«

»

Feb 27 2010

Family Member Tomczak Responds

Poster Anonymous has identified herself as a member of the Tomczak family in comments on Women and Children First.  I am going to accept that premise.  Their actual identity is irrelevant.  What is relevant are the themes underlying Anonymous’ comments: they speak volumes to the ongoing tide of Mystic Despotism within American Christianity.  I have touched on many of these themes throughout articles on www.SpiritualTyranny.com.  These comments present me with another teachable moment.

Here are the two comments in order of post:

To whoever writes these articles… I am a member of Larry Tomczak’s family and we left a long time ago from SGM. We were the pioneers of leaving SGM. Please post something that is correct. No offense but it makes me sad that you have to post things that are not any longer true. I would also like you to respect everyone even if they are wrong. C.J. did hurt our family very badly but we have forgiven him and gone on with our lives! SGM, yes, indeed is not a good place for everyone but yet there is much healing that has come about when it comes to all the people who have left. I happen to be a poster for SGM survivors and we have been in contact with the heads of the group. They are great people.

 

To this I have to say Che and Larry haven’t been connected with SGM in over 10 years. Please be respectful even to people who don’t agree with you. Using the word for male anatomy is not a good turn of phrase. All I ask is respect is due everyone. No, I do not like C.J. but I respect him as a man!

 

You post the following: “Larry Tomczak, where the Hell are you in all your Apostolic Glory? Che Ahn, where are you in all your submission and authority magnificence?”

 *     *     *

One more thought… you post that Larry turned a blind eye… in fact I saw him work tirelessly to change SGM’s abusive power but was unsuccessful. He cried and wept bitter tears over this whole debacle. He has counseled others that have left as well. If you are interested in hearing about this, please feel free to post something here and I would be willing to get in touch with you to discuss it.

 

Also, please go on Larry’s Facebook page to get in contact with him. We never left those who needed healing from SGM. In fact, many have contacted us. So, please, do not think that Larry or Che just up and left. They have thriving churches who have helped heal these wounds. You are not alone in your anger, but please, I would request that you do it respectfully! Again, I do not like the leaders in SGM but I respect them as men who are albeit a bit confused!

*     *     *

Since I am empathetic, I can understand why you are saddened by what you read. You are in emotional solidarity with a family member: you love Larry.  I would do the same.

You glance through a diatribe that does not square with your definition of respect or accurate. You are confident in your own sincerity: both in your actions now and Larry’s actions over the last ten years.  You have a hard time wrapping your mind around where my commentary is coming from.  You caught an inkling of my point because you commented “… so please do not think that Larry or Che just up and left,” but you didn’t stop to digest the source of my implication.  You should have paused, put aside your kneejerk reaction, and thought.

Your sincerity and emotional reaction notwithstanding, be forewarned. I am going to put a very fine point on my response.

“Please be respectful even to people who don’t agree with you.”  Uh… Anonymous, this is not a playground fuss over Strawberry or Vanilla ice cream, or who is the greatest basketball player in the world: Kobe or LeBron.  (Of course, it is Strawberry and LeBron. And whoever doesn’t agree with me is a punk.)

>snicker<

Let us review so we can discover a sense of proportion.

By many reports, this is no isolated incident of Pastoral insanity and horrific doctrine-driven conduct.  The Noel story merely sets a new low for a prevailing trend. Noel’s little girl is molested by a 15-year-old recidivist with testicles.  In a stroke of insanity, SGM leadership spends roughly a decade trivializing the boy’s (with testicles) actions and elevating Noel and Grizzly’s response to the boy’s (with testicles) gross injustice in a mad tide of moral equivalency and character assassination.  According to Noel’s story as originally posted on www.sgmsurvivors.com (see link above), over time the molester with testicles is elevated to some form spiritual leader within the SGM organization. 

Let us continue our review.  Larry Tomczak (ostensibly with testicles) is booted from PDI circa 1995 because of lying, and pride, and blah blah blah-the usual litany of SGM disqualifiers.  Or depending on who is talking, he pioneered leaving.  Since that time, Larry has been stumping through the US advocating his Apostle-ness with sidekick Che Ahn (also ostensibly with testicles.)  The function of this Apostle-ness is something called covering.

What is that covering?  Hang on a minute… I’ll get back to that.

“We were the pioneers of leaving SGM. Please post something that is correct.”  Larry Pioneered leaving SGM?

pi·o·neer (p -nîr ) n.

1.One who ventures into unknown or unclaimed territory.

2. One who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development.

3. A soldier who performs construction and demolition work in the field to facilitate troop movements.

 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of early settlers.

2. Leading the way; trailblazing:

 a. To open up (an area) or prepare a way

b. To settle (a region).

Really?  This is the credit he’s giving himself?  Or is this the loving mythology bestowed by a family member?  By definition, that would mean Larry left first but here is “something correct.”  As a member of the family, I can understand why Charles Schmitt doesn’t even get an honorable mention.  But if leaving is the definition, Charles pioneered an exit from CLC/PDI (or whatever other acronym they call themselvesy) by 1982.  Math is hard but that is over a decade BEFORE Larry followed.

Here is something else correct: Che Ahn pioneered an exit before Larry followed.  These two pioneering examples leap to my mind.  I am confident some SGM historians could easily offer a list of others that pioneered an exit from PDI/CLC/SGM long before Larry followed.

And this all presumes that Larry would have followed if he were allowed to persist in his comfy submission to authority office.  Are you honestly going to advocate that Larry was planning an exit when he got called to the carpet for lying?  The fact that Larry had been mothballed by El Primo Doctrinal Mover and Shaker for four months (with no end in sight) had nothing to do with Larry’s decision to remove himself?

I get that SGM wanted something from Larry and their punitive actions were a little more than extortion.  What was the price of staying?  Shaving his head?  Sharing his M&Ms?  Declaring fealty to the great Reformer of Geneva?

I’ll not mince words.  The cultural methodology that bit Larry in the backside is the same cultural methodology that had been employed on our previous two pioneers, and a host of others who did not have the national reputation or local following to sustain them after getting the boot.  The grand symbolic reconciliation with Charles and Che Ahn came because someone figured out they had been wrong in method and practice.  I’m a little fuzzy, but whose method had suddenly changed?

Had SGM central not been driven to infect EVERYONE with their “Doctrinal Refocus,” what exactly would have motivated Larry to pioneer an exit?

You and I both know that Larry couldn’t care less about the “Doctrinal Refocus” as his booklet What do You Believe abundantly illustrates.  Here is something else correct: that booklet shows virtually no mastery of the historic doctrines or their subsequent outworking.  He didn’t even master the KNOWN territory so how can he claim scouting out unknown territory: definitely no pioneering there.

Which leads nicely to this next point: Pioneering is not merely about chronology.  Pioneering, by definition, is creating a trail for others to follow.

So, Anonymous, what is the trail?  What is the path exactly?

Did Larry Tomczak lay out a path for Noel and Grizzly (or anyone) for that matter, to actually leave SGM?  Where has Larry Tomczak provided the information on how to respond to the tyranny?  Where has Larry Tomczak specifically illustrated how to overcome the doctrine/teachings that bind people’s souls?  Where are the tools to help refugees and survivors identify the source of their fears?  Where is Larry Tomczak’s provision for clear moral clarity for resisting oppression?  Where is his participation in the ongoing conversation on sundry blogs concerning  SGM insanity?

Did he leap to the defense of Noel’s daughter and help them navigate the onslaught of moral relativism and pastoral council bankruptcy?  That whole debacle was happening over the last ten years:  Uh… the same ten years that you saw Larry crying and not being associated with the ministry.

This pioneering effort is displayed for all to see, for all to hear?  Where is it exactly?  A Facebook page?

“We never left those who needed healing from SGM. In fact, many have contacted us. So please do not think that Larry or Che just up and left. They have thriving churches who have helped heal these wounds.”  This makes me scratch my head.  What church doesn’t try to help the hurting?  Why is that specifically unique?  There are scads of churches receiving SGM casualties.  I talked too many hand wringing, bromide touting, presiding over the flock. Churches “thriving” because the pew sitters are pounded into the seats with an endless: “Make sure you are here on Sunday sinner.  Pay your tithes you God robber and submit, submit, submit!”

Hey, here is an idea: the goal is not to heal the wounded.  The goal is to END THE WOUNDING!!!!!!

Dare I point out that everything listed above can be found here?  Dare I point out that I was one of the first to openly, publicly, formally write a criticism of the PDI/CLC/SGM doctrine and practice?  Ask your family member.  He knows it’s true.  He got a copy of my first book.  That book sparked a dozen or so conversations between Larry and me over about 18 months.  Those conversations created the introduction to Charles Schmitt and a dozen other leaders’  (ostensibly with testicles) where I sat agape while they detailed their own stories of spiritual tyranny perpetrated at the hands of PDI/CLC thugs, but no, they were not really interested in getting involved.  They didn’t feel “called,” to any specific outward action.  These same ‘men’ pound the pulpit with regularity portraying themselves as champions of Spiritual fortitude.  Their purpose as a pastor is to be a defender of the weak; they are a spiritual: “Covering.”

What a bunch of gutless frauds.

How about giving credit for real pioneering work?  Kris and Guy at www.sgmsurvivors.com are pioneers for creating the first public forum where people could begin to realize they are not crazy; where people could begin to see that their treatment was no isolated incident as SGM is always inclined to portray conflict with their vaunted leadership.  Or, how about Jim over at www.SGMrefuge.com who has spent the better part of two years OPENLY detailing the SGM injustice and mistreatment: a man who has OPENLY reached out to a number of other denominational leaders in an effort to galvanize people towards bringing this path of destruction to a close?

That is pioneering work.

And I am not done pioneering my response.

“All I ask is respect is due everyone. No, I do not like C.J. but I respect him as a man!”  This … makes no sense.  So you respect CJ?  Really?  Then why have you left?

re·spect

1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

2. To avoid violation of or interference with.

3. To relate or refer to; concern.

n.

1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem.

2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.

To respect the man necessitates that you respect the sum of his actions.  Seeking to parse a distinction is to offer a truly meaningless division.  If the encompassing relational standard is respect, how do you decide where to draw the line on deference?  Evidently, you don’t respect him enough to remain submitted to his considered judgments. So, by definition, you dis-respected CJ when you left.

And this is at the core of the whole SGM fraud.  Everyone seems endlessly preoccupied about showing these men deference but absolutely vacant in evaluating the content of SGM’s actions driven by their specific doctrine. In a bizarre, insane double standard, these thugs can pound the pulpit qualifying their authority by their unique great character – the accumulated good of their actions – and in the next breath absolve themselves of any bad outcome of those actions: “because all churches have their problems, and we are all just sinners.”

And no one wants to offend them by pointing out the insanity???!!!!  People will bend over backward, make ridiculous distinctions, all in a vain effort to maintain some fictional sense of propriety.  This is insane.  This is absolutely morally, intellectually bankrupt.

Somehow the level of disaster is not sinking in.  Let me reiterate the report that sparked the original article Women and Children First.  Noel says that a boy, with testicles, molested her daughter (and potentially more little girls).  Over time SGM elevated that boy with testicles to a leadership position.  CJ has touted fealty to the charismatic papacy that is SGM.  CJ sits as vicar over the Holy Sea, standing in the stead of God.  The buckaroo stops with CJ and thereby, he cannot pass off the responsibility of TEN years of pastoral psychosis.  What in that equation is respect-worthy?  What in that equation qualifies for deference?  At what point should we feel appreciative?  What there is honorable, or esteem-worthy?

By definition, respect is a subjective expression towards something of value.  So what someone gives respect reflects their sense of values.

Respect is NOT due everyone.  Respect is not an entitlement.  Respect is not a content independent bestowal.  Men do not have an ethical requirement to embrace all people, in all action, equally.  What you are advocating is nothing more than thinly veiled moral relativism.  I will never value tyranny.  I will never value bondage or oppression perpetrated in the name of God or righteousness.  I will never respect tyrants!

If that is what you value, then you have found one man with testicles who rejects your value.

Nothing spiritual exists in clement, patient, handwringing, and obsequies speaking. SGM’s actions are despicable.  For far too long, national leaders have treated SGM method and practice like a polite secret: like the inner wrangling of wayward children against a strict father.  They are far too eager to close an already blind eye to the tyranny.  How SGM burns through people’s lives is available for anyone to see who will actually look.  And in Larry’s case, he LIVED it.

We are so infected with Leaven that we are like the Pharisees able to look at the sky and understand rain is coming but utterly incapable of seeing what the response should be.  We are so preoccupied with some ill-conceived effort at methodological precision that we making the very failures of Jesus’ warning: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”  And the result is a stunning impotence in moral clarity and an utter inability to resist tyranny.  Remind your family member of that sentence.  He heard that entire discussion from me almost a decade ago as I drove him around Georgetown.

“One more thought… you post that Larry turned a blind eye… in fact I saw him work tirelessly to change SGM’s abusive power but was unsuccessful. He cried and wept bitter tears over this whole debacle.”  Okay… I’m empathetic to the pain.  The onslaught and personal assassination that comes with having a conflict with SGM is a brutal path to walk.  And what is more, he should have cried (past tense) for stunning tyranny is being perpetrated in an organization that ostensibly bears his name and authority.  But this at no point absolves him of the subsequent ten years of comparative silence.

Here is the focus of my original article Women and Children First.  Larry has been stumping through the US, since his ouster, claiming Apostolic authority and advocating that correct church government requires that Pastors and Evangelists, and Teacher, Prophets, and pew-sitters must come offer their gifts and callings to apostolic central planning.  This is in exchange for the vaunted ‘covering.’

Okay, so where is the covering?  Or maybe a better question: What is covering?

PDI was his brainchild.  He called himself Apostle and demanded submission to his authority-ness.  He used that authority to remove, at minimum, the pioneers mentioned above.  Where is the other side of this vaunted social contract?  How does an apostle earn his keep?  Covering?  What bad things is he shielding people from?  What does he safeguard?  The prophesy mic?  Keep demons from attacking?  How utterly trivial.  How ridiculously subjective.  

What could an apostle actually do that is worthwhile?  How about defending the women and children being run over by SGM doctrine and practice?  And let us not leave out the men who have been sucked down the path to sacrifice their wives to Pastoral affirmations.  Those little boys need protection from their weak minds.

The fact that he pioneered an exit or got kicked out is irrelevant.  Larry started the mess: the tyranny that was PDI and is now SGM.  He started that group and called himself apostle over that group.  At the very least, he called himself a leader and demanded submission.  People gave their submission in exchange for covering.  So he got kicked out?  So what?  How does that mitigate his responsibility to his self-proclaimed social contract?

The very Pauline writings that Larry stacks up like so many Legos for the submit, submit, submit part are the same writings where Paul kicked some serious ass when churches he’d founded started trotting off the theological and methodological deep end.  It didn’t matter that the churches didn’t want Paul around, or that he had been defamed in the minds of the local church.  Paul refused to remain silent.  He got out his trusty pen and waged relentless persuasive warfare against what he considered error.  Paul had the onions to stand against those with whom he unequivocally disagreed.  He was not shy.  He took his argument public and would not back down.  If Paul is your measure, then-IF-apostolic covering is anything, it is at least a pair of… testicles.

So, where is he in all his Apostolic covering glory?  I guess this comment answers my question:  “To this I have to say Che and Larry haven’t been connected with SGM in over 10 years.”

 The problem is his ABSENCE

“They are great people.”  Well, you and I are quantifying greatness different.  To my mind, Great Men identify objectives and achieve outcomes.  Great Men don’t quit!  Great Men work in the light of day to realize goals.  Great Men speak openly of their ideas.  Great Men galvanize others to effective moral and philosophical clarity.  Great Men defend the weak.  Great Men resist the tyranny of Mystic Despotism with every fiber of their being.

There is no middle to mediate.  I am stunned at how often people try to play at being the broadminded, holier-than-thou, can’t we just all get along, kumbaya, kumbaya hippy peace retreads.  I marvel at the effort to balance despotism with trivialities.  I stand slack-jawed at the displayed sense of proportion.  I am in awe at someone being more fussed about the word testicles than the utter bankruptcy of SGM leadership’s actions.

The moral equivalency deeply embedded in pervasive depravity has made all sin disqualifying, and thereby everyone is culpable but no one responsible.  The smallest trivialities are as great a sin as the most destructive slaughter.  This mindset has so pervaded the whole of Christianity that we are not salt and light but rather a bunch of soulless nattering nannies fussed over what someone does with body parts.  We say morality and mean “Don’t cuss, smoke or chew or have sex with those who do.”  We think it an extraordinary moral stand to put on our Puritan hats and boycott movies that mention testicles.  We get agitated when someone is blunt, but conciliatory when tyrants advocate all manner of despotism.  We can stab each other in the eye as long as we smile and heaven forefend the victim complain about ill treatment with any passion.

If this repugnant trivialization doesn’t illustrate my point, I don’t know what will: “I respect them as men who are albeit a bit confused!”  The sum of the SGM problem is a little bit of confusion?

Un-freaking-believable!!!

Anonymous, get a clue, a sense of proportion, and a spine; and you must respect me for not agreeing with you.  I’m a pioneer who cries; and I respect you as a person, but don’t like what you say, even when I didn’t say testicles.

 

 ***

Related Articles: Blog Apostle

Share This Post With Others

    161 comments

    Skip to comment form

    1. 161
      JustMe

      Thank you Heather and Ted for your detailed and personal input, and John for the platform and critical analysis along the way. I especially appreciate the graciousness in how things were shared, I think it does make a difference, at least in the hearts of those sharing. What I mean is, I appreciate and am glad before God, that you guys are looking ahead and not embittered by the circumstances, and looking to Christ for the days that are yet to come!

      Again thank you! I hope too that things are coming together for Ted and Chuck. I too have estranged friends, I think due to legalistic esoteric rule, or something related. Pray that those relationships will also be reconciled.

      JustMe

    1 31 32 33

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>