Or maybe this post is to provide facts.
A poster, MC, asked the following on my article Dear Christian Chicken Little. The question is a good one that needs some clarification. (I edited their comments for brevity, but tried to maintain the integrity of the comment.)
I stumbled onto this site, and I have read a fair amount of it. I never heard of Sovereign Grace Ministries or their previous names until maybe two weeks ago.
I would appreciate it if you would do me the favor of responding as directly and as simply as possible. At this point a lot of what you say refers back to what may have been said before, so as an outsider I am not getting it.
Could you please state directly and clearly what your specific points of criticism or disagreement are with SGM? I can see that you are passionate … [could you state your objections] …as emotion-free as possible. I don’t mean to be offensive with that statement, but I am trying to understand your point and I have never been good at understanding when facts get colored by emotive language. Thanking you in advance.
No offense was taken.
As I said… I think you are asking an excellent question. For those readers who are not familiar with Sovereign Grace Ministries and its internal workings, I feel your pain.
There are a lot of you out there.
Thank you for being here.
I am sure my comments, and the further editorials by those posters who were part of that group, seem to have little relevance to your own spiritual pursuit and circumstance. In this post, I will seek to show how that isn’t quite true. For me to illustrate this, I need to connect some dots.
However, for me to connect the dots requires me to do more than make a list of grievances like:
- They stole my M&M’s.
- They threw spit wads at me on the playground.
- They made fun of my hair because they don’t have any.
To answer the question… short answer I can’t do, but I can shoot for dispassion.
Okay… let me geek out on you by offering my response with a Jerry Bridges imitation: long, slow, droning, academic monotone.
>yawn<
Sorry…
While Sovereign Grace Ministries tends to be on the forefront of my commentary–because I have history with their specific ideas and practice–they are hardly the whole story.
Statist/Collectivism is a historic body of ideas that is rearing its ugly head in contemporary Christianity. That body of thinking and the consequent practice brought real, longstanding destruction to humanity. Modern American Piety, on many fronts, is resurrecting a historic synthesis of Christianity that takes us small strides away from the type of tyranny that were perpetrated under John Calvin, King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I, and before them, the Inquisitions and a millennia of carnage at the hands of the Catholic Church and their complicit participation in the Feudal barbarism of the Dark Ages. Those same assumptions are embedded in Islam and most other world religions where human life becomes cheaper than the snail darter or whatever perverse image man will chip out of stone.
It is these assumptions that led James Madison in The Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785 to say this:
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. …
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.
Historically, America has been immune from the logical outworking of the Statist/Collectivist mindset because of the power of Aristotelian philosophy that sparked our philosophical foundation at this country’s creation: government function was to defend individuals in the free pursuit of their own life. This is a profound philosophical difference and at the core of the blessing that has washed over this country and all humanity since the 1700s. That assumption was at the heart of the healing movements of the early 19th century, the Pentecostal movement of the mid 1900s and the explosion of church growth in American and abroad for the last 40 years. That assumption has been the source of the greatest missionary outreach the world has ever known. Our prevailing cultural assumptions about individual liberty and freedom have stood between us and the tyrannies that have ravaged Europe and Asia and Africa and South America since time immemorial.
However, those assumptions are being eroded from other fronts every day. Most people don’t realize that the socialist/communist assumptions of Marx are really the Church doctrine of the middle ages with “the PEOPLE” replacing GOD in the “man as sacrificial animal” equation. That subtle difference produced the never to be subtle French Revolution, the rise of Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin to name a very few. I was not being inflammatory when I pointed out that when the Demagogues of Dictated Good join forces with History’s Hitlers, the world is plunged head first into blood. I was being literal.
It produced disaster then, it will produce disaster now. There are only a few barriers left to the logical outworking of the ideas embedded in the historic synthesis of Christianity in modern America. We are treading down that path with ever increasing speed.
As I said it the Gospel according to John Immel Chapter 3: 1-3
1 ) All people act logically from their assumptions. 2 ) It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rational, they will act until the logic is fulfilled. 3 ) Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, find the assumptions and you will find the cause.
Unless people are given a new way to think, a new way to synthesize the bible ideas, we will perpetrate the same tyranny the Church has always created using these same philosophical assumptions.
Only one way exists to deal with people in this life time: Force-ideas or violence. One aims an argument at another’s head OR one aims a weapon at another’s head. Violence can be further broken down to Extortion or Fraud. The first is violence towards something valued; the second is violence to reality for the purpose of compelling an outcome. (These two points will become important in a moment.)
Ideas are the only righteous method because it leaves all men free to choose their outcome. Initiated violence is immoral because it leaves no one free to choose their outcome.
Government is a monopoly on force. Tyranny is the use of governmental force to compel a body of action, or coerce specific thinking regardless of consent or agreement or liberty. Tyranny chains man’s body which is really the chaining of his mind–which is the agent of his work that creates the sum of his property. I contend that FREE men are entitled to the sum of themselves.
Spiritual Tyranny is Church Government forcing/dictating ideas or outcomes by extortion and fraud. Extortion is the imprecation of divine displeasure (eternal standing) because of a failure to adhere to church government edicts. Fraud is perpetrated by deliberately omitting or misrepresenting historical or factual realities to manipulate the ignorant or uninformed to fortify the ecclesiastical power to compel.
Hey…no yawning back there. I see you!
That is better.
Okay… where was I?
Now you have the backdrop. And I can understand that without such explanation, the content of this blog seems to be very narrow. In reality, SGM is anecdotal. I am working to extract the principles of Spiritual Tyranny so that people can then abstract to their own situation. That is a very slow process because I need to lay down a lot of foundation. No short course to that process exists.
The content of this blog is focused on…well, a humorous look at manipulative doctrines, practices, movements, and tyrants.
With the above definition, you have a measure of what constitutes spiritual tyranny and the criteria that I use to measure doctrinal practice and movements and tyrants.
With this in mind, let me move from the abstract to the specific: Sovereign Grace Ministries.
My objections are:
- They extort people with divine displeasure with the subtle or overt appeal to “…God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble..” when one is not willing to unquestioningly accept pastoral counsel.
- They extort people with the use of the Matthew 18 ethic defining all conflict with THEM as a church discipline event.
- They extort people by refusing to let them use their gifts and callings without full and total pastoral endorsement: pastoral endorsement means absolute adherence to leadership counsel.
- They extort acceptance in the local body by pitting corporate approval against absolute compliance to all doctrinal or social imperatives.
- They perpetrate fraud by representing the content of their doctrine as Reformed Theology.
- They perpetrate fraud by representing Reformed Theology as the only theological game in town.
- They perpetrate fraud by failing to declare the historic record of their body of “orthodoxy.”
- They perpetrate fraud by representing apostolic authority based on doctrinal myths.
- They perpetrate fraud by manipulating the definition of Gossip and Slander to insulate themselves from any criticism or observation.
- They divide and conquer married couples by fraudulent representations of male and female gender roles marginalizing women in spiritual pursuits and extorting husbands with the affirmation of leadership inclusion–which means controlling their wives absolutely crushing out all expressions of individuality, desirability, or independent thought.
The function of this tyranny is done for the express purpose of insulating their actions, and counsel from critical review. It is important to realize these men are not driven by an intellectual integrity; they are driven by an authoritarian integrity. Their ideas are in service to their authority AND their authority is in service to their ideas. Which is what makes most of their arguments so circular; their ideas validate their authority and their authority dismisses any scrutiny of their ideas.
The above is an overview. The specific content of the outworking of their practice is detailed on www.sgmsurvivors.com and www.sgmrefuge.com. And DB gave a pretty good list on Dear Christian Chicken Little. (comment 22)
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me what acronym a ministry applies to itself. It doesn’t matter to me the denomination. These same historic doctrines are gaining traction in Word of Faith Churches, Charismatic churches, Unitarian gatherings. (Yes, I visit a lot of churches.) The sectarian designation is irrelevant. Any group of Christian leaders who govern–FORCE–people by the means outlined above will receive the same commentary.
I do apologize for the Inside Baseball flavor of the Sovereign Grace Ministries posts. I recognize that those names are not familiar and the background events are absent. I do keep that in mind. But knowing the specifics are not essential to understanding the overarching commentary. Look for the principles I seek to expose in the tyranny. Defining Insanity, From Whence Cometh the Destroyers, Pass the Mint Jelly and others are all (mostly) generic posts designed to illustrate the principles I address above.
I suspect you will soon begin to identify its substance and arguments and outworking in the most interesting places.
Okay…you can wake up now.
Before I could get this response posted, MC had these further questions. Some of the answers are above. Some are not. Those of us intimate with the SGM phenomenon can weigh in as you see fit.
*******
DB,
Thank you for taking the time to write out answers to my question. It was kind of you to respond to my request in such fullness. And Mr. Immel, I am sure that distortion is not what I am concerned about. The earnestness of conviction is clear. What I chiefly lacked was particular facts. Among those already familiar with the situation what may be perfectly clear though expressed in evocative terms may be completely opaque to one ignorant of the details, such as myself. Now that you have provided me with multiple specifics about this group of people, I find myself both informed and all the more curious. In short, I’m afraid I have questions that can clarify my understanding of each of the points. So I think I will ask them, though I am reluctant to further impose on your kindness because these are turning out to be a LOT of questions. So though I will ask, if no one has the time to respond to what is admittedly really too much to ask, please don’t let me impose, or else just answer those that you feel most important. Okay?
1 SGM is legalistic.
I have an idea in my mind what you mean by this, but since I am aware of at least two or three ways others have used the term “legalistic,” I would like to know which of these you may mean or whether there is another meaning I have missed.
Do you mean that they teach that salvation is achieved by people obeying enough laws to earn a place in heaven instead of having their sins removed by Jesus’ death?
Or do you possibly mean that they impose actions as moral standards that are nowhere in the Bible in any form, such as say, that it is a sin for a man to wear a beard or for someone to go to the movies?
Or do you maybe mean that they stress certain things mentioned in the Bible to an excessive degree and think that people who take a different view are in error?
2 SGM discriminates against women in a subtle way under the name of complementarianism.
Are you saying you are against complementarianism because you favor egalitarianism, and therefore you think they are wrong or are you saying they claim to be complementarians but actually are something else? What kind of discrimination are you referring to? That they do not allow a woman to teach? Or women are not supposed to work outside of the home? Something else?
3 SGM elevates leaders to the level of Apostle without any Biblical support and this allows for no checks and balances and a, ahem, imbalance in power.
Are you saying they actually use the title of apostle for some people? Or are you speaking more metaphorically in that they have a structure that has a hierarchy of authority, somewhat like church groups such as the Episcopalians or the Lutherans?
4 Questioning authority is not allowed.
Do you mean questioning in the sense of seeking information or do you mean challenging a decision? Are you saying that the authorities make the decisions without any input from those under their authority, never seek it, are not interested in it? Is this true at all level? They will not even explain their decision? They absolutely refuse to consider an appeal?
5 Speaking into someone’s life flows one way.
I am a little unclear on what speaking into someone’s life means. Do you mean that those who have a responsibility for the spiritual well being of those in the congregation teach, reprove, encourage, maybe rebuke the people in the congregation, but the congregation is not at liberty to teach, reprove, encourage, possibly rebuke those in a position of responsibility over them?
6 Parenting methodologies are taught, as doctrine, that are draconian at best and downright dangerous at worst.
Is this the case, in a particular local church or is it present in all the “family of churches” (as I believe they call themselves)?
When you say a doctrine, do you mean they equate certain techniques with the teachings that we find in Scripture? Regarding “draconian at best,” I guess one person’s Draco is another person’s…well, somebody…(can’t think). I wonder what these could be.
7 There is a cast system of Apostles-Leaders-People in which the people serve the leaders (sort of like some animals are more equal than others.)
This is sort of like one answer you mentioned before. You are saying there is a hierarchical authority structure? Your reference to Animal Farm suggests that you feel some people have priveleges that others don’t, can’t have, and this without any basis?? Now the company I work for has a hierarchy, and though it is often irksome, I never thought my boss’s telling me what he wants me to do was in itself tyrranical or abusive. Are you saying it goes beyond normal authority? Or that the existence of authority itself is wrong? And when you say people serve the leaders, I mean, do they do things like–pardon some maybe absurd examples–have them do their laundry or cut their grass?
8 There have been issues of abuse that have been covered up (I will cite examples if you wish.)
I did see reference to one apalling example of abuse. Are you saying that it is SGM policy to deny, excuse and otherwise cover up sexual abuse that occurs. Or are you saying that events have occured where people failed to respond appropriately. Are you aware whether any steps have been taken since these events to improve leadership response?
9 There have been issues in which the poor and needy were neglected in an atmosphere of abundance. (again, I will cite examples.)
Are you talking about poor and needy members of the church? Or perhaps the poor and needy outside the church. I am not clear what an atmosphere of abundance is. Is it that there are some wealthier people and that you suggest they should have given some of their money to people with lower means?
10 There is a caste system within the home that is as rigid as that within the leadership hierarchy. Father is about as petrofamias as one can get without Roman law backing you up. The wife is submissive. She is there to help her husband become successful in whatever he does. She is to service him (you can take that to mean what you want.) Children are to be happy, obedient, and not embarrass their parents.
Here you refer to issues of authority again and the complementarian/egalitarian debate. Are you saying that they teach things beyond what the Bible says? Is it the case that the wife has no input, no say in anything? When you say she is to help him be successful, I am unclear on the nature of your objection. Are you saying it is wrong for her to help him be successful? Again, are you objecting because you believe that egalitarianism is right or that they take things way beyond complementarianism?
11 Things that are not in the Bible are taught as though they were Biblical commands.
This sort of answers my questions from #1, but I wonder if you could cite a few things that they claim is a command from the Bible but is not in fact found in the Bible.
Wow, that’s a long list of questions! Again, I apologize. Anyway, that is what I’d like to know given anyone’s opportunity to clarify. Thanks so much, and God bless.
Interesting stuff.
A bit convoluted and over-clever at points, but you are obviously having fun and caring deeply about truth – a sadly rare combination.
Small heads up:
Several times in recent posts you have used the word “council” when I believe you are going for “counsel”
Webster defines the two words this way:
1coun·sel
Pronunciation:
\?kau?n(t)-s?l\
Function:
noun
1 a: advice given especially as a result of consultation b: a policy or plan of action or behavior
1coun·cil
Pronunciation:
\?kau?n(t)-s?l\
Function:
noun
1: an assembly or meeting for consultation or discussion
2: a group elected or appointed as an advisory or legislative body
3 a: a usually administrative body b: an executive body whose members are equal in power and authority c: a governing body of delegates from local units of a federation
I will address the multiple questions one at a time. I have two papers to write and both involve a considerable amount of research (which I should be doing now instead of hanging out here,) but I quote,
“1 SGM is legalistic.
I have an idea in my mind what you mean by this, but since I am aware of at least two or three ways others have used the term “legalistic” I would like to know which of these you may mean or whether there is another meaning I have missed.
Do you mean that they teach that salvation is achieved by people obeying enough laws to earn a place in heaven, instead of having their sins removed by Jesus’ death?
Just a smigen of this, actually. When we are taught to tithe to the church or tithe to the car repair shop, there is an implied curse from the law. When parents are told them must spank their children to parent God’s Way, there is a suggestion that one must do things that way or the kids will burn in hell or something.
“Or do you possibly mean that they impose actions as moral standards that are nowhere in the Bible in any form, such as say, that it is a sin for a man to wear a beard or for someone to go to the movies?”
This is more like it. There is the teaching of indwelling sin, there is sin sniffing, motives are constantly questioned. There is standard for behavior that has nothing to do with NT scripture.
“Or do you maybe mean that they stress certain things mentioned in the Bible to an excessive degree and think that people who take a different view are in error?”
There’s a lot of this as well. You can have your theology, support it with Scripture, and recognize there are other Christians with whom you will spend eternity that hold conflicting views.
In short, SGM has too many hills they are willing to die on.
Thank you for providing some big-picture information. This lets me know your particular stand.
They extort people with divine displeasure with the subtle or overt appeal to “…God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble..” when one is not willing to unquestioningly accept pastoral council.
Are you saying that there is a structure of authority, and that opposing authority is considered tantamount to opposing God?
The extort people with the use of the Matthew 18 ethic defining all conflict with THEM as a church discipline event.
Do you object to church discipline per se? Or are you saying that they have a structure of authority within their church and that insubbordination is a matter for church discipline?
They extort people by refusing to let them use their gifts and callings without full and total pastoral endorsement: pastoral endorsement means absolute adherence to leadership council.
Are you saying that the leaders exercise pastoral discretion regarding who is authorized to teach etc. and that part of this is being in doctrinal agreement and/or exhibiting acceptable character?
They extort acceptance in the local body by pitting corporate approval against absolute compliance to all doctrinal or social imperatives.
Are you saying that to remain a member in good standing an individual must adhere to the doctrinal statement? Social imperitives?? And that to remain a member in good standing requires a certain kind of behavior in how one interacts with other people?
Are you saying they are Calvinist in soteriology, and since you are not, that you were unable to teach your views to the congregation? Or that they are complementarian but you are egalitarian, and that for that reason you were refused any leadership or instructional role?
They perpetrate fraud by representing the content of their doctrine as Reformed Theology.
You. I take it are not at all Reformed in your theology. You cite Finney and invoke the Second Great Awakening, I think. But in regard to SGM, they promote a Calvinistic soteriology, but are unlike Reformed bodies in other ways, for example no pedobaptism, no presbyterian government…(a friend of mine says no pipe organ, but that is probably not what you had in mind.) At any rate, you suggest, I take it that Reformed groups would not recognize SGM as Reformed. On the other hand, given what you say elsewhere, you are not very favorable of Reformed Theology and the churches that hold it.
They perpetrate fraud by representing Reformed Theology as the only theological game in town.
Are you saying that they claim Reformed Theology, or at least Calvinistic soteriology is the truth?
They perpetrate fraud by failing to declare the historic record of their body of “orthodoxy.”
Are you saying that Reformed churches in particular have exhibited bad behavior historically?
They perpetrate fraud by representing apostolic authority based on doctrinal myths.
I am unclear here. Do they designate people as apostles? And what doctrinal myth are you referring to?
They perpetrate fraud by manipulating the definition of Gossip and Slander to insulate themselves from any criticism or observation.
Is this a particular case in which you were involved or a general policy of this group? Is it perhaps a matter of perspective and interpretation?
They divide and conquer married couples by fraudulent representations of male and female gender rolls marginalizing women in spiritual pursuits and extorting husbands with the affirmation of leadership inclusion-which means controlling their wives absolutely crushing out all expressions of individuality, desirability, or independent thought.
You are saying that they are complementarian, right?
I am not a particularly good person to ask what it takes to be a member in good standing.
The discipline is harsh and overreaching. There is no checks and balances.
Their verson of complementarianism is extreme bordering on Patriarchal.
Sorry for the short answers, believe it or not, visiting this site is my idea of a quick break 🙂
Taking Note…
Welcome and thanks for the proofing. Some day when the money part of my “chicks and money” motive come in, I will employ a really good editor to hide my learning disability. But until then, I have you. : )
I’ll pop on and fix those homonyms up uno momento.
DB, thank you for your answers:
Do you mean that they teach that salvation is achieved by people obeying enough laws to earn a place in heaven, instead of having their sins removed by Jesus’ death?
Just a smigen of this, actually. When we are taught to tithe to the church or tithe to the car repair shop, there is an implied curse from the law. When parents are told them must spank their children to parent God’s Way, there is a suggestion that one must do things that way or the kids will burn in hell or something.
So they teach that Christians should tithe? And you object because the Bible does not support this? Or because they use an argument that suggests temporal misfortune for those who do not?
They teach that the Bible advocates corporal punishment? Are you saying they are wrong in this because the Bible does not advocate corporal punishment?
I’m afraid I don’t see how either of these examples is a matter of earning eternal salvation by works of the law.
This is more like it. There is the teaching of indwelling sin, there is sin sniffing, motives are constantly questioned. There is standard for behavior that has nothing to do with NT scripture.
They teach that there is indwelling sin? You are saying that this is not a teaching based on the Bible? Sin sniffing, I am not quite sure what this is. Do you mean that they point out other people’s misbehavior? Questioning motives? Are you sure you want to go there? “Standard of behavior” that is not New Testament. That is crying out for further elaboration. My suspicion is you are alluding to complementarianism again.
You can have your theology, support it with Scripture, and recognize there are other Christians with whom you will spend eternity that hold conflicting views.
In short, SGM has too many hills they are willing to die on.
You are saying that they don’t support their theology with Scripture? That they don’t believe that people who hold different views are genuine Christians? Or only that they define their official doctrine so specifically that people who do not agree are unable to function and fellowship within that body and are better off in a different church?
John,
Please don’t let out the potent “chicks and money” upside to a life vigorously and cleverly devoted to truth defending!
We don’t need others pressing in on this lucrative territory.
Sincerely
Your Homonyminal Conscience
(that just doesn’t sound right somehow)
To make a long and complex issue succcicnt, they take their own pet beliefs, biblfy it without justification, and deamonize alternative practices.
I, personally, lean toward an egalitarian view, I tend toward grace-based parenting. I tend toward not dying on every molehill. The church I presently attend has a good mix of people some of whom could be found on the other end of the belief spectrum (perhaps with the exception of the molehill.)
Personally, I don’t take well to being dismembered.
DB,
To sum up my impression–and that is all it is, surely–is that you have a personal grievance (dismembered is picturesque, but it really does not mean being disfellowshipped) against a church, and by extension a group of churches that for one reason or another you used to be a part of. It sounds like it was not wholly or particularly your choice to join. I don’t know. Or the church changed while you were there. Some churches have a tight doctrinal statement, others are more inclusive of divergent beliefs. In this country and in this century there are so many choices of where to attend church that at least in a large city, one can have most anything one believes to be the best choice. It seems this church was a bad fit for you. They take the Bible to be teaching a certains structure of authority that includes more involved spiritual oversight and a complementarian view of male/female interaction. It seems there may have been, perhaps not yourself, but the other gentleman, an attempt to protest or refute or even change some of these positions, and that the people in authority declined to alter their positions. I think your implication is that in instances of disagreement you conducted yourself with gentleness and respect and that the leadership nevertheless decided to eject you from the church for the sole reason that they disagreed with some of your doctrinal views. You also indicate that if someone were to ask the other parties involved, they would take quite a different tack, suggesting attitudinal and behavioral reasons for their decision to ask you to leave. Why I say this is that you indicate you were accused of “pride” and such. Are you in fact saying that you were asked to leave purely because of what you said to them and in no way how you said it to them? Because that would be significant.
Perhaps I am wrong and this is not in fact a personal grievance, and is in fact a disinterested objection to the beliefs and practices of a certain church. Are you asserting that they do not have the freedom to join together as a church sharing a common set of doctrines and practices. What I have heard here on this site (so far) is disagreement in doctrine and personal animus. I have been looking for justification of the title “spiritual tyrrany,” but I don’t think I have clearly seen evidence of it in what you and the gentleman say.
Could I ask you why you now wish to spend your time and energy complaining about these people. One of the things you say is that they teach “indwelling sin.” Why not take them at their word, that even as believers in Christ, they still have sin in the midst of them, and that this sin frequently causes pain to their neighbors, as sin does. Perhaps they have failed to love their neighbors, to do to others as they’d have others to to them. I dare you to do better.
Why?
To let other people know they are not alone. This is a very isolating experience.
And because, among other things, they tried to silence my voice. Now, I get to opine freely.
Well, look. What you do or don’t do is not my business. But I am inclined to think that Mr. Immel put this thing up and that you get on here, not just to opine but to inform. Is it your (plural) goal, among others, to inform and warn?? Or is it merely to comiserate people with a like attitude?
If you’re trying to help others by this post, let me suggest something. There are plenty of venting one’s spleen posts here. To be frank, and I know Mr. Immel will read this, I can give you an outsider’s view of this site. I have only become acquainted with SGM in the last two, not yet three weeks, and all the people I have met seem perfectly fine. The theology is perfectly congenial. However, the bad press does concern me. The internet is the internet, and not the font of all truth and wisdom, but if there is a problem with them, I really want to know now.
Back to my impression. Mr Immel talks about discussing abusive leadership with humor. I guess I haven’t spotted the humor yet, and I’m pretty into humor. Sarcasm I have seen, particulary, the post above by someone called Taking note. But most of the posts I have seen on here can fairly be characterized as immoderate rants. To the average person, I suggest they indicate more about the writer than about his subject. Frankly, they hit me as someone who forgot to take his or her lithium this morning. I am telling you my impression. What’s wrong with that? What is wrong with that is that doing so diverts attention from reports of bad behavior by others. If other people behave badly, how am I–the one in a position to be helped–going to be able to distinguish truth from exageration, misinterpretation, and yes, distortion if you people engage in long tirades of invective. I mean it may do you good as katharsis, but it just makes people in my position write you off as a hothead or worse.
Does that make sense. In short, I need facts, logic, reasonableness, non-sarcasm, non-namecalling, non-exagerated, truly representative information, so that if there is truly a problem with the people I have met, I can get the heck out of Dodge before I have experiences like yours.
Fair enough?
I apologize in advance I have two papers to research and a research proposal I’m writing (I’d give details, but people’s eyes tend to glaze over,)
I take you (MC) are a male, based upon your Y chromosome, you will enjoy a certain privilege in an SGM church.
If your theology lines up (and by theology, I mean pet extrabiblical issues,) again, you’ll be fine.
If it is easy for you to set aside your own thinking process and embrace the viewpoint of your betters, you have the personalilty type that thrives at SGM.
There is also a lot of good. The worship is great, the people are nice, you will have multitude of instant friends.
But, be forwarned, if you veer away from the above path, you will encounter another side of people you’ve come to love and respect. Your instant friends will either turn on you or forget to exist as they have moved on to another newcomer who has become their project…oh, I mean friend. If you think you are alone, you will remember the people you spoke to on this board with just a tad of judgement and smugness and, perhaps, appreciate that you had been warned.
Well, there’s my problem. In so many ways they are a good fit, so I don’t know to what extent your difficulties were due to it being a bad fit from the start. The reason I was eager to visit and check them out is that in many ways they were what I wished my current church could be. And I believe that authority is real, and it’s in the Bible. However there are jurisdictions. And just because my boss at work is my authority, he doesn’t tell me where to send my kids to school. If they are transgressing proper juridictional boundaries I really don’t want anything to do with them. It was just so refreshing and envigorating to find them and start to visit. Now I have knots in my stomach from what I read.
Incidently, the most persuasive thing has been the blog done by Juli. That is what I mean by calm, factual, straightforward explanation of the problem. She describes her emotions and her inner state, but it is not just venting spleen and sharing grudges.
I believe that authority is appropriate, but, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The problem with SGM authority is it is too broad and there are no checks and balances in play.
If my situation was unique, I wouldn’t be as vocal, but my experience has been repeated dozens if not hundreds of times in various geographic locations. That trend is concerning.
And, as far as fit goes, we were actually the first family to join the church after it was planted back in the 1980’s. We were there longer than the present pastors or apostles. The bad fit, from my analysis, seemed to become a factor when Mahaney drove Tomsazk (sp?) out of leadership and any sort of checks and balances was eliminated.
At that point, authority went from Biblical to something Gothardistic.