21 Excellent and Unanswered Questons about SGM/Mahaney

Jenn Grover asks 21 excellent and unanswered questions on her FB at: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=695090287&ref=tn_tnmn#!/jenn.grover

 

21 Questions and Concerns for SGM Pastors
(or, When is enough, enough?)

I have had discussions with SGM pastors and leaders and none have really been able to answer any of these questions and concerns. I can't help but wonder how much is too much before pastors put SGM on notice.

1. Why did CJ, in essence, fire Ted Kober? How is mediation or conflict resolution occurring?
2. If CJ felt the freedom to fire Ted for this, why should anyone believe he will take the report seriously?
3. How will mediation between CJ and CLC members occur?
4. Where is CJ planting his church?
5. Who is funding his church plant? Who will be on his team?
6. Is the SGM headquarters moving?
7. In light of Matt 5, how can a man with unreconciled relationships (so many, so recent) be qualified to plant a church?
8. SGM made it seem like Brent's allegations were untrue when the documents became public. They have yet to present any evidence that contradicts Brent's documents. Will they acknowledge they were wrong?
9. Will CJ or SGM address the Tomczack letter?
10. No one has publicly confessed or apologized to those of us in SGM for only giving us the reasons for Larry's departure from their perspective and thereby misleading us. It appears as though the entire board is culpable in this matter (Steve, Brent, Dave, CJ.) What can we expect in this matter?
11. There have been no specific confessions by any leader since the crisis began in July. There has been no asking of forgiveness. Even in CJ's remarks at the Nov. PC he did not confess that it was his wrongdoing that has affected pastors, he merely apologized that pastors have been affected by the circumstances. If there has been no public confession, no acknowledgement, how can we have any assurance that there has been acceptance of blame or responsibility which is the crucial initial step towards change?
12. The board has misled us by only revealing partial information or parsing words in the case of representing who initiated the idea for the preliminary panel as well as who wrote the questions the three panels addressed. How can we expect them to address these issues? How are we to trust men who have orchestrated such deception?
13. The board said it would comply in full with the AoR initial report. So far, they have not really complied at all.
a. The report indicated that the board members needed to go in person to Brent. Instead of Dave, Steve, and CJ going to Brent, they sent Mickey with a letter.
b. AoR recommended 3 panels of 5 men chosen via blind draw. The board chose 3 panels of 3 men with no blind draw, but men of their own choosing.
c. The board said they would use AoR's questions. The board wrote their own questions.
14. Mark Prater told me, and Dave Harvey indicated on the SGM blog, that after the panel report, they would tell "the other side of the story" that would vindicate CJ in the blackmail matter. That has never occurred. Furthermore, what could possibly vindicate CJ of the blackmail charge? Mark also indicated that disclosing the other side of the story could unfairly affect the panels. Can someone explain why CJ's remarks at the Nov. PC would not have had a greater impact on the panels?
15. The panel found CJ and the board guilty in the case of sinful coercion. The actions they took legally translated into blackmail, which is a felony. Can someone explain how that does not disqualify CJ and the other board members involved based on the Scripture that mandates that leaders must be "above reproach?"
16. CJ and Josh are unreconciled, SGM and CLC are unreconciled, and other interim board members are unreconciled with members and pastors. Can someone explain how their current ministry positions and activities are in harmony with the command in Matt. 18 to "leave your gift at the alter…"? Furthermore, the board's failure to respond to the charges against interim board members seem to signal that they have not learned from this season and still do not take charges seriously.
17. The board has never actually admitted to any mistakes, only that they could have done better. They also blame many of their issues during this season on poor communication, yet, when I spoke with Mark Prater he indicated that the SGM view on transparency and informing members of information has not fundamentally changed. For example, the time when Mark knew he was leaving Providence and they were interviewing and considering other guys for Mark's position was left unknown to the non-vocational board member and congregation. It was only after all decisions had been made final that we were informed. According to Mark, we would not expect that situation to occur much differently today than it happened 10 years ago. Mark still believes that people are not always "served" by being fed information.
18. The charges against Dave and Steve have gone completely unaddressed, except where the panel report touched on them regarding blackmail. Why is that?
19. I have heard repeatedly that pastors are awaiting the AoR report before making any decisions. Can you explain what it is that pastors expect to see in the AoR report?
20. Has the SGM membership agreement changed? Pastors seem to state that SGM has no authority over local churches, yet, as evidenced time and time again, the SGM board has exercised extra-local authority time and time again. When CJ came to make the Mark Prater announcement to Pittsburgh, he claimed ultimate responsibility for the decision. Numerous leaders have been removed due to SGM involvement. Even in Larry's recent open letter, we learned that SGM board felt it had the authority to remove Mark Altrogge and Benny Phillips (although they did not act on that notion.) What has changed that they no longer have this authority?
21. After the instances where it has been proven that the board left out key information or used information out of context for their own advantage, how can pastors continue to trust the same men? How many cases of deception are necessary before pastors stop trusting them? I know Pastors frequently cite key names and their lack of negative experiences with these men, but what about those of us who have had negative experiences with these men? Are we supposed to disregard are own experiences and perceptions in exchange for pastors who may have received better treatment than us?

SGM-Mahaneygate: Harvey Claims Interest in Detwiler Documents

Harvey and about 20 other leaders had the Detwiler documents since at least Oct 2010.  They all had a large pow-wow in Nov 2010.  Yet, nothing, no interest and no answers...there still are none...other than the damage control efforts ensuing AFTER the Detwiler documents were released in Jul 2011.

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/11/28/we-are-taking-brent-detwilers-allegations-seriously.html

We Are Taking Brent Detwiler's Allegations Seriously!

Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:07PM

 

Dave Harvey just posted. Here is a fast and brief response. My comments are in blue ink.

What are we doing about the allegations against C.J.?

November 28, 2011 by Dave Harvey

That’s the big question, isn’t it? How is Sovereign Grace’s board handling the allegations that Brent Detwiler has brought against C.J. Mahaney? We know that you care about this a lot. We also care about this a lot, and we are taking Brent’s allegations seriously. We don’t want to ignore the many accusations that now sit in the public mind. We want to get this right. Brent’s documents require impartial examination and C.J. deserves a fair hearing.

The Board is totally ignoring the vast majority of my accusations. Around 95%. They are not examining my documents. They have tossed them aside. They are looking at approximately 5% of what I’ve written.

So with the help of Ted Kober from Ambassadors of Reconciliation and under the direction of an independent facilitator named Bryce Thomas, we’ve set up the following process (I realize that this is a lot of info, but we believe that it’s important, so please stay with me).

Three evaluation committees

Three committees have been formed, each one responsible for answering one key question established by the independent facilitator. The first committee will answer the question: Was Larry Tomzak’s departure from Sovereign Grace Ministries handled properly? The second committee will answer the question: Did C.J. Mahaney wrongly influence the dismissal of Brent Detwiler from his church in Mooresville, NC? The third committee will answer the question: Was C.J. Mahaney’s participation in fellowship in 2003 and 2004, including the giving and receiving of correction, in keeping with the teaching of Scripture?

These three questions are so limited. It is not even clear if the first question deals with C.J. and Steve Shank’s premeditated blackmail of the Tomczak’s. In my previous blog post, I dealt with the second question about my dismissal. The third question requires my participation; but I have been excluded. I have information no one else can provide. And the question should not be “in keeping with the teaching of Scripture” but in keeping with the teaching of C.J. and the practice of SGM.

Each committee has been directed to determine three things:

1. What happened?
2. What is the significance of what happened?
3. What should the Sovereign Grace board do based upon the panel’s findings?

In their evaluation, each of the committees is able to look at any evidence and call any witnesses without restrictions. The facilitator will oversee each panel to certify that all evidence was heard and considered in accordance with standard rules of evidence.

The committees don’t know who to call as witness. Along with others, I should have been consulted.

Each of the committees will prepare a report that will contain recommendations for the SGM board. We will publish the unedited reports after the board has reviewed them and written its own response to them. Since the committees have until December 13 to produce the reports, the board will likely wait until January to release them.

Composition of the committees

Each committee is made up of two pastors from within SGM and one member of the SGM board. Both AOR and the facilitator recommended a panel of three and affirmed this composition. Under the facilitator’s direction, the board established the following qualifications for those serving on the review committees. Each member must:

1. Be an ordained pastor in SGM
2. Have at least five years of ministry experience
3. Have demonstrated wisdom and discernment in the past
4. Have a reputation for being trustworthy
5. Have no prior involvement in any of the issues at stake

No member of the SGM Board is trustworthy given their consistent bias and deceit since July 6.

Additionally, the SGM board members serving on the committees were required to have board terms beginning in 2011, and to have not served on the previous SGM board.

That only excludes Joshua Harris. What a pity. I’d love for him to be on any panel, especially mine. He is the only one who has demonstrated any humility and honesty. I guess that disqualifies him.

Members of each committee were selected by the board in line with those qualifications.

Closing thoughts

Just a few thoughts. Is this a perfect process? No, of course not. We never could come up with a perfect process. But we believe that this is a fair, impartial process. The fact that it has been endorsed by both the independent facilitator and the team from AOR gives us confidence that the questions before each panel will be answered fairly and judiciously.

This is not a fair, impartial process. The scope of the investigation is altogether partial. In addition, no Board Member should be empaneled. They have been extremely biased from the beginning. See Dave’s July 13 blog post. Furthermore, I am excluded from question one and three. That is crazy if you are looking for justice. 

Of course, ultimately our hope is not in a process, but in Jesus. He is more committed to truth and righteousness and justice than anyone else. We want the truth to be known. But if our hope is ultimately in a committee or in a process, we’re going to be disappointed. That’s why our hope is in Christ, who is building the church and will continue to build the church. So please pray with us he will accomplish much good for our family of churches through the work of these panels.

This is one point I agree with – Jesus will make the truth know in this life or in the life to come. I certainly don’t expect this from the SGM Board. The three panel approach is a sham.

SGM-Mahaneygate: Josh Harris, CLC, 22 May 2011

http://www.covlife.org/static/meeting_notes

It's not easy to evaluate areas where we've made mistakes, but God has been helping the pastors of Covenant Life through the constructive feedback of members to identify areas where we've gotten things wrong and where we need to grow. At our Members Meeting Sunday night Josh shared the following message on behalf of the pastors. We're posting it here—both an audio version along with a full transcript—for the benefit of those who couldn't attend as well as former members. We hope you'll be encouraged as you see God's faithfulness to refine us and grow us.

Listen to Josh's message

• play
• pause
• stop

00:00

50:32

May 22, 2011 | Joshua Harris

Welcome, everyone. Thank you so much for making this gathering a priority. If this is your first Members Meeting, we are so happy to have you with us. For those of you who have been to many of these, let me say at the outset that the format of tonight’s meeting is going to be different than past times. Normally we share a number of different announcements and updates, but tonight I’m going to share some important things God has been showing the pastors about where we’ve gotten things wrong and where we believe we need to grow as leaders and as a church.

At the last members meeting I told you that we’d been receiving feedback from members about changes they’d seen in the church that hadn’t been fully explained. This led to the decision to hold several meetings at my house to hear the concerns and questions of members.

I am so grateful for the men and women of this church who have sat down with me and other pastors to help us evaluate our leadership. We had three meetings at my house this winter with nearly 80 people total, and we’ve also met with different individuals and couples one-on-one. People have shared honestly and courageously and also lovingly. I’ve experienced first-hand the truth of Proverbs 27:6 that says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend.” God has used these honest conversations to help us.

It’s so important to me and all the pastors that this open dialogue continues. This can’t be a limited season; it must be an ongoing way of life at Covenant Life. It’s essential for the health of our church that you know you can talk to your pastors and share questions and concerns at any time. For many of you, coming to us with questions or concerns has been your consistent practice. And for years our Care Group leaders have helped to facilitate an awareness among the pastors of the needs, strengths, and weaknesses they or other members have perceived. I’m grateful for the way they’ve served. But we’ve never wanted any member to hesitate to approach us. Sadly, several people have told me that they haven’t felt like they could do this. It grieves me that anyone has felt this way. We want that to change. Please don’t hesitate to bring any concern or question. Please don’t wait for an invitation or a special occasion.

One of the things that has been most encouraging about this process is that many of the points we’ve heard from members have lined up with and clarified things that God was already helping us see.

I share this not to imply that we already had this figured out, but to highlight what I believe is a work of the Holy Spirit. This church belongs to God. 1 Peter 5:4 tells us that Jesus is the “chief Shepherd.” And I see him shepherding us, growing us and refining us. And that’s why, even though it’s not easy to talk about our mistakes, I have a tremendous sense of faith for how God is working in our church.

So please understand that what I’m sharing tonight is not a matter of one group of people coming to the pastors with their observations. It’s something bigger than that. I believe God is answering our prayer that he would revive us and refine us. Is there anything we need more than that?

I want to read something to you from Ray Ortlund’s book When God Comes to Church. This is a book on revival, and this particular quote has both challenged me and stirred my faith greatly over the past eight months...

Commenting on Isaiah 64:1 (“Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down...”), Ray Ortlund writes:

When God rends the heavens and comes down on his people, a divine power achieves what human effort at its best fails to do. God's people thirst for the ministry of the Word and receive it with tender meltings of soul ... Reconciliation between believers is sought and granted. Spiritual things, rather than material things, capture people's hearts. A defensive, timid church is transformed into a confident army. Believers joyfully suffer for their Lord. They treasure usefulness to God over career advancement. Communion with God is avidly enjoyed. Churches and Christian organizations reform their policies and procedures. People who had always been indifferent to the gospel now inquire anxiously. And this type of spiritual movement draws in not just the isolated straggler here and there but large numbers of people. A wave of divine grace washes over the church and spills out into the world. That is what happens when God comes down. And that is how we should pray for the church today.

I’ve seen a desire for reconciliation, a willingness for self-evaluation, and a quickness to own mistakes; I believe all of these things reflect the work of the Spirit. And I see the Lord working to reform our church and grow us in ways that are needed.

As we learned in our study of Nehemiah, God is at work when his people rise up with faith to rebuild the walls.

When we started the Nehemiah series, I had no idea how much that study would challenge me personally and mirror what I believe God is doing in Covenant Life. Just like

Nehemiah and the people of Israel, I believe God has led us into a time of honest evaluation of the condition of the walls of our church.

Friends, by God’s grace, we have a strong, healthy, influential and growing church. There is so much to celebrate. I thank God that we love his Word and are seeking to center our lives on the gospel. I thank God that in so many ways we are united. I thank God that there is a real commitment to pursue holiness. I thank God for the depth of relationships and fellowship that we enjoy. I thank God that we’re pushing forward in gospel mission in our local community, and in partnership with Sovereign Grace, around the world. God has been so good to us. And we would dishonor him if we didn’t recognize that and give him all the glory! I’m so grateful for all the service, leadership and sacrifice that have brought us to this point.

But gratefulness for grace doesn’t mean we overlook areas of weakness. The Holy Spirit has also been helping us see places where the walls need repair. This shouldn’t surprise us or overly discourage us. We’re not in heaven yet. Covenant Life isn’t the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God! We’re flawed, sinful people whom God is changing. So we don’t need to be shocked when we realize that there are still places where God wants to apply grace to grow and transform us. There are areas we need to strengthen. There are places where we need to acknowledge we’ve gotten things wrong. I don’t think this process is negative or counter-productive. It’s certainly not an indictment of our rich history. It’s simply an acknowledgment of our ongoing need for gospel transformation and renewal. And I believe it is a vital part of ongoing growth and ongoing integrity for any local church.

This won’t be the last time we have to do this. I assure you this won’t be the last time we get things wrong. In future days, by God’s grace, we’ll no doubt see areas of our church that need realignment and refinement, and we’ll need to talk about them as a church family. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s a very healthy part of life together.

So let me share several key issues that I think God has been putting his finger on. I’m going to put these under three headlines that are an attempt to summarize the issues...

1. Reducing To One Practice

For several years now C.J. Mahaney, who was one of the founding pastors of Covenant Life and now serves as president of Sovereign Grace Ministries, has been leading the pastors of Sovereign Grace to recognize the difference between principle and practice. A principle is a clear teaching or imperative from God’s Word. A practice is a specific action or decision that seeks to apply a principle.

So for example, Scripture clearly teaches that husbands should love and cherish their wives (Eph. 5).

But how two Christian husbands put this same principle into practice can differ. One Christian can apply this principle by taking his wife out to dinner every Wednesday. But another husband might find time to communicate with and express affection for his wife with a walk around the neighborhood each night. They’re both honoring a biblical principle, but their practice is different.

One of the historic strengths of Covenant Life has been in putting principles into practice. We want to be, as James 1:22 says, not just hearers of the Word, but doers of the Word. May this never change! May we be a church community that takes God’s Word seriously and applies it to our lives.

Having said this, a strength in application can also be a weakness if we’re not careful. Here’s what I mean: if we elevate a single practice and invest it with the authority of biblical principle, we can place a rule or burden on people that isn’t actually commanded in God’s Word. For example, it wouldn’t be helpful if we said that the Bible teaches that couples need to go on a date every Wednesday. It’s a fine idea, but it’s not a scriptural command.

C.J. shared something with me recently that turned the light on for me. He quoted J.I. Packer who wrote that the Puritans were known for their ability to “reduce to practice”—in other words, they took biblical principles and reduced them to specific choices and decisions in their lives. This is a good thing. God’s Word, handled rightly, leads to humble and skillful application.

But C.J. pointed out that there can be a problem when we “reduce to only one practice”—and give the impression that there is only one godly way to honor a given principle.
Here are a few categories that members of the church have shared with us where they felt a single practice was over-emphasized in an unhelpful way:

• Dating and courtship
• Going away to college
• Girls and college
• Women’s Bible studies
• Women working outside the home

In each of these areas Christians can have differing practices and yet honor biblical principles. But in various ways I think we “reduced to only one practice,” and at times that brought the unintended consequence of people feeling the pressure that there was only one truly godly way to do things.

So for example, to honor biblical principles of purity, you had to practice courtship according to ideas in my books. Or to love the local church you shouldn’t go away to college but stay local. Or to value the leadership and teaching of the pastors, you shouldn’t attend outside Bible studies. Or to practice biblical femininity, you shouldn’t pursue higher education or work outside the home.

If you went back and listened to past messages, I don’t think you’d find us teaching, “There’s only one godly way to do this or that.” But we could have worked harder to highlight the differing viewpoints that still honored the principle.

So for example, there were occasions where we featured testimonies of people who passed up job opportunities or the chance to attend an out-of-state college for the sake of staying involved in this local church. These testimonies were designed to highlight sacrificial choices members made for the sake of participation in the church.

But we should have also featured testimonies of people who were glorifying God by excelling in their studies and in advancement in their careers even as they prioritized involvement in any other Bible-believing church. As pastors we allowed a culture to be created where the godly way was too narrowly defined.

All this is a disservice to you for several reasons. First, because it doesn’t teach you to grapple with God’s Word for yourself. We want you to study God’s Word yourself, see the biblical principles clearly, and put them into practice based on a clear conviction, not the conviction of someone else.

This is also a problem because it can lead to a legalistic environment where some people are more concerned with what other people practice than with the sufficiency of God’s Word and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Reducing to only one practice has also resulted in people feeling judged by others for not having the same practice.
One of the realizations we’re coming to as pastors is that we can do a better job in teaching the principle of Christian liberty taught in passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8-9. The principle of Christian liberty is that as followers of Christ we have freedom to make decisions about matters that are not revealed or mandated in Scripture without fear of sinning against God.



We can do a better job of teaching that one person’s or one pastor’s practice of wisdom is not God’s law and shouldn’t bind another person’s conscience.

We all need to wrestle with questions of wisdom. We all need to humbly seek to practice biblical principles and then discuss our differences with each other charitably and humbly. But we cannot as a church make everyone adopt the same practice. No matter how wise we think our practice might be, we can’t invest it with the authority of God’s Word.

We want to do a better job of teaching the principles of God’s Word and encouraging you as individuals and families to apply the Word as you see fit before the Lord. We still want to encourage each other to put God’s truth into practice. But we also want to emphasize the freedom we have as individuals and families to have different practices of the very same principle. We want to cultivate an even greater culture of grace even as we strive for holiness.

As a team of pastors we are committed to growing in this area. We’ve spoken with people who have shared where they were negatively affected by this, and we’ve asked their forgiveness.

If you’re someone who has any experience or circumstance that you’d like to talk about with us, we would love to sit down with you, listen to you, and wherever necessary ask your forgiveness as well.

2. Good Parents = Good Kids

This issue is closely tied to the issue of practice. In various ways, especially in the area of parenting, I think at times we have slid into the mistake of trusting practice more than God and his faithfulness.

And the basic lie we’ve been tempted to believe is that if you get all your practice right—if you parent right, discipline right and train right—then your kids will turn out right. In other words good parents = good kids.

Well, as most of us know, this just isn’t true. And it’s unhelpful on many levels. In fact even the label “good kids” is an unhelpful one that focuses more on outward behavior and image. Even many so-called “good kids” can be struggling with unseen spiritual struggles. The reality is that, like us, all of our kids are in process and need the power of God to save them and transform them day by day.

Now I don’t think the “good parents = good kids” idea has characterized our teaching on parenting, and I don’t think every pastor or leader has made this mistake. I’m grateful for the good fruit that’s been born over the years from the biblical teaching on parenting here.

But I know that I have made this mistake and often carried this wrong mentality. And there are many negative results to this wrong thinking:

• Fear-driven parenting
• Pride and self-righteousness when our kids are doing well
• Condemnation and shame when our kids struggle or stray
• Judgment toward those whose kids are struggling

Please don’t misunderstand. Parenting matters. God rewards faithfulness and diligence. I’m not suggesting we should minimize the importance of instructing, training and disciplining our kids—it’s clearly commanded in God’s Word.

But we need to do this trusting in the Lord and recognizing that we cannot control our children’s hearts or save them. We can do our best and be faithful, and our children can still choose to sin and rebel against God.

There are some of you who have felt judged by others when your kids struggled. Instead of feeling loved you felt critiqued. I’m sorry for this. I know my leadership has contributed to this.

Over the years, a number of the pastors have faced significant parenting challenges during the teenage years. In one of those cases, I can see now that I did a poor job caring for my brother.

In an attempt to care for him, I began to focus on trying to point out what he did wrong in his parenting. I was placing my hope in a parent’s obedience rather than the sovereign grace of God to save the child. This was a lack of love for him.

When I should have been caring for this brother, I was correcting him. I’ve asked for his forgiveness for my wrongly placed hope and my poor leadership, and he has graciously forgiven me. Reviewing this with him as a pastoral team has helped us to see ways that we trusted parental faithfulness more than we relied on the gospel of grace.

But I’m sure there are others of you who to differing degrees have experienced the same thing—whether from pastors or from other members of the church. Parents in the church have shared that when their child rebelled, they felt isolated and abandoned instead of cared for and surrounded. They felt labeled as “bad parents” and marginalized in their involvement. And when their child was labeled a “bad kid,” other parents withdrew from them and sought to protect their children from them.

Many times we emphasized Proverbs 13:20—“...the companion of fools will suffer harm”—but have not adequately emphasized the truth of passages like Luke 15:4 that show that Jesus goes looking for the lost sheep.

So at many times we’ve been more focused on protecting our so-called “good kids” from the so-called “bad kids” rather than expressing God’s great love and compassion for all of our children.

We want to acknowledge that we’ve often done a poor job of caring for and pursuing young adults in this church who were struggling spiritually or wandering. We are seeking, with God’s help, to change. We want to be like our Savior who came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). We want to obey 1 Thessalonians 5:14 that tells us to “admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all.”

Please forgive us for any time we failed to care for and comfort you as you watched your child struggle. Forgive us for ways we failed to more actively pursue children that were wayward. We want you to know we are praying with you for them and want to hear if there are any steps we can take to reach out to them. And again, if you’d like to meet with a pastor to talk about your specific experience, please contact us. Wherever we can we’d want to talk with you personally.

In our church, the past 10 years have seen the first generation of kids come into adulthood. We’ve all learned a lot in the process. As our children have passed through their teen years, I think we have all grown in our realization that good parental training doesn’t guarantee “good” kids. It’s an incredible mercy if our teens don’t wallow in the mire ... and even if they do, that’s not the end of the story. God is mighty to save! He delights in rescuing those who have strayed! Rather than expending all our energy seeking to keep our kids from straying (and judging those who do), may God help us all learn to parent with a persevering hope in the gospel to do what we can never do in our own strength.

3. Disciplinary Consequences at Covenant Life School

Many of the concerns shared by members in the meetings we’ve had stemmed from their experiences with Covenant Life School. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with our school, let me provide some brief background information.

Covenant Life School opened its doors in 1979 with the goal of providing a distinctly Christian education for families in our church. It has provided an outstanding education for hundreds of students, and we couldn’t be more proud of both our staff and the quality of students.

As the school grew in size and scope, it consistently expected and enforced high standards of behavior. In cases where students fell significantly short of these standards, disciplinary decisions were made by the School Board, which consisted of school administrators and pastors.

With the addition of a high school program in 1995 came bigger disciplinary issues and more serious disciplinary consequences. You probably aren’t surprised to know that teens raised in strong Christian homes still struggled with temptations to sin. It was common for the Board to expel one or more students during the course of a school year.

All of the administrators and pastors involved in these decisions at the time would have felt they were being faithful to uphold biblical standards of conduct. The School Board made its decisions with the knowledge and support of the pastoral team and sought to communicate genuine care and concern for the families involved.

But after evaluating the fruit of the school’s disciplinary practices over 15 years and receiving honest and gracious input from many members, we have come to see that in some cases our disciplinary consequences were unnecessarily strong, and the effects on those we disciplined were more painful and costly than we realized.

While rightly concerned about protecting the spiritual health of the school community, we as pastors could have done far more to demonstrate care for the individuals being disciplined, and for their families. Removing them and their negative influence from the school community was seen as an urgent priority; restoring them to the school and church community was not. Once they were gone, we as pastors had no clear strategy for pursuing them in love. The result is that they felt cut off from the school, and consequently from the church. As a result, very few of those students who were removed from the school ever returned. Very few are members of our church today. It sobers and saddens us deeply to know that our practices tempted students to feel cut off from the Lord and his grace.

By God’s grace, we have been able to speak with many of these students and their families directly. They have been amazingly quick to forgive. Each conversation has only strengthened our commitment to practice school discipline more wisely, more patiently, and more redemptively in the future.

A number of changes have already been implemented over the past several years. We have involved parents more consistently in the process of evaluating and correcting student behavior. We have modified disciplinary consequences that were excessive. We have added several parent members to our School Board to ensure that school policies and practices benefit from their vital perspective. And we have grown significantly in expressing God’s redeeming love for students before, during and after the disciplinary process. I think we are moving in the right direction.

If you’re a parent or a student who would like to sit down and discuss any past issue in the school, please contact one of the pastors. We would be happy to revisit any issue and hear your perspective.

Our prayer is that Covenant Life School would thrive as a community of grace where our sons and daughters – all sinners like us – are supported and encouraged as they grow up into Christ. When they stumble, we want to help them regain their footing and press on toward the prize. And if some are disqualified from attendance because of their sin, we will do all in our power to assure them of our love, our commitment, and our vision for their return.

Conclusion

Those are my three categories. But let me take a moment to express my regret to you on behalf of your pastors.



Where our leadership was characterized by these patterns—in ways that I’ve shared and in ways I haven’t fully seen— we want to ask you to forgive us. We’ve been wrong. Deficiencies in our leadership have been hurtful to some of you. We are very sorry. Please forgive us.

There are people who have left Covenant Life over the years in part because of the very areas we’re talking about. I know many people who have grown up here whose walk with God has been significantly hindered by these issues. I want to try and get this apology out to them. We’re going to have the audio of tonight’s message available online and hope you’ll pass it along to anyone who needs to hear it.

And if you’re one of these people, and you’re listening to this some time in the future, please hear this: we’re asking for your forgiveness, too. And we sincerely pray that our failures as pastors and our failures as a local church will not hinder you from trusting in the perfect Savior Jesus Christ. If you’re thriving in your faith in another church, we praise God. But if you’re not walking with Jesus, and in some way our practice and example has distorted your view of Jesus, please forgive us and please turn back to him.

I realize you may never love Covenant Life or come back to this church, but I hope that you will come back to Jesus if you’ve strayed. And I want you to know that we would love to have you join us again at Covenant Life as we seek to grow in grace together. By the power of the gospel of grace, we are committed to growing and changing with God’s help.

For everyone here tonight and anyone listening, if you want to sit down with any of the pastors and talk about any specific circumstances from the past, please contact any of the pastors. We would love to do that.

I recognize that this apology doesn’t fix anything if you’ve been hurt, but I pray that God will use it to bring healing and closure for you.

What This Doesn’t Mean

I realize that some of what I’ve shared may raise questions or even concerns for some. Maybe you’d say, “I never experienced what you’re describing.” I’m very glad if that’s the case. I think we all need to remember that in a church our size different people will have different experiences based on factors like the age of our children and the circumstances of our lives. What’s most important for me to state is that the basic values of our church are not changing at all.

Let me state as clearly as possible what all this “doesn’t mean.”

1. It doesn’t mean we’re saying everything we’ve done in the past has been wrong. There’s so much grace we can celebrate in our church!
2. It doesn’t mean we’re going to care less about holiness. We need to be challenged by the Word of God. But we also need to help each other cultivate conviction by studying God’s Word for ourselves.
3. It doesn’t mean that wisdom and godly practice don’t matter. But how we relate to each other when we disagree is an important area in which we can grow. So we’re going to study in the coming days what Scripture teaches about Christian freedom, how to relate to people with different standards, and how to avoid self-righteousness even as we hold up biblical standards for righteousness.
4. It doesn’t mean that everything is fixed, and now we have perfect church. I wish it did! But we will continue to need to mature. We will continue to need to be refined by God’s Word. We as your pastors will continue to need your input, feedback and questions. We will still make mistakes.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I’m glad to say that in many of these areas we have already been growing and changing. Part of the reason this statement tonight is important is because we need to publicly acknowledge where we’re seeking to change so that we can better press ahead. This is another area where I’ve realized my leadership needs to improve. At times we’ve changed our practices, but I’ve not clearly explained why.

I’ve not clearly stated where we realize we’ve gotten things wrong. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to see this and share this with you. But here we are ... better late than never!

It’s a funny thing. I’ve never been more aware of my deficiencies as a leader. And yet I’ve never had more faith for the future of Covenant Life Church. I am so honored to serve as one of your pastors. I feel God humbling me, and yet I am more aware of his presence and his grace than ever.
He is with us. He is doing good to us. He is disciplining us because he loves us. And I believe he is positioning us to be more faithful and effective in the mission of reaching lost people with the gospel. All the areas that I’ve shared with you tonight are areas in which changing and growing will help us better welcome and disciple unbelievers.

God is not helping us see our mistakes to rub our noses in our failure—he is moving us forward in our mission. He is refining us so that we can better reflect and display the glories of the gospel. He is refining us so that we can be a church where people encounter grace and love and compassion. He is at work for his glory and our good.

SGM-Mahaneygate: Petition for Involvement in AoR

We agree with Jim Moran at SGM Refuge.  Jim's counsel follows.  "Forgiveness" is not, however, co-extensive with trust.  That is, restitution and genuine fruits of repentence are in order, e.g. new leaders.  Years of abusive patterns happened on CJ's watch.  Having said that, we obscure the larger and better point made by Jim below.  Now is the time for SGMers to talk to AoR.

http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/11/18/ambassadors-of-reconciliation-timeframe/

Ambassadors of Reconciliation Timeframe

All of this has been said before, but I wanted to make a final appeal. I believe that we have a once in decades opportunity here to give our input to an outside party in regards to our opinions and experiences with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Although Ted Kober communicates in an extremely gracious manner, (which is too gracious for some, given the topic) he has pulled no punches with SGM thus far. There is no reason to believe that he will not give an honest evaluation in the future, especially after hearing from hundreds of us. I honestly think that without knowing it, this time and season is the reason I started this blog. Please. Please send your feedback regarding SGM to AoR. The window is closing.

You can use the online form here.

You can download to print and mail or email the hard copy here.

Phone interviews may be requested until November 30.
AoR hopes to complete phone interviews by Christmas, and will accept feedback forms (with no request for a phone interview) until the interviews are complete.

AoR hopes to deliver their evaluation report by March, and SGM has promised to publish it. They have kept their promise in this regard thus far, and I have no reason at all to believe that they will not publish the final report.

Please join me in this endeavor.

Feedback can be email to mail@hisaor.org or can be mailed to:

Ambassadors of Reconciliation
P.O. Box 81662
Billings, MT 59108-1662

SGM-Mahaneygate: Ted Kober at SGM 2011 Pastors Conference

Right click to download: Forget Not All His Benefits

SGM-Mahaneygate: Teb Kober Speaks at SGM 2011 Pastors Conference

http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Ted-Kobere28099s-sermon-and-some-initial-observations-on-Sovereign-Grace-Ministries.aspx

Ted Kober’s sermon, and some initial observations on Sovereign Grace Ministries

November 11, 2011 by Dave Harvey

 

Yesterday morning, Ted Kober of Ambassadors for Reconciliation gave a message titled “Forget Not All His Benefits” at our Pastors Conference. The audio is below.


Right click to download: Forget Not All His Benefits
At the end of his message, Ted also gave a preliminary overview of what his team is learning about Sovereign Grace Ministries. Those comments, which start at the 49-minute mark of the audio, include these observations from their initial research and interviews:

1. SGM has been blessed to grow over the last three decades.
2. SGM has been effective in their focus on church planting and witness.
3. SGM’s quick growth has not been accompanied by the appropriate development of structure, process, and policy (and he lists several examples).
4. A number of people have expressed hurts and anger over the way discipline has been handled within SGM churches.
5. When significant charges were brought against the chairman and several board members, SGM had to develop processes in the midst of conflict. This is extremely difficult. Ideally a system is in place so everyone knows what to expect, but this was not the case for those bringing or receiving allegations.
6. No matter who assisted SGM during this crisis, they were going to be criticized. Nobody could come into the middle of a crisis and design a system that satisfied everyone, and everyone will be able to find something to criticize. This is to be expected in the middle of a conflict.

For more information on contribution to the Group Reconciliation and evaluation process, see our November 10 blog post.

SGM-Mahaney: Brent's Follow-up Request to Ted Kober

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/10/8/a-follow-up-request-to-ted-kober.html

A Follow Up Request to Ted Kober
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 8:33AM

From: Brent Detwiler [mailto:abrentdetwiler@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 8:22 AM
To: Ted Kober
Cc: Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Ken Sande; Kris@sgmsurvivors.com; Guy; Jim @ SGM Refuge; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; 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; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: FW: Group Reconciliation

Ted,

As a follow up, will article 12 from An Introduction to Christian Mediation be used in the Group Reconciliation? Would you also comment on the meaning of “The parties are required to commit to not divulging information to people who do not have a necessary and legitimate interest in the conflict.” How do you interpret “necessary and legitimate?” Will this requirement be lifted or modified in the Group Reconciliation? Or will people be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement before they can participate?

I am asking for others and also for myself. Your answers have a bearing on my decision, and the decisions of many others, as to whether or not we participate in the Group Reconciliation.

Thanks for prompt answers. The October 14 deadline fast approaches.

Brent

12. How confidential is the conciliation process? (from An Introduction to Christian Mediation)

The parties and the conciliators must agree at the outset that with few exceptions the conciliators will not be asked to divulge information outside of the conciliation process or the ecclesiastical structure of the parties' churches. In particular, they may not be subpoenaed to testify in subsequent legal proceedings (see Rules 16 and 17). The parties are required to commit to not divulging information to people who do not have a necessary and legitimate interest in the conflict.

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.