages of emails interspersed with his own commentary to make those points. I have read much of those 600 pages, and let me save you some time by telling you this: 1. Don’t waste your time. These things have been downloaded 55,000 times, and I feel sorry for anyone who has read more than 10 pages of them; 2. There is no smoking gun. Strip away all of the commentary and whining, and you are left with a picture of a pastor who is running an organization, and some associates who feel slighted.

Honestly, reading this made me ask: “Don’t these people have real sin to confront?” Some of the pastors think CJ is acting too proud, and they rate him on his pride, and they schedule meetings to talk about his pride, and CJ repents of 9 of 11 species of pride that they have identified, and they go back to the drawing board to identify examples of the other two species of pride, they email each other to ask if others have seen that pride, and then CJ thinks those fit under the first species of pride, and they chart the pride, and so on. Blah. Wouldn’t it be nice if occasionally love covered a multitude of sins?

I will give you one example, just because it illustrates the pointlessness of this whole ordeal. CJ and his wife were scheduled to speak in Phoenix around the same time. CJ emailed the executive pastor asking if he could bring his son with him, because he wanted to spend more time with him. After a few emails among the finance committee, they decided that they would rather CJ pay for it out of pocket, unless he felt like his finances were too tight, then they would give him a taxable bonus to cover the flight. CJ decided to pay for it himself, saying that the reason he wanted to bring his son is because both he and his wife were going to be there simultaneously. At this point, I felt like this was actually an exchange I had with my accounting department last week.

But then Brent (a former member of CJ’s “apostolic team” and the one who posted the emails), points out that CJ is manipulating the situation. CJ originally said he wanted his son to go with him to spend more time with him, and then changed his story and said it was really because both he and his wife would be there! AH HA!

This synoptic problem is typical of the whole lot. Maybe I am jaded. I used to attend a megachurch where the pastor got busted absconding with hundreds of thousands of dollars and the radio equipment…and he is still the pastor. CJ, meanwhile, asked permission to spend $300 on his son’s airfare—and they told him no!—but the crime is in the way he asked? Did he have too much pride in his voice?...more

If you're not following the CJ Mahaney drama, then nevermind
-----------------------
Comments

With the same caveats that you have attached, I agree, it’s an excellent commentary. [1] Posted by farstrider+ on 07-19-2011 at 09:49 PM • top

Jesse Johnson makes some good points about the theological problems with Sovereign Grace Ministries structure (making discipline difficult) and with calling their pastors Apostles. Reading about this situation takes me back over 40 years ago to the Shepherding Discipleship era when C J Mahaney and Larry Thomczak were young unmarried ministers working together, teaching at Tennessee Georgia Christian Camps along with other charismatic shepherding pastors like Derek Prince, Charles Simpson, Bob Mumford, Don Basham, Ern Baxter and others. The small non-denom charismatic churches in our town had ‘shepherds’ and went through the same constant agonizing intraspection, nit-picking, sniffing the air for any hints of sin and demonic activity - exactly what SGM seems to be going through now. Hurt feelings were ministered to a lot. The incident with CJ Mahaney asking if his son could go along on a trip at church expense shows more about the people making the accusation than it does about CJ Mahaney. This is the kind of accusatory griping whining stuff pastors put up with on a daily basis. Churches (and homes) can be cruel, unstable, unhealthy - even dangerous places when Jesus is not really Lord and our first love, when we don’t walk in the Holy Spirit and His glory isn’t our first goal and His Word is not practiced with love and humility. Following men rather than God is another real temptation in church life. Preaching and teaching the Word is a whole lot easier than living it. This topic relates to “The Tyranny of Past Hurts” thread. [2] Posted by St. Nikao on 07-19-2011 at 09:49 PM • top

SGM, Mahaney, Detwiler: New 11-page Document Publicly Emerges

The seventh document emerges from Brent Detwiler regarding Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler's friend, C.J. Mahaney.  We're beginning to review--again--the first six documents.  Church government is one serious problem, to wit: an episcopacy in the hands of serious autocrats. A second problem is a legalistic, if not immature, view of the Gospel.  A third problem is worship.  But, we digress.  Here's #7.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60208395/Part-7-Is-C-J-Above-Reproach

MacArthur's "Shepherds' Conference" of 2011

http://www.shepherdsconference.org/

We are reviewing--widely--various American ana-Baptists in their diversity from Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Driscoll, Mars Hill, 29Acts, Gospel Coalition, MacArthur, Piper, Chander, Warren and others.  As Confessional Anglicans, if anything, we are pressed toward an higher view of the Bible, our Reformed Articles, and our Reformed Prayer Book.  Nevertheless, we survey these for purposes of understanding them.

The above URL is from MacArthur's "Shepherds' Conference."  Commendably, this ministry puts them online rather than "selling them."  We understand that John Piper does the same. At this point, we are not sure that Ligonier Ministries does that. 

One subset of our concerns is the "Celebrity Culture" and fiscal concerns.  It's a fact some men have become wealthy preaching the Bible. That raises other questions.

Disturbing Review of Mark Driscoll

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/driscoll_michels.pdf

Memorandum

Date: January 12, 2009

To: Christian Leaders

From: Cathy Mickels

Co-author of Spiritual Junk Food: The Dumbing Down of Christian Youth

Subject: Mark Driscoll: Is he qualified to lead?

________________________________________________________________________

Summary and Introduction

This memo is written to Christian leaders detailing my concerns regarding the ministry of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. His church has grown to 6,000 members in 11 years and is also described as one of the fastest growing, innovative churches in America.

Because this ministry is characterized by so many examples of the trivialization of Scripture, crudeness, foolish talk and vulgarity it will be a challenge to keep my correspondence as brief as possible.

Research leads me to concur with Pastor John MacArthur, who has also said, "I have a great concern about him. [Mark Driscoll.]"

In fact, in a radio interview with Todd Friel on the April 7, 2008, edition of Way of the Master, referring to Mark Driscoll's book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Pastor MacArthur said, "...there are statements in that book that are so sexually explicit and unnecessary and purely gratuitous humor at the basest kind of level; I saw a video from a service in the church in January in which comments were made from his pulpit, which were then put.... on the website, which again, were sexually explicit and gratuitous and unnecessary...in which he referred to a certain sin and actually twisted out-of-context a Bible verse as a kind of way to mock that sin. You know ....there was a time when we worried about the church adjusting itself to accommodate the peoples' social expectations, and then their psychological expectations, and now the latest wave of this let's identify with them at their sensual level. And I think that baser approach - that's something I've never heard of in my life -- I've never, ever, in the name of ministry heard anyone who would speak at that level of explicit language with regard to things sexual...I just think there is a dignity, there's a maturity, there's a holiness, a virtue, a fear of God that belongs with the pastorate, ...there's a refinement that belongs in the ministry. The Bible talks about that ; being 'sober-minded' - the pursuit of godliness,...Speech that comes out of your mouth, no filthy communication, only that which ministers grace to the hearer ....you can't put one thought in their mind and then try to transition them to something holy...it's a new kind of thing that I never, ever, imagined would happen..."



Also see John MacArthur article at http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/11/grunge-christianity/.

These serious comments made by respected pastor John MacArthur should cause those who treasure the inspired Word of God to question why evangelical leaders are supporting this controversial, very edgy Seattle ministry. Furthermore, since Mark Driscoll has proven time and time again that he handles God's Word carelessly, why is Mark Driscoll a highlighted speaker at The Gospel Coalition's 2009 National Convention? It is all the more disturbing knowing Driscoll will be speaking on "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth." Why are evangelical leaders, such as John Piper, willing to overlook his crudity and excuse the fact that at the expense of God's Word, Mark Driscoll distorts and twists Scripture as if it were material for a stand-up comedian?

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about

Oddly enough, it was a stand-up comedian, foul-mouthed Chris Rock, whom Mark Driscoll credits with teaching him how to preach. Mark claims this comedian was "a better study in homiletics than most classes on the subject." (Confessions of a Reformed Rev, pg. 70). Therefore, would he think others should also follow his example, which will require them to fill their mind with curse words and smut in order to learn how to effectively deliver a good sermon?

Admittedly, Mark Driscoll states he is reformed in his thinking, and he can deliver a sound sermon if he wants to. But, that does not negate his reckless, irreverent treatment of God's Word, and the crude language that proceeds out of his mouth. This only makes his ministry more dangerous. If an enemy of the faith had used the same comedy to mock and pervert the Word of God, we would see this attack for what it is. Moreover, throughout the history of the church, vulgarity and playing fast and loose with Scripture would have immediately been identified as falsehood, error, or a serious character flaw. However, for some reason, today many in the Church are compromising and excusing ungodly behavior coming from the pulpit.

We tread down this new road to our own demise. In the words of A.W. Tozer, "We should and must learn that we cannot handle holy things carelessly without suffering serious consequences."

I submit that this ministry attacks the integrity of Scripture, the character of Christ, and feeds the sensual, worldly heart of man. Therefore, out of love for Mark Driscoll and the Body of Christ, there needs to be close examination and scrutiny of this ministry.

Rewriting Scripture from a secular script

In Genesis 3, Satan's first line of attack against mankind was to undermine and call into question the authority of God's Word. Yet, it is this very book of the Bible that hits a funny bone for Mark Driscoll. According to Mark, this is where all "good comedy begins." First of all, in the story of Adam and Eve, Driscoll throws out a suggestive, sensual idea about Eve that I guess Mark thinks will amuse his male audience. He says "...God creates a perfect woman who is beautiful, sinless, and naked,- the same kind of woman every guy ever since has been looking for." (The Radical Reformission, pg.28.)

Driscoll sets the stage for more mocking of Scripture by describing the Old Testament as "a redneck hillbilly comedy." He finds humor in Jacob, Aaron, Moses, Job, Jeremiah, and Noah. For example, he undermines the seriousness of the messages of Jeremiah, a prophet of God, by describing him as someone "who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time." He laughs at Noah for getting drunk and ending up naked in his tent, and then compares him to "some redneck on vacation." Why would Driscoll find amusement or pleasure in seeing Noah's dignity reduced or undermined?

In light of Driscoll's comments, it is interesting to recall the biblical account of the reaction of Noah's three sons. Unlike the response of his son Ham, the other brothers "turned away and they did not see their father's nakedness"...and surely they did not laugh. On the other hand, for Ham and his descendents,... his response came with a high price.

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/humor

Similarly, why would Driscoll compare a story in Scripture to a Monty Python skit and even elaborate on what he describes as the "scatological humor" or "poopy comedy" he sees in Ezekiel 4?

In his series on humor, the New Testament also gets a Driscoll face lift. Without shame, he turns the issue of circumcision found in Galatians 5 into a crude "cut off your pickle joke."

Also, unlike all the biblical scholars who have gone before Mark Driscoll, he comes up with another name than the one given in Scripture to describe the Holy Spirit. In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, he thanks "God the Ghost" for helping him write his book. In another part of the book, Driscoll just shortens it to "Ghost."

For those who would be alarmed by this cavalier handling of God and His Word, Mark also has an arrogant, cocky response. He says, "...religious people are too serious.....judgmental....they're such a joke."

To the contrary, as believers we are called to fervently contend for the faith, which includes protecting and preserving the integrity of God's Word. Finding amusement and joking with Scripture as acceptable has a way of making sober-minded people begin to

treat serious matters less seriously. 

Will Mark Driscoll's followers ever read the account of Jeremiah or Noah in the same light after hearing or reading the way Driscoll butchers these stories? Is the serious message of Ezekiel 4 undermined when it has been reduced to "scatological humor"?

These attacks on Scripture are rooted in deceit and falsehood. God's Word says we are to pursue holiness and serve Him acceptably with reverence and godly fear.

Where is the holiness? Where is the dignity? Where is the fear of God?

Hence, the groundwork has now been laid for others to come along presenting their own humorous ideas of other passages of scripture. Once this door is allowed to be opened, there is no end in sight.

Perverting the character of Christ

Scripture states, "....out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks", which makes it puzzling to hear or read what flippantly comes out of the mouth of Mark Driscoll. For the sake of a laugh, it appears nothing is off limits.

Mocking and poking fun at Jesus and his family, Mark writes, ".....everytime they (the religious leaders) see Jesus, it agitates them that he is always surrounded by a crowd telling knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor because his perfection had to have included comedic timing." In other communications Mark refers to the King of Kings as "a dude" and uses word pictures depicting Him as "a prize-fighter with a tattoo down his leg..." In Driscoll's human attempt to make Jesus relevant, he turns the spotless lamb into a blemished lamb tarnished with the markings of the streets of Seattle. (The Radical Reformission, pg. 30.)

Even in one of Mark Driscoll's most recent projects, the very words of Christ have also been reduced to a marketing slogan to once again serve his own ends, not Christ’s. In the words of Christ to Nicodemus, Jesus said, "You must be born again. " But without shame, Driscoll recklessly destroys the words of God and their intended meaning for the title of his new book called, PORN-AGAIN Christian. The cover on the book is also meant to shock. http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/  

Who would tamper with the Words of Light and then use them as an introduction to a discussion on the perverted world of pornography and masturbation? For sure, the enemies of Christ take pleasure in any seed planted that undermines a respect and reverence for God and His word.

One will hear things at this church never heard before about Christ. In a church video series regarding the humanity of Christ, Mark had fun with the question whether or not Jesus went "potty." In response, according to Driscoll, "...yes, Jesus went number one and number two," but he did it "perfectly....never got the toilet all wet."

What was the congregation’s response? They laughed. 

With wisdom and maturity comes the understanding that some things are better left unsaid. However, it appears Mark Driscoll is willing to plant ideas about Christ in the mind of every reader or listener that would have been unthinkable in any other generation.

For instance, in Driscoll's book, The Radical Reformission, he insinuates a perverted homosexual idea regarding Christ. In Chris Rock style, Driscoll states he had to learn "to love Jesus without feeling like we had a thinly veiled homosexual relationship." If this is indeed what Mark Driscoll once thought, he needs to keep his comments to himself, instead of cultivating ideas in the minds of others that serve to undermine the holiness and majesty of Christ. On another page, he paints a similar dishonorable thought saying one of his former pastors taught him "to have a relationship with Jesus that did not feel like he was my lifelong prom date." (The Radical Reformission, pg. 14-15).

And just recently, in order to make a point, Mark broached the subject again on a Mars Hill video on the Song of Solomon. At the expense of the reputation of Christ, Driscoll flippantly joked regarding those who differ with him on the interpretation of this book. Driscoll asserted, "Now what happens is some say 'Well, we do believe in the book, and we will teach it, but we're gonna teach it allegorically.' And there's a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They'll say, 'Well the allegorical interpretation, it's not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it's about us and Jesus.' Really?... I hope not…If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don't know what I'm gonna do.... I mean it's gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously...'You dudes know what I'm talking about... You're like, "No, I'm not doing that... You know I'm not doing that... I love Him [Jesus] but not like that." What was the response of the congregants? They laughed. (Excerpts from Driscoll's first sermon on the Song of Solomon series called, "The Peasant Princess" - start at 27:15)

This lack of respect can also be seen in Driscoll's irreverent account of Jesus' family in his book Vintage Jesus. He writes, "Jesus' mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was often mocked for claiming she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted the crazy story to cover the fact she was knocking boots with some guy in the back seat of a car at the prom." A similar account is given in The Radical Reformission, stating Jesus "has a mom whom everyone thinks is a slut, a dad whom they think has the brilliance of a five-watt light bulb for believing the 'virgin birth line, and brothers who likely pummel him frequently, because even God would have to get at least one wedgie from his brothers if he were to be fully human." How can he talk like this without cringing?

Other reckless descriptions about the life of Christ surface in Mark's book stating that by the time Jesus was thirty years old He was "a classic underachiever with no wife, kids, stable career or even much of a home."

Then he plants a less than honest idea about the ministry and character of Christ saying, "....God came to earth and he kicks things off as a bartender...." This inaccurate description of Jesus the bartender feeds into other controversial aspects of this ministry, which includes Driscoll's promotion of men gathering in bars to drink beer and talk theology. (The Radical Reformission, pg.30.)

In a Christianity Today article titled, "A Jesus for Real Men," Driscoll is quoted as saying that "real men" avoid the church because it projects a "Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ." However, according to Driscoll, "real men" - like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptists- are "dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes." The article states this is the sort of Christ men are drawn to- what Driscoll calls "Ultimate Fighting Jesus."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html

But, Jesus is not a dude, He is a King. In the words of A.W. Tozer, Christ is being "courted with a familiarity that reveals a total ignorance of who He is. It is not the reverent intimacy of the adoring saint but the impudent familiarity of a carnal lover." Mark Driscoll may think these images and descriptions of Christ play well in edgy Seattle, but they are a figment of his imagination, not the Word of God.

"If then I am the Father,

Where is my honor?

And if I am the master,

'Where is My reverence?' says the Lord of Host."

Malachi 1:6

Feeding the sensual tastes of man

The mind is the battleground, but in the case of Mark Driscoll, instead of protecting the mind against the crudity and vulgarity of the world, he intentionally uses it. For example, Driscoll appears to have discovered early on that sex sells and that he could use it to draw a crowd. He writes, "I assumed the students and singles were all pretty horny, so I went out on a limb and preached through the Song of Songs. ....Each week I extolled the virtues of marriage, foreplay, oral sex, sacred stripping, and sex outdoors, just as the book teaches...This helped us a lot because apparently a pastor using words like 'penis' and 'oral sex' is unusual, and before you could say "aluminum pole in the bedroom," attendance began to climb steadily to more than two hundred people a week." Even the title of his new book, Porn-Again Christian, is case in point of distorting the words of Christ in order to grab the attention of guys to read it.

It is also curious that in spite of Mark Driscoll's acknowledgement that many of the young men at Mars Hill struggle with pornography, Mark would intentionally and frequently plant himself in a barbershop filled with pornography. In his own words, Mark describes his barbershop as "providing the finest selection of waiting area pornography in our city." But, isn't the word "finest" a rather odd way of describing perverted material?

Would Mark recommend this same barbershop to other young men at Mars Hill? Since Mark details in his book, The Radical Reformission, that he even takes his own young son with him to his barber, a flamboyant transsexual, I will assume the answer is possibly "Yes." 7

Similarly, Mark's response to a phone call he received in the middle of the night from a young man also raises questions regarding his choice of words and judgment. Driscoll writes that the phone rang at "some godforsaken hour...when I'm not even a Christian." He said, "...some college guy was crying."

Driscoll said that he tried to "muster up my inner pastor...and tried to pretend I [he] was concerned." Since the caller was beating around the bush, Mark blurted out, "What have you done?" When the caller confessed he had watched porno and masturbated, Driscoll actually asked the upset caller, "Was it good porno?..." As expected, the caller was left speechless by his question. Then, Mark told him, "Well, you've already watched the whole porno and tugged your tool, so what am I suppose to do?" The caller answered him, "You are my pastor, so I thought that maybe you could pray with me." But, to the contrary, Mark wrote, " ....I did not want to pray so I just said the first thing that came to mind...Jesus thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen." According to Driscoll, the caller was still left unclear about what he was suppose to do, so in Driscoll style, he told the caller, ".....A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead." What message is Mark Driscoll sending to unmarried, young men by his crude, disrespectful remarks about women?

As I implied at the beginning of this memo, some of the information and material advocated by Mark Driscoll is so tawdry and immoral that I do not even feel comfortable detailing it in this memo. Therefore, here are links to Mark Driscoll’s advice to married Christian couples introducing them to unnatural sexual behaviors and other perversions. One would expect this kind of counseling from controversial Dr. Ruth, not an evangelical pastor.

http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/11/30/question-21-can-i-perform-anal-sex-on-my-wife/

http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/11/30/question-22-can-we-use-sex-toys/

In another one of Driscoll's church stories, he tells about a time of exhaustion when he snapped at the young men at his church. Describing them as a chronic masturbator, a porn addict, banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze, etc., Mark says he cussed out a poor guy, losing his mind to the point that he thinks he actually cuffed him upside the head. In a follow-up meeting, he preached to the young men about manhood, but then, in my opinion, he snapped again.

According to Mark, his explanation for getting their act together was "....because you can't charge hell with your pants around your ankles, a bottle of lotion in one hand, and a kleenex in the other." He concluded the meeting by handing "each man two stones and told them that on this day God was giving them their balls back to get the courage to do kingdom work." As a result, Mars Hill began having "boot camps" for men, teaching them how to get a wife, have sex with that wife, ....buy a house...study the Bible...and brew decent beer."

Mark Driscoll also disrespectfully relates the story about the time he sought the counsel of Rick Warren. Driscoll said, "I emailed Rick Warren, assuming that he is now so big that he must wear a cup all the time just to get through an average day."

As previously mentioned, according to Mark Driscoll, brewing beer appears to be another important revelation on how to grow a ministry in liberal Seattle and reach the next generation. In fact, in Mark's book, he says, "My Bible study convicted me of my sin of abstinence from alcohol. So in repentance, I drank a hard cider over lunch with our worship pastor. This revelation led Driscoll to conclude, "I personally long for the return of the glory days of Christian pubs where God's men gather to drink beer and talk theology." Mark also offers up some possible names for brews: "Alleluia Ale" and "Lucifer Light." I ask, where does Mark's Lucifer Light come from? (The Radical Reformission, pg.146, 147).

What will be the results of the clock turning back to what Mark describes as "the glory days" when men meet in the bars and their wives stay home taking care of the kids? What message is he sending to young men? It is not too far off base for me to suggest that the message sent is men drinking beer and male crudity is cool.

In fact, regarding Mars Hill's worship leader, Mark describes him as a manly man, who brews his own beer. Mark says he was impressed with his worship leader because "most of the worship dudes I have heard are not very dudely...they seem to be....exceedingly chickified from .....singing prom songs to Jesus."

The Missouri Baptists have experienced first-hand the fruits of this ministry when they discovered they had given money to one of Mark Driscoll's Acts 29 church planting organizations that was meeting for Bible study in a St. Louis pub. The issue came to light when the Baptist Press broke the story, which was followed by a front page article in the Sunday edition of the St. Louis Dispatch titled "Beer and the Bible." As a result, not only did the Missouri Baptists withdraw their financial support, but they have also compiled extensive research on the negative influence of the ministry of Mark Driscoll. http://www.mbcpathway.com/article126214c1089833.htm 

In addition, it is confusing why someone who markets a book claiming he wants to help young men overcome sexual addictions, yet himself uses sexual crudity and ungodly remarks to struggling men to make a point.

Furthermore, why does he frequent a barbershop filled with pornography if he wants to help men overcome sexual temptations? Why does he even plant the idea that all men ever since Adam and Eve have been looking for a naked woman like Eve? Why would he detail the story about the attractive woman at the airport who offered him what Driscoll describes as her "impressive" "sexual favors"? It is also curious why Mark would use the language he does to describe this woman, whom Mark says was "Hot....like hell." (Confessions of a Reformission Rev, pg. 128.) 9

Instead of a pastor spiritually lifting the Body of Christ up to a higher standard, Mark is dragging the Church through the gutter. As the prophet Jeremiah lamented, my people "... were not at all ashamed, Nor did they know how to blush." (Jeremiah 6:15, 8:12)

Likewise, we find ourselves in the same situation. Perhaps the reason why so many excuse his behavior is because they have become so desensitized and seduced by the culture themselves that they simply do not blush and cannot discern what is happening.

The far-reaching influence of Mark Driscoll

Other reckless nuances also put Driscoll's church on the map. Early on in his ministry, he became known to many as "Mark the cussing pastor." Driscoll writes that he was given this title from his good friend, Donald Miller, the emergent author of "Blue Like Jazz." (Miller was also the one who gave this years benediction at the Democratic National Convention.) Although Driscoll acknowledges he was embarrassed when he read about this account of himself in Miller's book, the title lives on. For example, the headline in a March 2008 Australian news source announced Driscoll's landing in Australia with the headline, "The Cussing Pastor Coming to the Coast."

However, there a lot of other things coming out of the mouth of Mark Driscoll, which should cause him more embarrassment than this title that was simply an honest description by one of Mark's friends. http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/the-cussing-pastor-coming-to-the-coast/ 

Apparently, whether it is sex or bragging about how "tough" it was for him to preach on Lake Washington with frat guys "mooning my [his] church" with "a backdrop of their hairy heinies," or describing the "well-endowed young women passing by on a boat, lifting up their shirts," or detailing his gross account of "messing my[his] pants while preaching with the stomach flu," Driscoll seems to go to any length to create interest in his books and his ministry. For sure, who would ever expect a pastor to describe his flu ordeal saying "getting sent to hell would be an upgrade." He proudly declares, "I crapped myself about fifteen minutes into the sermon and was left with a terrible dilemma. Do I finish the sermon and just not move much on the stage? Do I,....sneek off and clean up the oil slick?" Instead of excusing himself like a mature adult, he preached for another 45 minutes and then adds more crudity to his story and writing, "...I tried to breath out of my mouth to lessen the stench." This is the language and conduct of a child, not a man ready for the pulpit. ( Confessions of a Reformission Rev, pg. 88, and 176-177).

Mark's controversy and crudity has gained popularity in many different circles. John Dickson, Anglican director of the Centre for Public Christianity, says Driscoll is the best preacher of generation Y, likening his "motormouth style to that of a stand-up comic...He's made conservative Christianity almost sexy, which is a most astonishing thing." I also noticed on Driscoll's Acts 29 website the comment that even church planting can be "sexy."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/08/22/121926252519010  

All of the disgusting comments and dirty talk coming from this pastor raises serious questions regarding his influence. However, there is one thing we can say for sure,… he is making quite an impression.

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/

According to Driscoll, his innovative ideas on how to grow a church put him in the spotlight. He wrote, "A buzz got out about our church, and Christian pastors and leaders from around the country and the world began dropping in to check out what we were doing." This publicity put him in contact with Bill Hybel's Willow Creek and the Leadership Network, which with Mark Driscoll's help planted the seeds for the Emergent Church. Although Driscoll has since challenged and distanced himself from some of the teachings of his emergent friends, on his websites he has recommended books by contemplative writer, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard and a book called The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. It is also interesting to note that the Leadership Network is a major promoter of emergent leader Brain McClaren and other liberal innovators such as Bill Hybel. Mark Driscoll has nothing but praise for this group, which he uses to this day to promote his books and ministry. This subject alone is an entire chapter of a book.

Conclusion

In a Christianity Today article about Mark Driscoll on August 23, 2008, Pastor John MacArthur is quoted as saying not only that Driscoll has an "infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society," but also, " [T]he lifestyle he models - especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world's filthy fads - practically guarantees that [his disciples] will make little progress toward authentic sanctification."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/september/30.44.html

If this is the case, which I agree it is, I reiterate my question: "Why" is Mark Driscoll a keynote speaker this coming April 21-23 at The Gospel Coalition's National Conference in Chicago?

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about 

With all due respect to the men who are leading this organization, it is a mockery of the Christian faith to have Mark Driscoll speak on the topic of "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth."

According to MacArthur Study Bible, rightly dividing the word of truth means "cutting it straight - a reference to the exactness demanded by such trades as carpentry, masonry....Precision and accuracy are required in biblical interpretation ..." Why?... Because when we are handling the holy Word of God, nothing less is acceptable.

What comes out of the mouth of Mark Driscoll, and how he handles Scripture is not only shameful, but also an embarrassment to the Body of Christ. Regardless of Mark Driscoll's ability to deliver a serious presentation of the gospel message, and draw people in off the streets of Seattle, something is spiritually unhealthy and wrong with this ministry. Based on the concerns raised by others and the questions raised in this memo, it is all the more confusing that evangelical leaders are excusing the conduct and teachings of Mark Driscoll.

It is the opinion of this writer that there needs to be a close examination of this ministry. Mark Driscoll is undermining biblical and historical Christianity, and lacks the wisdom, discernment and maturity to lead. If the church cannot see it, we are further down the downgrade than we think.

"Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us."

Titus 2:6