What are the foreseeable consequences foreseen by
any reasonable, cautious, and prudent person..what are the foreseeable consequences when the following conditions exist in one person, e.g.
C.J. Mahaney? In other words, what concerns and questions will arise to a reasonable person when they assess these conditions, qualities and circumstances surrounding a person like Charles John (C.J.) Mahaney?
(1) Total
absence of education, not even a community college degree. Never mind graduate school.
(2) Never interested in getting an education.
(3) Surrounded himself with uneducated men—essentially.
(4) Hillbilly Pentecostal Theology for 25 of 35
years of SGM.
(5) Involved in Toronto Dumb Ass Revivals in the
1990s.
(6) Loud, charismatic, Hillbilly, Rock and other
forms of American music with narcissistic and shallow lyrics. A form of inducing mind-anesthesia and
mind-amnesia. (Enthuse fellow Dumb Asses.)
(7) Autocratic and dictatorial temperament under the guise of "humility." Willing to engage in illegal and coercive
blackmail of a colleague to drive him out of ministry.
(8) Severe, pervasive and chilling clinical
narcissism over the years—with the expectedly high numbers of broken people in
the wake. Willing to toss people under the bus, by the 100s and 1000s.
(9) Attention
given to this Narcissist-in-Chief by key Anabaptist/Baptyerian leaders, e.g. Big
Al Mohler, Mark Dever, John Piper, Tim
Challies, Ligon Duncan, Carl Trueman, Collin Hansen, Westminster Seminary—Philadelphia,
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Together for the Gospel, and Christianity
Today.
(10) Large sums of money and income. Millions.
(11) Willing to leave a 3000-member church he
founded when 18-ish Elders and others calling for Mahaney’s accountability.
(12) Adopts predestinarianism and claims to be “Reformed,”
again without an ounce of education.
(13) Has a church structure of no accountability. Employs two sets of rules, one for himself and another for all others.
(14) Lives in an Anabaptist/Bapteryrian celebrity
culture—conferences, books, etc.—where there is no accountability, simply
numbers and dollars. Lives in a celebrity vortex where other popular Dumb Asses exercise no restraints.
What can you foresee as a reasonable person when these
attributes inhere in one man? Idiocy?
Trouble to come? Meglomania?
Injured people? These are
reasonable expectations.
We call it the
violation of a basic rule of life: “Don’t
be a dumb ass.” That’s what Mahaney was,
is, and will be. This old 60ish-year old
has too few years to undo the decades of being a dumb ass. “It was what it was.” “He is what he is.” Based upon current reviews, little will
change with him.
Below contains a set of very brutal and very insightful questions put to
Mahaney by SGM Pastors in Florida.
Some kind of split is at hand.
Wednesday
Jul 4, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 11:41AM
This Friday marks one year since I
sent out four documents regarding concerns for C.J. Mahaney and other leaders
to all the Sovereign Grace pastors. Much has transpired, but nothing has
changed. C.J. remains on a collision course. On Friday, I will address the most
central question facing Sovereign Grace Ministries.
In this post, I want to make you aware
of Mark Mullery’s comments regarding SGM at their recent Family Meeting on June
24. Mark is the senior pastor of Sovereign Grace Church in Fairfax. The church
is one of the largest, oldest and most influential churches in the movement.
I also want to make you aware of a
meeting that occurred on May 25 between all the Florida pastors and C.J., Jeff
Purswell and Mickey Connolly. There are more SGM churches in Florida than any
other state in the U.S. Thirteen churches sent their leaders to this meeting.
Over the past year, many pastors in
SGM have encountered firsthand the sins I’ve outlined in my documents and on my
blog. For instance, the depressing experience at the Pastors Conference last
November when C.J. minimized all his sins, condemned others, called for the
discipline of “slanderers,” and justified himself. Though he promised a
confession, he showed absolutely no contrition for anything he or anyone else
in SGM has done wrong. Pastors throughout the movement were alarmed by his
attitude and the content of his personal update. The Covenant Life Church
pastors asked the SGM Board to release the audio for their church to hear but
the Board refused knowing how damming it was to C.J.
The same kind of experience happened
to the 62 pastors who signed the March 7, 2012 letter protesting the way the
interim Board handpicked the new Board (including Mickey Connolly and Craig
Cabinass from the interim Board) to replace them without stopping and listening
to concerns. These pastors from 17 churches were totally ignored. The examples
of such pride and independence are abundant from this past year. Moving on.
Mark Mullery does a good job
describing the pastors’ negative experience with SGM and the “diverging paths
in polity, principles and practices.” He does not, however, address the root
issues of sin behind these descriptions.
Over the last 12 years, I have tried
to help C.J. turn from destructive patterns of serious sin. Those include
pride, hypocrisy, living by a double standard, being unteachable, rejecting
input, remaining unaccountable, viewing himself as superior, refusing to answer
hard questions, ostracizing people who correct him, withdrawing from people who
challenge him, etc. These kinds of sin are apparent in Mark’s description. I
should add that Mark was one of the most highly esteemed leaders by C.J. just a
year ago. Now you can add him to the extremely long list of people C.J. has cut
off over the past three decades.
Sovereign Grace Church of
Fairfax- Family Meeting (June 24, 2012)
Update on Sovereign Grace
Ministries (Minutes 49:54-59:35)
“So just to recap the polity working
group. As Paul [Shirey] explained, we have done a lot of study. How is Christ’s
authority expressed in our local church? We believe that local churches like
ours are to be autonomous and there is no scripturally mandated or inherent
authority above or outside of the local church.
“We also believe its desirable, as
Paul said, even essential for us to be associated with other churches; but
those associations must never compromise the local governing of each individual
church. In looking at our future and considering what God’s call might be upon
us, we are seeking a biblically based and principled approach in all that we
do, not only what we do within the polity framework, but also in terms of our
association. We want to respond not out of sort of a reaction to any particular
situation but we want to move forward guided by scripture and principal.
“So how do we objectively lay out all
of our current thinking about our own church alongside the developments we’ve
watched unfolding within Sovereign Grace Ministries a family of churches with
whom we have been in fruitful partnership for nearly 30 years? How do we put
those two things together? And what do we find when we look at both of them?
Well, let’s just do a little review.
"Sovereign Grace Ministries
continues to move forward. The year 2012 started with the release in late
January of the Interim Boards’ three review panel reports which were
distributed to you. These reports contained numerous recommendations but the
Interim Board concluded that they found nothing in the reports that would
disqualify CJ Mahaney from serving as President or serving in gospel ministry.
With more developments to come as that was received we realized that to get a
better sense of Sovereign Grace Ministries direction we needed more
information; and so we particularly looked forward to the Ambassadors of
Reconciliation report and decided that our strategy, back at the time, would be
just to continue to work on our own polity and then to patiently see what
developed with Sovereign Grace Ministries and in particular what would emerge
from that report.
“One of the decisions we made early in
the year with the counsel of our Financial Advisory Team was to suspend our
financial giving to Sovereign Grace Ministries until substantive answers were
given to our questions.
“So in March, we then sent a letter to
the Sovereign Grace Ministries Board in which we declined to participate in the
process they had developed for selecting nominees to a new board. We appealed
at the time that they slow down, stop and listen, and that they create forums
for pastors to be able to speak together, to have a horizontal conversation and
dialogue amongst themselves and with the interim board and that they also call
together a council of all the pastors from all the churches to discuss our
future and make decisions together; and most of you are aware of these things,
this is just by way of review since a number of months have gone by.
“We said back at the time that we had
no plans to leave Sovereign Grace Ministries and that we strongly desired
constructive dialog with them. At the time leaders from seventeen other Sovereign
Grace churches were in general agreement with the concerns we were expressing
and they co-signed that letter. To date we have not received a formal response
from the Sovereign Grace Ministries Board to the letter; although several
informal conversations have taken place.
“Later in that month of March, the
permanent board was announced; and CJ was reinstated as President of the
Leadership Team not a member of the board but President of a separate
Leadership Team in what was described as a temporary role. They also announced
the formation of their own Polity Committee; a committee that was to be chaired
by CJ and subsequently it was announced that Phil Sasser, another pastor, would
co-chair that with him.
“Following an SGM Board meeting in
Louisville in April, the Board released the Ambassadors of Reconciliation
report that we’d been waiting for. Well, this report did not address everything
we’d hoped for but it did provide numerous specific recommendations for
Sovereign Grace Ministries; more to say on that in a moment.
“A couple days after that report was
released the Board announced that Sovereign Grace Ministries was leaving the
building it has shared with Covenant Life Church and relocating to Louisville.
Among the reasons they cited for the move was the high cost of living in the DC
Metro area and the proximity in Louisville to Southern Seminary. I understand
the move is expected to begin this month.
“So, moving forward to today; where do
we find ourselves today? Well, we still have not received answers to many of
the questions that we’ve posed to the Sovereign Grace Ministries Board dating
back two years. We have no regional representative nor have we been part a
regional phone call or meeting in the year 2011 or 2012. We continue to have
very limited communication with Sovereign Grace Board members.
“One of the panel reports recommended
that when there are relational difficulties with a church planter and key
people within Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership or churches they should not
proceed with the plant. Yet there are plans underway for C.J. to plant a church
in Louisville despite significant relational difficulties with a number of
people. There has been no explanation from Sovereign Grace Ministries about how
that decision was made or how that [is a] response to that recommendation. The
decision to move to Louisville was not made with input from Sovereign Grace
Ministries churches like ours. C.J.’s appointment as co-chair of Sovereign
Grace Ministries Polity Committee seems to us to be out of step with his
statements from last November about his limited gifting and his desire to focus
on pastoral ministry.
“The panel reports that were released
in January and the AoR Report that was released later [in April] both listed
actions that they recommended to Sovereign Grace Ministries take. To date the
Sovereign Grace Ministries Board has not communicated their plan to implement
those recommendations. These are significant events.
“In light of what we’ve seen it seems
to us that we and Sovereign Grace Ministries are on diverging paths in polity,
principles and practices. So, what next? When will we make a decision about our
association with Sovereign Grace Ministries? Well, I want to remind you of our
strategy – we’re doing what we’ve been doing; we want to continue to work on
our own polity and we want to patiently see what develops within Sovereign
Grace Ministries.
“I want us to remember as well tonight
that Sovereign Grace Ministries is not a logo, or a website or an institution;
it’s a group of people, brothers for whom Christ died, people we continue to
love and pray for and with whom we will soon enough spend eternity together. So
we continue to take this patient approach to this enormously significant and
important decision. We know that God can act at any time and can change things
quickly if He so desires.
“We won’t know for sure what Sovereign
Grace Ministries polity is until we see the final partnership agreement that
will outline how they will be associated with member churches and what
authority will look like. We’ve heard that this final version will be ready
sometime in the fall and as developments occur within Sovereign Grace
Ministries we will continue to communicate them to you.”
##
Florida Pastors Meet with
C.J. (May 25, 2012)
The Florida pastors requested a
meeting with C.J. In advance they sent him a long list of questions. You’ll
find them below. The meeting did not go well. The vast majority of men were
displeased and troubled by the evening. A large number of the pastors left
planning to position their churches to leave SGM in the coming year because of
C.J.’s tone, attitude, and approach and the events of the past year. At his
meeting, C.J. acknowledged no wrong doing and confessed no sin. Jeff Purswell
and Mickey Connolly were there to defend him.
It was a repeat of the Pastors
Conference in November. C.J. did not answer their questions and spent the
evening justifying himself and placing the blame upon others like the Covenant
Life pastors. Many of the leaders in Florida believe everything C.J. is doing
contradicts all he has preached. In particular, they can’t begin to support
C.J. until he is reconciled to the Covenant Life pastors. I’ve encouraged these
men to write up their observations from the meeting for the Board of Directors
and the other pastors in the movement. People need to be told. We are way
beyond the first and second steps of Matthew 18.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Keith Collins; Peter Davidson; Jeff Ehrhardt; Matt Mason;
Pete Schefferstein; Phil Courson; Mike Gilland; Shannon Day; John Lenfestey;
Wayne Brooks; Jon Morales; David Traugott; Luan Nguyen; Joe Calabello; Ed
Edwards; Jerry Cisar; Steve Brunson; Ryan Carver; Daryn Kinney; Danny Jones;
Chip Chew; Aaron Law; Mike Nash; Benny Phillips; Al Pino; Corey Schmatjen; Jose
Prado; Bentley Crawford; Jason Stubblefield; Brian Brookins; Adam Greenfield;
Michael Rizutti; Jesse Jarvis; Tim Merwin; Alex Bowman; Chris Dunlop
Subject: C.J.'s Conduct at May 25 Meeting
Hello Brothers,
Over the past year, C.J. has given
repeated evidence to the patterns of sin I pointed out in my documents. Your
experience with him on May 25 is one example among many. Long ago C.J. should
have been rebuked in public for his continuation in sin. Those of you who
observed these kinds of sins in your meeting and on other occasions should
together (individual appeals carry little weight) write a letter to C.J.
appealing for his repentance. If he is unresponsive you should send a report to
all the pastors of SGM about the meeting and your interaction with C.J. This
kind of accountability is desperately needed if there is any hope for reform in
C.J.’s life since the current Board of Directors continues to enable him just
like the interim Board did. Such appeals and honesty must come from those
outside the Board who are impartial.
I hope and pray you will act with
courage and decisiveness.
Sincerely,
Brent
In predictable fashion, John Loftness,
Chairman of the Board of Directors for SGM, wrote the following in response to
the Florida pastors and others who are raising concerns.
John has yet to acknowledge any flaws
in C.J. or any problems in SGM. He too places the blame on others and concludes
there is no basis for “atmosphere of suspicion” except gossip and slander.
Therefore, questions and concerns are illegitimate. They arise out of evil
suspicions according to John since C.J. is blameless and the SGM Board is
guiltless. As I mentioned in my last blog post; the old Board, the interim
Board, and the new Board have yet to acknowledged any wrong doing or take any
responsibility for the sin problems that exist in SGM.
Here what’s obvious. John Loftness is
not holding C.J. accountable. Nor is the current Board of Directors. The same
patterns of sin I’ve sought to address in C.J.’s life are still on displayed
for all too see. There has been no repentance. That’s why there has been no
confession and no fruit; no reconciliation and no restitution. Half the pastors
in SGM are beginning to recognize this sad truth. The other half still have
their heads buried in the sand. The real question is whether or not anyone has
the courage to hold C.J. accountable for his words and actions from this past
year. Theoretically, you could throw out all my documents and still have plenty
of evidence to remove C.J. as President of SGM.
The bad experience of the Florida
pastors with C.J. must be told to the SGM pastors and churches. It serves as
another example of C.J.’s continuation in the same sinful patterns of behavior
that have been brought to his attention for over a decade. He needs to be
publicly rebuked by men from all quarters of SGM who do not fear his wrath and
are willing to suffer any consequences that may follow.
Questions for C.J. from
Florida Pastors (Friday, May 25, 6pm-10pm)
Covenant Life Church
- Why did you feel you could leave Covenant Life in
these circumstances when for 30 years you’ve championed local church
accountability?
- Why have other pastors had to stay at churches under
super difficult circumstances and you were able to leave?
- On a similar theme: as a young guy (I’m 27 years
old, in SGM for 7 years), my observation is that you are the exception to
lots of “rules.” For example: with your relational difficulties with CLC,
you got to announce a church plant! I can’t help but wonder if say, a
senior pastor was having serious relational difficulties in their church
that SGM would announce his church plant and approve him to go? Do you
feel you are the exception in SGM, CJ? Why or why not?
- How are things with CJ and Josh?
- How has the Gospel brought reconciliation between
them?
- What would CJ say has been Josh’s struggle with CJ?
(We would also be wondering - how has this affected his relationship with
guys like Robin Boisvert or Kenneth Maresco? Guys who served together for
many years.)
- These struggles did not pop up overnight; does CJ
see change needed in his leadership and character that he did not see over
the past years? If yes, what changes is he seeking to make?
- Do all of the CLC pastors fully support you planting
a church at this time?
- What are we missing when men who we respect like
Kenneth, Grant, Robin and Josh decide to take CLC in the direction they
are going? The same could be asked about Fairfax.
- Do you believe the elders of one’s home church, have
the greatest biblical mandate to evaluate a fellow elders’ character and
conduct? Why did you choose to not follow the recommendations of the
elders of CLC last July/August time frame for how to work through the
charges?
- Do you believe you have fully reconciled with the
CLC elders, and would they feel the same? If not, what do you perceive the
offenses between you to be? Specifically, what is your offense with them?
And do you perceive their offense with you to be? Are you pursuing (active
present) reconciliation still?
- Historically, SGM pastors have been
required/expected to remain at their home church while their
competency/qualifications were being reviewed. What is the biblical
support for not following the same approach?
- Please update us as to why CLC is not on the new
Board.
- Can C.J. say he has the full support of the elders
and the support of the church? If yes, what does that support look like?
If no, why is that ok?
- Given the history of broken relationships, what is
your relationship like with the elders at CLC? In particular, Robin
Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, and Grant Laymen – your brother in law? These
are men who have served with you for years.
Louisville, KY
- If you are to resign as President of SGM (according
to your statement), why did SGM move to Louisville when you are planting a
church there? Is now your church in Louisville the base church for SGM
instead of CLC or some other SGM church?
- On April 19th 2012, there was a letter posted on the
Sovereign Grace Ministries web site explaining the Board’s decision to
relocate the Pastor’s College to Louisville. On this letter it was stated
that it was the Board’s decision to do so after a vote at the first
retreat the board had together. Who set up such a big decision to be made
in light of the lack of time that the board had been together and able to
prayerfully and wisely consider all the options and implications of such a
move?
- On February 27th 2012, the interim board sent out a
letter outlining four priorities for the new board, none of these
priorities called for a decision on a move to Louisville. What would cause
the new board to put aside their priorities as stated by this letter and
engage on a vote to relocate Sovereign Grace Ministries to another city?
Who made that call and when was it made?
- The vote to move Sovereign Grace Ministries to
Louisville took place on the board’s retreat April 9th-10th yet nothing
was communicated to the SGM pastors until a letter was posted on the web
site April 19th. Many pastors who don’t regularly check the web site
didn’t even find out till days after. Why was this move communicated to
pastors and leaders outside SGM prior to the pastors of SGM?
- Why were so many details of the move to Louisville
discussed and acted upon prior to the board’s inception and most
importantly prior to the vote (i.e. talks with Southern Theological
Seminar, homes being listed for sale, etc...)?
- Do you think that the decision to make a major
ministry change – moving to Louisville – was appropriate for the new
board’s first official meeting? Was this vote anything but a token
procedure? How could it (the vote by the new board) be taken as a serious
consideration when several SGM staffers had already placed their houses on
the market for sale?
SGM Board and Your Role
- There is this perception that when the “Board votes”
or “decides” something that it’s all a sham (meaning: the vote really
doesn’t mean anything...things are decided long before the Board gives
input or the Pastors give input). For example recently it was public
knowledge that your house, along with a few others were on the market for
sale weeks before the Board “approved” the move to Louisville. It gives
the perception that it was already a “done deal” long before the Board ever
approved it. How are decisions made on the Board?
- Currently, you are the President and the new
“polity” in SGM is that the Leadership team and Board are separate. What
direct input are you able to give to the Board? How do you affect their
decisions?
- Does it give you confidence as President that only
50% of Pastors “approved” the new Board? 30% were not in favor, and 20%
didn’t even respond [because they did not agree with the process]. Does
that give you reason to pause? Are you considering figuring out why it
appears only half of the movement is in support of this current new
direction?
- Do you believe that pastors should nominate Board
members from each region and also have a direct vote on who is on the
Board?
- CJ, in the letter you wrote that accompanied the
panel reports, you said, “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. I love SGM and I want the best for SGM. Lord
willing, I look forward to serving SGM more effectively in a different
role. So my return will be temporary and with a few important intentions.”
What time line for and process for transition do you envision for this new
president, and what new role do you anticipate for yourself?
- In November I believe you stated that a weakness in
your past leadership has been speed/lack of process/time for decisions to
settle in with others. If I am remembering correctly... then please
explain if/how that affected the Louisville relocation decision... this
announcement seemed to feel, at least to me, rushed given the magnitude of
the decision and the lack of time the Board had been seated.
- How do we reconcile the leadership conference [last
November]? CJ told us his leadership is why SGM is where it is.... / he
has not been positioned in his gifting / etc.... (this is not a quote -
but I think it is the gist of what he was saying). Now the shift seems to
be plant a church and move SGM next to where he will pastor -- does this
seem confusing? Are we building the movement around CJ’s church plant -- I
assume that is to be the “flag ship”....
- Does it seem we are breaking the very things we have
taught and held dear to make this move of SGM and this church plant
happen?
- How does this precedence guard against leadership
style differences in the future?
- How does our theology inform this methodology of
taking SGM headquarters to a different location?
- Affirmation process -- lots of questions on the
affirmation process of the new board. I would like to hear a straight up –
- This is what we were thinking on the affirmation
process.
- This is how we set it up and why.
- This is how we thought about the pastors that did
not participate (Fairfax letter)
- This is how we thought about the comments made by
the pastors who did participate but voiced concerns on different nominees.
- This is how we gathered all the data and determined
what we determined. This is why this board was affirmed (I still don’t
have any real sense that the board was affirmed and that is not good...)
- How do you plan to help improve our communications between
local churches/pastors and SGM leadership?
- What were the criteria used for the nomination of
board members? How can
- interim board members nominate themselves to the
permanent board?
- I was one who DID offer a great deal of input on the
list of new board members. I made a strong appeal, but my feedback was not
even acknowledged as having been received. What assurances do we as
pastors in SGM have that our thoughts or input would ever be heeded in any
polity discussions?
Three Panel Reports
- In light of the SGM panel reports, especially the
one with Larry Tomczak, has there or is there going to be any steps to
follow through on that report?
- According to the SGM panel reports, there was a
recommendation that we not plant churches when the SGM board or the elders
of that particular church are not in full faith for the pastor to plant.
Given that you changed your membership from CLC to Solid Rock, do you
think the elders of CLC would recommend such a move?
- Please update us as to the status of the recommendations
from the panel reviews.
Polity
- To some it would appear you don’t personally own or
have experience with the type of polity we are trying to pursue. Why then
are you the head of the polity committee? How would you explain to us how
you personally own or have experience with the type of polity we’re after?
- What do you personally believe the polity in SGM
should look like going forward?
Relationship
- What will the relationship be (not just polity)
between the new leadership team and the new board team? How will they
function together? Will the local pastors relate to them differently than
they have related to the “apostolic team” previously?
- CJ, it appears that there has been a chain of broken
relationships that have either remained or gone long periods of time
unresolved in your life with those you have served with in ministry. Do
you believe this speaks to a character issue in you? Does it have any
bearing on your qualification as President of the ministry?
- How are things with SGM and CLC?
- Besides the economical and financial reasons given
for a move, how has the CLC / SGM struggles brought about this move? (It
seems disingenuous to say we are only moving because of financial reasons
and because we have been thinking this for a long time.... It seems like
we want to pretend there is no elephant in the room .)
- Much of what has unfolded since last July within SGM
could seemingly have been avoided had our leaders – specifically CJ – put
into practice our own teachings on practical relationships and the
critical need to “get up from our altar” and go to the one with whom we
have some sense of offense – and be reconciled. How is it that this did
not happen with Larry Tomczak and with Brent?
- In a pivotal moment last November (at the Pastor’s
Conference), CJ forfeited what could – and I believe would - have been a
healing moment had he assumed responsibility for his own actions. He chose
instead to “up the ante” in terms of the gap between relationships. What
prevented you (CJ) from owning the things that were clearly out of order
(including those things that were in Brent’s documents)? Please know – I
do not agree with much of what Brent has said and done. But the fact
remains that your comments contained therein do reflect both attitudes and
decisions that have to be acknowledged.
Church Plant
- The panel reports recommended that a man not plant a
church without the recommendation of the sending church elders. Given the
long-term nature of the relationship with CLC and the only transitional
nature of that with Solid Rock, do all of the CLC pastors fully support
you planting a church at this time? If not, why not?
- We still do not understand.... we need more data to
understand why CJ can leave CLC and all SGC churches -- reasons given at
leadership conference did not resolve the question in our minds. This then
leads to the obvious question: how can CJ plant a church with how he left
CLC and without the support of his local elders?
- Why was it necessary to leave CLC and go to CHBC and
how was that consistent with the Gospel?
- Would any other pastor in SGM receive the green
light to lead a church plant when he was in a state of fallout with his
own church, and out of relationship with his co-pastors to such a degree
as what has happened in this situation?
Communication
- Communication that is lacking between SGM leaders
and local pastors. Will this be the way things are done in the future?
That is, SGM’s leadership asks SGM pastors for feedback or participation
and no response is given to the individuals who participate by providing
feedback. This does not foster confidence in the upcoming discussions
about polity and church partnership agreements where our input will once
again be solicited.
- The pastors of SGM were asked to affirm or register
their concerns for the nominees to the new permanent SGM Board. I did not
affirm any of the candidates at that time because I had concerns on the
speed of the process with little communication in between. I made my
concerns known both by a personal email to the Interim Board and by
signing on to the Fairfax letter that stated similar concerns for the
process and made appeals for slowing it down. Though we were asked for
feedback, whether by affirming or raising concerns, the only response that
I received to my email and concerns was a public response by the Interim
Board that basically stated that “concerns by some pastors had been
considered, but they were moving on with the process.” Even if a regional
pastor or Interim Board member were given the assignment to contact each pastor
who raised concerns (whether that contact and follow-up took place or not)
this does not address nor solve what I perceive as a weak and troubling
lack of clear, timely and effective communication between the Leaders of
SGM and the pastors of SGM.
- Acknowledgement of past mistakes and lessons
learned. Will there be, and in your opinion, should there be a formal and
public acknowledgement of mistakes made. In the past by the SGM leadership
team and pastors as well as a statement of lessons learned from past
mistakes or shifts in policies, doctrine and practice?
- It is my opinion that this issue, if properly
treated, will drive a stake in the ground that will be helpful in
preserving our historical roots, strengthening our future partnerships,
and demonstrate the humility that is commensurate with servant leadership.
I suggest convocation of only SGM pastors for this exercise.
- How do you believe your leadership specifically has
contributed to the current difficulties within SGM?
- In the response to the AoR report, I find this
statement to be rather surprising – “I (C.J.) want to sincerely apologize
for the ways in which deficiencies in my leadership have contributed to
the ministry failures catalogued in this report.” This was the extent of
the “repentance” statement. Why did you (CJ) use the language of “apology”
instead of “repentance.” When we err, are we to “apologize”?
Miscellaneous
- News about changes in pneumatology has been floating
around. Are their changes and if so, what are they? I would think there
would be a lot of interest in this subject!
- Do you really believe that the difficulties you
endured as a pastor at Covenant Life Church this past year, were so much
more difficult than those endured by pastors like a Dan Stolldorf, Frank
Ecelbarger, Chris Lutyk, Benny Phillips, Steve Whitman, or others who when
leaving their roles were asked or expected to stay on in the churches and
endured much as individuals and families, as to say that you were not
expecting different treatment, but rather that yours were exceptional
circumstances?
- How does CJ feel about Lay Elders -- we are moving
in that direction here --any comments about that direction?
- What areas of historic concern need to be examined,
where there have been shifts of emphasis without clear communication of
such shifts?
- Do you believe that formal input from pastors and
churches would be beneficial? If so, what would that look like if you
could decide yourself?
- Has there been or is there going to be any further
steps to repent of wrongdoing in light of the recent AoR report? Or do you
feel that the “apology” given at the end of the report is sufficient?
- It is well noted that the many of the mid-Atlantic
area churches were not in favor of John Loftness being their regional
leader and over 62 pastors and over 30 churches did not affirm these men
to lead SGM. Will the pastors of SGM ever have a voice in the nomination
of their leaders?
- Why was such a sweeping statement as (paraphrased) –
“I moved my family to Capitol Hill Baptist to avoid their being
assaulted...” – used to typify CLC’s response to you and your family? Did
you intend to categorize the whole church in this way?
- The AoR report recommends: “Repent and believe the
Gospel...Confess your individual and corporate sins” (p. 35). As you look
back at our history and all that had been taught and practiced in SGM
churches as a whole (or to a large extent), are there sins and/or errors
that you would acknowledge? If so, will you make a written, public
acknowledgment and repentance of these things? Or, is what is written in
CJ’s and the Board’s response under “Pastoral Practice” the extent of it?
More on next page in form of a letter.
Dear CJ and Board Members,
As a fellow pastor I want to thank you
for seeking to play a role of leading and caring for our family of churches. I
know that your lives are full and your responsibilities apart from this role
are many and that embracing this responsibility in this hour is going to come
with a personal cost to you, your family, and your local churches. Any
suggestions, comments, or concerns that I may express are soaked in awareness
of my own limitations and weaknesses that others have had to put up with in
walking with me.
I realize you are having to sort
through much feedback and input, so I’ll try to bullet and bold the basic
essential points and if you are interested further you can read the rest of the
info provided under each point.
· Addressing the past before
charting a course for the future. It seems like the last year to 2
years has been a season of dealing with past conflicts, deficiencies, and
questionable structures. Before we seek to engineer the future, it seems
critical that we analyze what exactly has and has not worked correctly and why.
In my limited conversations with other pastors it seems that some have grown to
feel it necessary to have a ‘fresh start’ and that view has effected how people
are feeling about who should be on the board, and I can imagine that this will
also effect how people feel about who is serving on the leadership team. A
number of areas of past emphasis need to be openly and specifically addressed
so that what we have learned by teaching, modeling, and emphasis can be
clarified in our understanding and practice as local pastors.
- How should we assess issues of pride in the life of
a pastor? What insights have been gained over the past few years in how
leaders walk together in this area of evaluation and partnership? It seems
that a common area of disqualification has been the evaluation of a man’s
pride. Pride in forms like in entreatability, approachability, plurality,
disaffection over being corrected, etc. was connected to issues with Larry
Tomczak, Brent, CJ, and others in leadership. This area of a man’s heart
is not easy to accurately discern and yet it appears that situations like
these have involved decisions about a man’s leadership that have
drastically altered their roles and ability to serve in the future. What
have we learned in this area? Will we continue to address this area as we
have or do we think we need to do some things differently?
- Realistic adjustment to the expectations and
parameters of local leadership teams. What was emphasized through
conference introductions, sermon illustrations, and apostolic team input
was that exceptional friendships and relationships among leadership teams
were a norm. Sharing of life, open exchange of confession/adjustment,
care, involvement with families, etc. were presented as common and
attainable. While it served to give us something to aim at, it did not
seem to contain enough realism and left many teams wondering what we were
doing wrong. With issues now being partially published about relationships
between CJ, Brent, Larry Tomczak, Pat Ennis, the Covenant Life elders, and
others in varying roles of leadership, it seems pretty important to more
specifically address what failed and why. In the past couple of years it
seems that there’s been a few local teams that have gone through some form
of implosion and it appears that part of this may be related to
unrealistic expectations that were present on those teams.
- The qualifying and disqualifying of pastors on the
basis of their children’s faith and behavior. When I first began attending
PDI conferences in the mid-late 90’s, it was a somewhat regular event for
a pastor to publicly resign. The dominant and usually related issues were
about assessing a man’s pride and his parenting. They read statements that
included wordings like, ‘this did not have to happen’. There were
teachings that a man’s gifting would be confirmed by the behavior of his
children. But in the early 2000’s to present there were numerous pastoral
situations where children were wayward but there was no resignation or
public adjustment made and the pastor continued to serve as he had been
serving. With such careful and intentional modeling and teaching in the
past, it seems necessary to do as much careful explaining and adjusting in
the present if insights and practices have changed in this area. To not do
so is to assume that local pastors--often inexperienced and zealous
pastors will understand and correctly adjust their opinions and approach
in these areas.
- The need for clarity on handling the doctrine of sin
and our role with one another in participating in one another’s
sanctification. This seems to be an issue on the table for evaluation and
clarification.
· Evaluation of past apostolic ministry
needs to include more than issues of structure and authority. Having come from
a situation where all we had was local leadership and influence, I see a need
for some form of healthy extra-local ministry in the local church. It seems
much of the discussion in this area is focused on the authority of apostolic
ministry and the inference that there were situations where that authority was
over played in the past. It would be helpful to get clarity on what that looked
like and what exactly needs to be done to correct that. It may be more a matter
of how individual apostolic men conduct themselves and how they should see
themselves functioning in a plurality rather than creating a future structure
without apostolic ministry. Similar problems can easily occur in local teams
and the remedy probably is not to do away with the Sr. Pastor role for
instance, but rather to adjust how that role functions in plurality with
others.
- Clarity on the accusations that have piled up
against CJ are needed. Over the past months there have been many documents
and comments made that have affected the public perception of CJ. That has
been further influenced by the fact that some of these statements have
been made by people who were respected leaders within SGM and who worked
in settings that are not publicly observed by many people within SGM who
are now asked to follow CJ. Since it seems clear that CJ is very gifted
and has been very fruitful in leading this family of churches, and that
every effort should be made to rightly employ those gifting’s in the
future, it seems important to bring clarity to areas of accusation that
would affect other people’s ability to follow his leadership.
- If CJ truly struggles with giving consistent,
unbiased leadership to others and with receiving input from other leaders,
when he is offended or disagreed with, then that would make it hard for
others to feel confident in his leadership and would affect his ability to
play the role of President or other leadership team roles. But that has
not clearly been stated as true or not.
- If CJ simply holds his views with strong convictions
and other leaders have historically found it challenging to adjust his
input, that’s not necessarily disqualifying. Most people are leaders
because they have some ideas that make sense to them, they feel strongly
about those ideas, and they seek to implement those ideas. The question is
whether or not CJ can both give strong leadership, with strong convictions
and still make room for a humble functional plurality.
- The future of outside influence for SGM. Without
question we have benefited by receiving much preaching and doctrinal help
from strong teachers within the reformed community. There is wisdom and
influence that we are eager to welcome from others in the body of Christ
like those at Southern Seminary. The leadership strengths of the gifted
men in T4G have brought extremely helpful influence. What seems to be
diminishing is to have significant input and influence from others in the
larger body of Christ who can have the same type of influence and effect
on our practice of engaging the Holy Spirit on a larger scale and in
broader ways (I say broader ways because I believe the ministries of the
T4G team and Southern Seminary are important expressions of the Spirit’s
ministry as well). Is there no place any longer for men like Terry Virgo
who share much in common with us and have insights and experiences in New
Testament ministry that we also greatly need?
- The call for the leadership team to lead and their
receiving of input from SGM pastors. It seems that many are of the opinion
that former leadership in SGM was not accustomed to seeking the input of
the local pastors in many leadership decisions. I do recall several
occasions where we’ve been asked to give input on upcoming planning of
conferences and feedback on how things were being done, so I do think
there’s been opportunity, but for the most part we have granted the
leadership team the role of leading with limited amounts of input. I don’t
believe that leadership should be done by polling, but in this important
time frame, I do think it is important that greater dialog gets created
and more input is received before more forward motion is sought. We are
still in the paradigm of shepherd and sheep, and it behooves the shepherds
to know the condition of their sheep, lest they move on without them. This
season has stirred up issues of trust for some, questions of
methods/policies for others, and concerns for the ability for future
partnership for others. In that environment it doesn’t seem that haste should
be our setting. In a movement that has grown significantly in the past 10
years, there may need to be a season of regrouping and gaining
like-mindedness and receiving something of an outpouring from God that
will protect us, solidify us, and launch us into the future. It needs to
seem good to us and the Holy Spirit--this was the voice of the plural
leaders and extended team in Jerusalem and would perhaps serve us well
also.
- Placing realistic boundaries on local pastors who
are involved in extra-local ministry. It seems like some discussion needs
to occur concerning what to expect from those who function in an
extra-local role. There are many factors that contribute to this limited
role (the man’s level of gifting & experience, his responsibilities in
his own church, his season of life with his family, his distance from the
day to day activity of the church he is supporting, limited awareness of
local leadership issues there, etc.). What has been learned over the years
in this area that may need to be taught and clarified to the local teams
and churches.
- Recognizing that Relational Trust has been weakened.
I have always greatly appreciated the emphasis on relational ministry
within SGM. It was one of the things that attracted me to pursuing
extra-local ministry as it was modeled in SGM. There was love, respect,
care, and honoring being modeled in these relationships that we observed
from a distance. People that I spent time with, like Phil Courson, taught
me to love and trust men like Danny Jones, who taught me to love and trust
men like Brent, who taught me to love and trust men like CJ and Dave.
Conference settings and the like provided opportunities for CJ and Dave to
strengthen my abilities to trust and appreciate guys like Josh Harris,
Mark Mullery, and Pat Ennis. It is this relational practice and influence
that has created the level of trust that has characterized our past. But
it is realistic to assume that when Brent does what he did, Josh [Harris]
and Mark [Mullery] have been associated with internal conflict and are no
longer held out as influential men to the leadership team, and Pat Ennis
resigns amidst questions, there will be damage done to the relational
fabric that has built trust within the movement. It took a long time to
build this fabric and the way things have unfolded has created weakness
and the leadership team and board may need to be prepared to repair what
has been weakened. This would be influential in how and how quickly the
leadership attempts to move us forward in this season.
