CJ Mahaney’s Metaphysical Magic Mayhem

Wednesday July 13, 2011 • 22 Comments 

CJ Mahaney, El Primo Doctrinal Mover and Shaker of Sovereign Grace Ministries fame, recently released a letter stating that he is stepping away from being the Alpha Big Dog at the top of the “First Among Equals” governing egalitarian hierarchy. It is my current understanding that he wrote this letter to the leaders within his family of churches on July 2nd. He subsequently made a blog post on July 6th for general consumption. There is one difference of consequence between the blog posts and the pastoral letter—blog version: first paragraph, CJ reserves the right to update his blog while he is on self-imposed doghouse vacation.

The gist of the letter/post is easy enough to understand: “People told me I’m a bad, bad sinner. (Whispering: ‘and they said the same thing about other leaders in SGM’) So I am going to put myself in time-out so I can morally navel gaze.”

If one is able to look past the coils of SGM speak slithering around the one-thousand-word document that threatens to squeeze your mind into a spiritual warm fuzzy, if you can remain conscious enough to spot the Harry Houdini level logical sleights of hand, it is rather obvious that CJ doesn’t really think he has done anything wrong. Well, maybe I should say he is willing to concede that he his is a sinner but doesn’t think what he has done is terminally disqualifying. He fully expects to return—appropriately chastened—to his rightful place after he has looked at his belly button for an undisclosed season.

Yeah, we can all see him working double time to say all the right things. Since he is the creator of the SGM sin, confession, and reconciliation mantra, it would be absurd to think he would say anything else. No matter how much he acknowledges some theoretical wrongdoing, he ultimately disagrees with the judgments brought against him. Notice this specific admission in the last part of the third paragraph:

“Even with the charges I disagree with it has been beneficial to examine my soul and ask for the observation of others. And I am resolved to take responsibility for my sin and every way my leadership has been deficient, and this would include making any appropriate confessions, public or private. Most importantly I want to please God during this season of examination and evaluation.”

And notice this in the 7th paragraph:

“I have resolved that I and the Sovereign Grace team can’t effectively lead us into the future without evaluating the past, addressing these deficiencies, improving our structure, and as much as possible pursuing reconciliation with former pastors.”

This means that no matter how much repenting he ultimately does, CJ by fiat, reserves the right to maintain his judgments about former ministries and ministers.

In the grand world of Indwelling Sin where one’s motives and rational understanding is shot through with disqualifying “sinful cravings,” it is a bit puzzling how he gets to even say “I disagree” with the charge of sin; nor do I understand how he can summarily decide the level of reconciliation. The doctrine says one is guilty never to be proved innocent because one is blind to the corrupting power of sin. This is the metaphysical assumption that SGM leaders use as a hammer when dealing with unruly deleterious problem children. All those silly ideas, all that rational confidence, all that personal assurance you think you have, no you don’t. You are a bad, bad sinner and need to shut up and just believe what they tell you is true. When we want your opinion, we will give it to you. We are old enough to be your father after all, so we should be sufficiently patronized for our lofty leadership authority. (BTW, Robin, do you feel patronized yet?)

That is what they would say to a lowly pew-sitter that was called to the carpet by their considered judgment.  By definition, CJ’s self-awareness is flawed, and the proof is his self-assertion, which means he is disqualified to self-disagree. Well, that is if SGM were at all consistent with their sound doctrine and denounce the glaring display of doctrinal egoism within the letter. (MUCH more on this in a minute.)

The content of the letter is not surprising. CJ must pay lip service to the SGM yardstick that defines the “humble” approach to receiving criticisms, accusations, and addressing offense. He does not have a choice but to at least publicly entertain the notion that he could be wrong. Since someone dumped about 500 pages of documentation onto the internet, declaring in excruciating detail the content and conduct of Sovereign Grace Ministries’ governmental “deficiencies,” it is kind of hard to persist in a blazing display of “un-entreatability.” So it is no hair off his head to at least entertain the chance that he might have, potentially inside book-making odds within the existential consideration of all possible worlds, done something bad. Who can argue with the truth established from the ages:

“Oh woe is us! WE are all just sinners in need of God’s Grace? You all just never mind the implications of my sins. I will take care of this myself as I see fit. I have organized everyone who is anyone to make themselves available to make sure this all goes smooth. And I will be back soon to continue my—oops, God’s very important work.”

The bottom line is CJ Mahaney, in his letter of apology(?), is defying everyone to challenge his moral authority to act as he sees fit. His contempt blazes forth between the lines of this letter like the morning sun. He is daring someone to cast the first stone. And if the SGM Wikileaks has shown anything, no one within that organization has the stones (not the ones you throw) to resist his assertion of moral superiority. A curios dare, considering this is a quarry he dug.

It is fun to notice that when the pressure is on, to see how fast El Primo Doctrinal Mover and Shaker’s doctrinal consistency starts to unravel. He let the Schrodinger’s cat out of the quantum mechanics box with his admission to an unofficial sin hierarchy scale.

“These charges are serious and they have been very grieving to read. These charges are not related to any immorality or financial impropriety, but this doesn’t minimize their serious nature, which include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy.

It is an entertaining thought experiment to make all human action sinful and therefore universally disqualifying because it makes God look really big because it makes man look really small. And when Man makes God look really big, we get impressed with our spirituality. But the most important part of this metaphysical cavorting is that preachers get to create a moral and ethical paradox. They get to define the moral yardstick and keep it in a box that no one can peer into, and then when it serves their purpose, they LOOK at the cat to see if it is alive or dead. Oops, I mean look at who is committing a given ethical action and condemn or applaud depending on the day or the Verschränkung.

(That quantum mechanics joke was hilarious.)

But anyway, CJ has walked into his own quantum entanglement. Of course, the nature of the charge minimizes or expands the measure of moral failing. The whole premise of Levitical legal code—that is lex talionis—was to place a proportion on human action, ethical values, and subsequently, civil penalty for failure to live to those standards. It is absurd to suggest otherwise. But if you do suggest otherwise, why make the distinction at all? By definition, CJ is making a comparative statement.

CJ Mahaney’s contempt for people rolls off this two-page document in waves, centering on the Harry Houdini level logical sleights of hand. So, let us keep our eyes on the other hand so we can spot the illusion. Observe and you will see CJ Schrödinger’s thought experiment turned moral disaster.

First thought experiment: “I have been accused of pride and arrogance and hypocrisy, blah blah blah, so I will look in the metaphysical box and determine how bad I am. Gasp! I had no idea, but God has revealed that yes, this is very, very bad.”

Second thought experiment: “I have been accused of sexual immorality and money problems, so I will look in the metaphysical box and determine how bad I am. Oh wait, I didn’t do those things so I’m not that bad, so you just never mind.”

And here is the quantum entanglement. This gives CJ Mahaney the power to treat each ethical lap as a wholly unique metaphysical event that is nonexistent until it is observed. Until the moment of God-revealed awareness, it has no specific bearing on reality. (MUCH, MUCH more on this point in a minute.)

Let us take this out of the realm of thought experiments and place this firmly in reality. If the “offense” was adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, or embezzlement, would the SGM leadership act in the same way? Would they be circling the wagons and declaring El Primo Doctrinal Mover and Shaker the most humble man EVER? Would Larry Tomczak be “reconciling” with CJ if he’d molested his son? Or would Larry be using his “Apostolic Authority” to cover and defend his son and protect the flock. Oops … OK … well, maybe that is a bad example. But certainly, people who don’t cower away from extortion would be pressing every available force to boot CJ into the doghouse and chain him there. And they certainly would not tolerate letting CJ Mahaney spin this as a self-declared parade of Altruistic Moral Narcissism.

The truth of the matter is if the charges were sex or money-related, everyone would be reacting differently. If CJ had been … uh … ponying up with a pony, his wife would be looking for a divorce attorney that can split up the funds earned from CJ’s speaking circuit. (Hey, he brought up sex, not me! I’m just saying, who knows how far down into debauchery “the greatest sinner he knows” goes?!) And if it were money-related, the police would be knocking on the door.

As for CJ’s self-flagellation over “various expressions of Pride” and “sinful judgment,” yeah, that is a big what-EV-r and beneath his Harry Houdini act. He has much, much better metaphysical and epistemological magic tricks. The bit over pride is SGM Subterfuge 101. They create the yardstick. Tell everyone how to live up to the yardstick. They emulate the standard they created and everyone marvels at their humility and character. SGM manufactured these two nouns—pride and judgment—into the highest spiritual sedition by taking on the adjective “sinful.” Well, maybe I should amend: they are secondary spiritual seditions to “immorality or financial impropriety.” But who is quibbling with the unofficial SGM sin hierarchy scale? It is all bad—very, very bad—even though “various expressions of Pride” is no real crime of any applicable measure and “sinful judgment” is a euphemism for a rational error. We cannot evaluate CJ’s rational error without context, content, and the ability to MEASURE the dynamic between CJ’s government power and the outcomes of that expression of force. El Primo Doctrinal Mover and Shaker sound’s pretty churchy when he starts confessing his frolicking congress with the evil twins—Pride and Judgment—but this is a full-on attempt to parse words and wreck moral clarity. Only a man with the highest contempt for human existence can lead with such a cavalier ethical manipulation. But you just never mind the coils and coils of SGM speak and render the only appropriate response in light of Pervasive Depravity eternity—all together now: “Ooooohhh . . . Ahhhhh . . . CJ is soooo humble.”

So no matter what the glossy brochure says about all sin being a great big fat evil before God, it is apparent that he thinks some sins are not as bad as others. It seems that the Reformed Theology Vicar Charles Joseph Pious I is creeping closer and closer to Catholic doctrine. First, we have the sin hierarchy: venial and mortal sins. Second, we have the cardinals and bishops refusing to confront the Pontifex Maximus.

What is next? Confession to a Priest of the Lord?

Since CJ took a trip into the wild side, living dangerously with that dastardly pair, Pride and Judgment, the priest should really stick it to CJ. Those mortal sins—oops, those leadership “deficiencies” are very, very bad. They are very, very grieving. When Mark Dever and David Powlison step into the confessional, what will be their penance? Rosary beads, 28 Hail Marys, and 31 Our Fathers? I figure they have to keep the appearance of Protestant Papacy to a minimum, so they will probably have to mandate the reading of Sin and Temptation on his knees 3.14159265 times. Or maybe they will limit penance to: “Now, my son, go crack a self-deprecating joke and sin no more.”

But jokes aside, describing a catastrophic failure of judgment as a “deficiency” is such a CJ-ism. Deficiency makes it sound like he forgot to put on a belt with his pants, or maybe forgot to comb his hair, or forgot the mustard for the perfect tasting hotdog. Deficiency is a polite euphemism designed to conceal effective description of his leadership outcomes. Or in SGM speak, it is designed to hide the nature of the fruit. In the real world, a persisting, manifestation of rational judgment over the course of time is called incompetence.

“One more thing. For the past five years or so I have become increasingly aware of certain deficiencies in my leadership that have contributed to deficiencies in Sovereign Grace Ministries’ structure and governance, the lack of a clear and consistent process of conflict resolution and pastoral evaluation, and the number of former Sovereign Grace pastors who are offended with me/SGM.”

I read this section and thought of Napoleon after Waterloo: “Yes, my dear Frenchmen, it seems that after five years I have come to understand that I have certain ”deficiencies” in my leadership.

I marvel that this gets ANY traction with rational, competent, successful men and women. Some of you members of the SGM juggernaut are captains of industry, successful by any measurable method. You are responsible for the decisions that may involve potentially destructive consequences for investment portfolios, or real-estate, or the livelihoods of hundreds of employees. Do you get five years to become “increasingly aware” to recognize that there ARE deficiencies of leadership? We haven’t even gotten to the specifics of the deficiencies or the intended corrections. By SGM math, it would take 15 years to get any given “deficiency” set aright.

What are the minutes of that corporate board of directors meeting?

“After five years I realize that there might be deficiencies in my leadership? Give me another five to figure out exactly what those are and another five to fix the problem.”

“Oh yes, you are very humble to admit that. It is such a privilege to serve with you in this very important endeavor.”

What a hoot!

Once again, free yourself from the quantum entanglement of CJ Schrodinger’s morality play and plant the events in the real world. A business leader would have about five MINUTES to identify the possibility of incompetence. And by close of business THAT DAY, he better have a full grasp of his rational errors. It would be a profound mercy if the “offended” share holders will let him take five MONTHS to correct the “deficiencies.”

What happened to Larry Tomczak is not a deficiency. It is a full-on moral atrocity. Calling it a leadership “deficiency” is a roaring, contemptuous trivialization. It doesn’t matter if Larry is selling out the event and reconciling the last fifteen-ish years (the aftermath) as a mere “offense.” The defining measure of ethics and morality is NOT subjective to the offended party.

And this is the point of the whole illusion—the profound mastery of moral relativism and the contemptuous parade of moral narcissism. So now we will turn our attention to CJ Houdini’s metaphysical and epistemological sleights of hand. If I wore a hat and was motivated toward the same Mystic Despotism ends, I would be doffing my cap in admiration.

In 1996 I made my criticisms of the SGM juggernaut public. (Well, maybe I should say that I made them MORE public. There was no Wiki back then because there was no real web.) One of the first, most scathing denunciations of my efforts to address the “deficiencies” of their leadership was that I was “hiding behind a veil of theological exactness.” Of all the mean things in that letter, this one crossed a line. Actually, I am just kidding about the crossing the line part. (But not the mean things part.) What these words revealed is that after reading my book, the writer did not understand where the lines were drawn. They were woefully misinformed about the lines of logic that run deep underneath the SGM leadership’s claim to authority. My 1996 effort to expose those lines of logic was designed to explain the source and substance of those ideas. Here I am almost fifteen years later taking up the same cause.

“Hiding behind a veil of Theological exactness” are great words that I will relentlessly plagiarize. But in context to me, they are horrifically misapplied. There is a universe of difference between being theologically precise and using the endless coils of Theological ideas to shield and justify real world outcomes. Or said another way, there is a big difference between being logically consistent and using the tools of logic to create a rational castle that shields men from critical review.

In 1996 I was being theologically precise; in addition to being historically precise, in addition to being philosophically precise, in addition to being logically precise.

In every area of human existence, rational competence and logical consistency are ESSENTIAL for man’s success. But somehow when we get to the world of Religion, and specifically Christian Theology, aspiring to the same standard is spiritual sedition. People tend to treat the ideas behind theology like some smorgasbord that they can pick and choose at their leisure accepting or rejecting doctrines to fit their emotional or spiritual feng shui. If this blog has shown anything, it is that this approach to the Arena of Ideas is a disaster.

I have said this—in many forms and variations—ardently and often, what I captured in the Gospel of John Immel Chapter 3 verses 1-3.

1) All people act logically from their assumptions. 2) It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale, they will act until the logic is fulfilled. 3) Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same actions, find the assumptions and you will find the cause.

Words mean things. The ideas those words convey create structures by which men seek to live. Those structures are integrated into cohesive philosophical statements. That underlying philosophy becomes the galvanizing system of thought that drives the moral superiority to take action. The action is in service to the assumptions underneath the ideas. It is this dynamic that everyone wants to evade.

Christians have decided that the only valid knowledge comes without work: Unless it is a superior revelation that comes from a supreme authority, man cannot know anything. So we go to men who claim to represent that supreme authority to spoonfeed us ideas. And herein is the problem. This places select men in the position to arbitrate the sum of human knowledge and excuses us from having to take up the cause of our own consciousness.

This is a disaster. We cannot take the pulse of the cause and effect of our ideas and subsequent actions because we have abandoned the very tool that makes judgment possible: our brain. So when challenged with ideas that do not conform to the spoonfed standard, we respond exactly like my “Veil of Theological Exactness” critic.

Here is what my critic was really saying: “John, you think you are really smart and are too big for your britches. You are just making something simple, complicated. So I have no responsibility to understand what you said.” In other words, he morally justified a rational punt because the ideas were beneath his super-spiritual simple-mindedness.

I would be a very rich man if paid money for every time I have heard some variation of this excuse. I hear it a lot because people pretend that simple-mindedness is morally superior, and moral superiority is a potent evasion because it absolves everyone of every thought they don’t want to address. It is much easier to evade the reality of their own making, and it lets them pretend they have transcended the evil, selfish, vain philosopher. Or said another way, it lets them dismiss me.

Here is the reality I am no longer willing to let people evade: it is THEIR rational bankruptcy that lets men like CJ Mahaney maraud his way through metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical disaster. As long as he can keep little Joseph in his pants and his hand out of the till every other “deficiency’ and “sinful judgment” and “hypocrisy” is trivial to some superior simple-mindedness. Since he hasn’t offended the threshold of your moral sensibilities, you marvel that people make it into a big fat dealeo, never once realizing the catastrophic function of his assertions.

Rational vacancy is not a superior moral state, and a man cannot use his faith to change reality until he can DEFINE reality. So here it is: The Mahaneys of the world exist because YOU let them. His current position and the existing failures within SGM have nothing to do with cultic behavior, or bad polity, or a lack of accountability, or a thousand and one other blogosphere criticisms.

Go look in the mirror. The problem is looking you in the face.

The problem is every time you whined about having to THINK to make sure you were fully consistent. The problem is every time you failed to earn your own mind and thoughts by strengthening your logical faculties. The problem is every time you told yourself that you knew everything you would need to know and had no responsibility to challenge the source, content, and outcomes of your ideas. The problem is every time you insisted that you had “authority” to think what you think, and therefore your ideas were unassailable. The problem is every time you resented a counterargument headwind and closed your mind in a fit of “unentreatablity.” The problem is every time you condemned men like me who offered you a depth of insight that was beyond your conceptual ability and dismissed the ideas out of hand because you didn’t happen to like the tone. The problem is every time you rationally punted with a wave of the “I just believe in Christ and him Crucified wand” as if that passage was a license to irrationality.

I will be my usual adorably blunt self and put my finger dead square on the real problem: The current SGM quandary exists because people are rational cowards.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, just so everyone can grasp my goal, just so there is no confusion about motive, it is my intention to wreck the thing that makes it possible for the CJ Mahaneys of the world to rise in power and thrive in despotism. I will grab hold of the raw nerve of the whole debacle and yank and hammer until people have so much psychic pain they cannot sleep or eat. Mystic Despotism has reared its ugly head throughout history, and it only prevailed when good men refused to think.  We are circling back round the assumptions that have always undergird Mystic Despotism and the issue is not confined to the theological bankrupt glory unfolding before our eyes in Sovereign Grace Ministries.

American Christianity is on a disastrous course. The only way to correct its direction is to remove the rich soil that gives men like CJ Mahaney the ability to grow and thrive. That rich soil is the hearts of Men and Women who accept their moral inferiority as the metaphysical starting place and live fearful and resigned to a theoretical inability. To uproot the choking infesting root system, it requires that YOU be conscious and THINK.

To that end, let us strip away all of the coils designed to suffocate us all into a spiritual warm fuzzy. Our goal requires that we remove all the extraneous words and spiritualized sentiments and look at exactly at what was said. This exercise will reduce CJ’s words down their foundational truths and doctrinal assertions. Once completed, we will have successfully pulled back the real veneer overlaying the extraordinary manipulation of theological exactness.

Contrast this:

  • expressions of pride
  • unentreatability
  • deceit
  • sinful judgment,
  • hypocrisy

With this:

  • … perceived a degree of my sin…
  • But I want to perceive
  • Although my experience of conviction
  • . . . more for me to perceive …
  • … gift of sight where
  • … blinded by my sin …

And now we know exactly why CJ is lost. He’s trying to taste his way to conceptual awareness.

Perceptions are the physical apparatus of man’s sensory impute: taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. You perceive cold, hot, red, blue, hunger, loud, cinnamon, grape, and thousands of other sensory input.

Conceptions are the stuff of integrated logic and rational abstraction. Pride, “sinful” judgment, hypocrisy, unentreatablity, deceit are all abstractions based on a specific set of logical assumptions and filtered through metaphysical truths that impact epistemological conclusions.

Consider everything a man must understand to grasp the concept of deceit. Here is the definition:

–noun

1. the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating:

2. an act or device intended to deceive; trick; stratagem.

3. the quality of being deceitful; duplicity; falseness.

At a minimum, one must be fully capable to grasp the nature of TRUTH. And then one must be aware of what others understand of TRUTH. And then one must consciously seek to undermine that understanding. There is no need to dissect every level of this abstraction because the absurdity is self-evident to those with the rational development of a twelve-year-old.

CJ speaks of failing to understand abstractions as if he were describing the flavor of a grape. He hears what everyone else calls “grape” and is mystified that it doesn’t taste like “grape” to him. So he says, “OMG! I’m such a wretched old sinner. I need God to impute grace so I can perceive grape-ness.”

CJ’s letter is like a high school senior trying to rip out the pages of his textbooks with his teeth and rubbing them over his eyes to perceive Calculus and the “confessing” to his parents that he sucks at math. Rational parents would be keeping that kid from licking windows and fitting him for a helmet, not discussing his great humility for admitting that he had become aware of his academic “deficiencies.”

CJ is declaring himself to be the philosophical equivalent of an infant gumming an epistemological teething ring trying to make sense of the world through his mouth. Even the two-year-old manages to grasp the concept of “yucky” as mommy teaches that the world is not understood through a river of drool.

And CJ expects you to “swallow” these shenanigans? I tell you, he holds you in utter contempt.

You think I am just parsing words? That I just need to give him the benefit of the doubt and just understand what he is trying to say?

No, I am not: This is not mere semantics. And no, I don’t: We are decades past the benefit of the doubt. His letter is a bold manipulation of the doctrines of Pervasive Depravity and Irresistible Grace. Most people are familiar with the first doctrinal concept, but I suspect not so much for the second. To summarize, Irresistible Grace says that no matter how much of your depraved part sins, no matter how much you act like a heathen, acting unworthy of your calling, and walking apart from your election, those whom God calls cannot resist his Grace because God would not allow such a precious gift to be squandered. The fact that you can “perceive” any good is the seal of your authentic election. So now you can see how CJ is parsing the doctrines for the broadest personal benefit and within sentences defying the logical conclusions of his own appeal.

Furthermore, during the early 1990s, during the SGM “Doctrinal Refocus” (which was a euphemism for Reformed Theology Force-Feeding), the men at the top of the leadership food chain thumped the pulpit and then their chest for their effort to dig into the deep things of theology. They wrote endless articles and preached endless sermons denouncing the lack of theological precision and general rational vacancy within American Christianity. They were very pleased to tell EVERYONE that they were “not like other churches.”  They patted themselves on the head for saying “We don’t want to be like the ‘gift rich’ but doctrinally-deficient Corinthian Church.”  They wore their lofty self-educatedness like a badge of qualification. And then they beat everybody around the spiritual head with submission and authority to demand obedience to their self-educatedness. CJ built a monument to his theological precision—ostensibly a seminary level library in his office. So now he can’t have it both ways. CJ cannot make an appeal to his qualification to lead by the virtue of the size of his library and his “greater measure” on the one hand and then pretend that he can use any old word to describe any old idea, because he is just a simple man preaching simple truths—kum-buy-yah, kum-buy-yah.

And—somehow—I become the big meaner when pointing out that CJ does not have any clothes? Or sense? Or rationality?

As one of my professors was very fond of saying, “Rubbish!”

I told you I was standing in the quarry he dug. I’m not even throwing rocks. I’m merely pointing out that the rocks he has thrown for years to intimidate the uninitiated are really ping pong balls that no one has had the courage to return.

But now we do have to turn our attention to the rocks. Now we have to focus on the bedrock of CJ Houdini’s all star Metaphysical Magic Mayhem that leaps off the page in the 3rd, 7th paragraph.

I believe I have by the grace of God perceived a degree of my sin, and I have been grieved by my sin and its effects on others. . . . .  But I want to perceive and confess any and all sin I have committed.  Although my experience of conviction has already started—and this is an evidence of God’s mercy—I’m sure there is more for me to perceive and acknowledge.   . . . it has been beneficial to examine my soul and ask for the observation of others.

. . .

Please pray that God would give me the gift of sight where I have been blinded by my sin and others have been adversely affected by my sin. Pray that I will be convicted and experience godly sorrow resulting in reconciliation where necessary and adjustments to my heart and leadership.

Let us once again extract the important parts from the coils choking our minds.

“I believe I have by the grace of God perceived a degree of my sin…”

“Although my experience of conviction has already started—and this is an evidence of God’s mercy—I’m sure there is more for me to perceive and acknowledge.   . . .”

Sounds churchy, doesn’t it?  And because it sounds like something a humble preacher should say, the reality of the words sail right over our heads. But these words are the core of this whole letter.  These sentences are profound epistemological declarations and the key to understanding how SGM leadership has gotten to this point in their history.

Epistemology is the science of determining HOW we know what we know so that we can define WHAT we know. Without understanding the answers to these two questions, man cannot live. It is that simple.

For almost the whole of human history, the conclusion to these two questions—the conclusion that crawled out of the primordial ooze of man’s superstitious mind and landed in the mouth of the local soothsayer, and was explained by every generation of mystic until it was codified by a man called Hammurabi and was eventually integrated into a full philosophical statement by a man called Plato, and was then fully syncretized into Christianity by a man named Augustine—was there is no HOW because Man cannot know anything unless the gods tell him. And WHAT he understands from the gods’ instruction is limited by the corruption of man’s nature.

The inevitable conclusion of this worldview is that select men are given a dispensation from the inability to “perceive” TRUTH from the gods. Those with the dispensation are then morally superior and therefore empowered to compel those “under” them to act in accord with the edicts. Once man accepts this premise, the only conversation left for humanity to have is how much force (that is authority) do those morally superior men have to compel compliance?

And now many, many generations later, CJ Mahaney is saying the exact same thing. CJ is summarizing the HOW and WHAT of his knowledge using the ancient assertions of mystic despotism. He is appealing to the most ancient of all worldviews and explaining his actions by tossing himself in to the mosh pit of the most destructive metaphysical and epistemological assumptions this world has ever seen. He is specifically telling us he is not responsible for his rational capacity. He is admitting to having abandoned every pretense of conscious responsibility. The HOW of his epistemology is that he doesn’t know ANYTHING. WHAT God tells him may be perfect, but he is flawed and therefore needs supernatural help to “perceive” what his sinful nature corrupts blinds. Whatever repentance or change of mind CJ Mahaney is undergoing to “perceive his sins” has nothing to do with an objective standard of ethical behavior, or evidence presented that led to rational correction, or the logical capacity to evaluate the cause and effect of actions, or a mastery of abstractions to achieve conceptual understanding.

No. No. No.

CJ is telling us that he is blind, deaf, and dumb unless God gives him mercy. This lip service to Irresistible Grace is an overt effort to say that a correction of rational judgment is not really “rational” at all, but rather the imputation of divine revelation. The fact that he can see ANY ethical or moral failing is the PROOF of God’s specific involvement and therefore evidence of his authentic Christian calling. So his epistemology (the science of HOW and WHAT he KNOWS) is “God gave me the gift of sight.” And his ethics are summed up by saying “I don’t know how to act unless I get a specific gift from God that I can put in my mouth and chew on.”

Are you kidding?

Can you imagine the Reformed Theology groupies hue and cry if this were Todd Bentley or Kenneth Copeland saying they can’t get their moral act together unless God (turn up the reverb) gives them a “revelation” on how to act?

But beyond the silliness, notice how much power this gives a man. You confront him with an objective outcome and he can blithely say that he does not have a “conviction” or a “witness” or a “gift of sight” to see what you see.  So he is free to measure the “objective” outcome by the whims of his epistemological teething ring. So for instance, unless he gets the same revelation of grape-ness that you have, he can persist in any action without any responsibility to outcome. And this is why this body of doctrine obsesses on authority. The only way to tell whose taste buds are authentic is the man with the most force to compel epistemological compliance. He gets to shove his teething ring in everyone else’s mouth to “perceive” what he “perceives” until the world is flooded with drool. So as long as HIS revelation of grape-ness is affirmed by his authority, how can he correct his actions? He cannot correct his actions because he “perceives” no need to correct his action. His authority is granted by the gods. And who are you to challenge his dispensation to understand TRUTH?  So if he does not change his mind, it is PROOF of God’s imputation of Grace. And if he ever does “perceive” himself guilty of ANY ethical or moral failing is the PROOF of God’s specific involvement and therefore evidence of his authentic Christian calling.

And this is SGM leadership in all their metaphysical glory.

Each person-to-person interaction is a wholly unique event that is measured up against … nothing … but the ability to “perceive” as God grants grace.  This is the metaphysical equivalent of a newborn baby who cannot distinguish between mommy being gone and mommy being under a blanket. The baby does not conceptualize the blanket, only that mommy’s face is present and mommy’s face is gone. Likewise, CJ does not conceptualize the broader pattern of his edicts and declarations. He can see no system dynamics between the metaphysical given of his own epistemological vacancy and the subsequent outcomes of his leadership deficiencies. By definition, he only sees what God specifically “gifts” him to see.

So he at once has no rational responsibility to ANY consistency or logic AND is excused for his prevailing failures because of his blinding sin. Alakazam! Poof! He is free to create a world of his own detached whim and his errors are mere “sinful judgments” and leadership “deficiencies.” And since we are ALL just sinners in need of Grace, who can fuss with that?

With such a metaphysical and epistemological worldview, is it any wonder that HIS moral and ethical judgment is all over the map? Is it a wonder that there is no rhyme or reason to SGM pastoral council? Is it any mystery why CJ suddenly must at least acknowledge “. . . the lack of a clear and consistent process of conflict resolution and pastoral evaluation . . .”?

I cracked my Schrodinger’s cat joke above because as a metaphor, it captures this very dynamic. In the quantum thought experiment, the cat is either alive or dead at the moment of observation. This experiment was used to explain how it was possible that quantum particles could exist in two simultaneous states—wave and particle—and yet when observed, they could become one or the other but not both. In any given moment, that cat was alive or dead within the box: the only way to know is to “perceive.” Hence, the similarity to quantum particles.

About half of you dear readers are sorely tempted to let your brain go tilt and give me the “You just think you are really smart and I just preach Christ and him Crucified,” speech. You want to read me the riot act for not arguing Scripture; tell me I’m too big for my britches and brush this off as me being too clever by half.

My britches fit just right, and this is not too clever by half!

I told you it was Harry Houdini level sleights of hand. This is masterful in its presentation and execution, but it relies on your unwillingness to watch both hands and remain conscious of the very foundational level ideas. Just as quantum mechanics is the foundation of our physical existence, metaphysics and epistemology are the foundations of our rational/spiritual existence. This brazen manipulating is how SGM has been so successful at romping through people’s lives. This is how SGM can hold Scriptures in two simultaneous states: absolute and bendable. They put the Bible in the Schrodinger box and do a thought experiment with every interaction. Is the Bible absolute or bendable? Who can tell until they “perceive”?  And here is the scandal.  They don’t let anyone else look in the box. We don’t all get to look at the cat and see if it is dead and check their quantum math. There is no math to check. There is no algebra. There is no objective standard. There is only their imputation of Grace to determine, in every discreet moment, what God is saying and doing. They emerge from the “observation” and declare the conclusion.

And this is EXACTLY what CJ did in this letter.

And this is EXACTLY what frees CJ to be utterly inconsistent with his evaluation of his own judgment. Notice in 2008, CJ wrote an article about Bill Belichick decrying his lack of humility in the face of adversity. How did CJ arrive at this conclusion?  Simple, Bill left the field before time on the clock ran out. I addressed the full absurdity in this article. But now I want you to read how CJ justified his judgment. (Full article)

“. . . I am the worst sinner I know. For am I most familiar with the countless sins I have committed against God,  . . . Though it doesn’t appear Bill Belichick is a humble man, I know I am not a humble man.

I am a proud man who is pursuing humility only by the grace of God. . . .

So today after examining my heart for any trace of self-righteousness, any hint of moral superiority in my soul, I have prayed that God would . . .

So how does a man go from being the worst sinner he knows to the egoistic assurance of “So today after examining my heart for any trace of self-righteousness, any hint of moral superiority in my soul, I have prayed that God would blah blah blah ….”?

ONE DAY! Not five years to arrive at the conclusion that he MIGHT have leadership deficiencies. Within ONE DAY he can fully and effectively declare himself free of self-righteous moral superiority and then subsequently manufacture a doctrine that eternally condemns a man for leaving a football field before the end of a game.

Really?

Here we are a few years later and he wants to pretend that he cannot successfully master his own rational appointment within half a decade?

Really?

You all are buying this?

Since CJ brought up reconciling with Larry T. we need to revisit what they said of the Apostle of Covering back when they booted him to the curb. I will summarize that letter as follows:

The [then] PDI Leadership team and the three men of the local Atlanta Church [where Larry was currently stationed] would not agree with “. . . Larry’s assessment of himself. . .” because “. . . for a man simply cannot trust his own assessment of himself or determine unilaterally when he returns to ministry once he has been disqualified.”

For those of you who still have the letters that deal with the “offense” of Larry Tomczak’s removal from his job. Notice how the doctrine of Pervasive Depravity is used to absolutely steal the power of volitional judgment from Larry T.

Who is acting unilaterally now? How did CJ get a dispensation from implications of Pervasive Depravity? Where are the “leadership team” letters decrying CJ’s ethical egoism with the same zeal as they went after Larry?

Hmm?  Anyone?

In light of Pervasive Depravity eternity, how does CJ feel qualified to orchestrate the terms of his own exile? For someone who is supposed to be reviewing his ”deficiencies” and hypocrisy and all the self-flagellating rest, for a man who admits that he has no means to know anything but what God puts in him, he is profoundly self-appointed. In a 1,000-word document, the “Greatest Sinner he knows,” uses the word “I” almost 50 times. How can he be trusted to choose who will help him find the solutions? How can he “take responsibility”? By doctrinal definition, he does not have the ability to be responsible for his conduct. By self-admission, he is claiming to struggle with the most rudimentary level of human cognitive development. So if CJ picked the course of action, it should be immediately disqualified in his manmade efforts toward a solution to the “deficiencies.”

Of course, this begs the conclusion whether there should BE a solution to the “deficiencies.” Who is to say that God isn’t appointing CJ Mahaney to wander in the abyss of his epistemological “deficiencies”? Since authentic Bible doctrine and sound doctrine purity must be defended at all cost, it is worth considering. Human lives are at the utter disposal of all pure, righteous Bible absolute TRUTH. So I’m just saying . . .. CJ admits that the nature of the grace and mercy granted him so far is partial, which means that God is choosing to withhold the full truth from his delicate, fragile, sin-filled psyche. So by definition He [God] is Sovereignly appointing the circumstance. Indeed God has, to date, withheld the grace that makes this deficiency-ridden, sinful judgment, Pride-filled, hypocritical state of CJ’s leadership possible. God has refused to grant the “gift of sight” for five years. So why do we automatically presume that God does not want it to persist for another decade?

Why would God do that?

Who are you, oh man, to even ask such a question?

It is God’s sovereign choice to raise up vessels of Grace and destroy vessels of destruction. If He chooses to allow CJ Mahaney to trot off the deep end, how is that any of your concern?

You cannot rationally object to God’s sovereign action. Since you have subordinated your mind to authority, you have no choice but to go along for the ride into perdition. You can, at no point, revert to YOUR judgments because you are also in need of Grace to “perceive” the error of your ways.  And what you do “perceive” must be validated through the authority. So suck it up and stay in your pew; shut your mouth and let God do as he sees fit because whatever bad thing CJ does, God intended it for your life.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Did that finally get real enough for some of you? Is any of this penetrating the stupor of your mind?  Are any of you quaking in your boots at the logical conclusions? This Houdini level Metaphysical and Epistemological illusionist show is exactly what has empowered CJ Mahaney to romp through the lives of people unchecked, treat everyone else as a distant theological abstraction, all the while making pretense at seizing the highest moral and spiritual standard. Once he can make an unchallenged claim to moral authority, he gets to define for EVERYONE what grape-ness tastes like and you can stick it in your ear if you don’t happen to like the dog squeeze he force-feeds you in the name of biblical absolutes.

Do you “perceive” how this liberates a man to act with impunity?

This might be marginally understandable if it were accidental. We might be able to grant some space to a man struggling to master the elements of his existence and taking responsibility for his own consciousness. But that is not what has happened with CJ.

He is at once blaming his moral failing on God and confirming his Christian authenticity by the PROOF of the small measure of his repentance to date. So he affirms his authority by appealing to Pervasive Depravity and absolves his authority outcomes by the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. He is at no point disqualified.

This whole magic show is a despicable display of rational larceny. And it is rational larceny because it is obvious that he does not believe for a minute that he is ineligible in any applicable sense. He is now fully on record for cherry-picking his qualification and abandoning his rational culpability when it serves his purpose.

I told you from the outset that he holds us all in contempt. No matter what the glossy brochure says, no matter how often he smiles and self-deprecates and is his generally witty winsome self, this man fully believes he is morally superior by any and every measure. The morality play unfolding before our eyes is a further brilliant move, a well orchestrated final act in an endless campaign to make himself unassailable in the acquisition of moral superiority. The men around him are utterly cowed by his moral authority. They have demonstrated no capacity or even the slightest desire to check or balance his conducts, actions, or doctrines. They let him rewrite the meaning and outcomes with impunity. And as a governing body, they are universally “unentreatable” unless it serves their purpose.

So this only has one outcome.

At the moment the leadership team has had their confidence shaken so they too are saying all the right things, in all the right places for all the same reasons. This will give local churches who have been chaffing under the pain of having to subordinate to the Big Dogs the moral clarity to defect from SGM central planning.They will suffer the usual criticism of those who dare leave the SGM fold. But then it will pass. The leadership will have sufficiently watched their bellybutton to affirm in their own mind they are still qualified to govern.

El Primo Doctrinal mover and Shaker will head into self-appointed exile and navel-gaze till his heart is content. The board will investigate. The men of correction will enter the stage on cue, offer their correction as if CJ is a five-year-old that needs swatted with a spoon. He will be told to respond “right away, all the way, and cheerfully.”  He will cry great big alligator tears in public, an event that is hardly unique. A season will pass—season = until he gets tired of the dog house—and he will then unilaterally return, appropriately chastened, appropriately repentant, appropriately confessed.

For the first few board meetings, CJ will nod in all the right places as if the words he hears others say are new and fresh and important. He will defer and conciliate. Everyone will extol: “See, it works! The redemption is real! The process of restorations is a miracle of Grace!” They will write books and sing songs and dance their hold over charismatic two-step in the aisles. All the sins have been washed away. Repent of unforgiveness. Move past your emotional offense. You too must confess your faults and make your Pastors work a Joy. Woe is us, we are all just sinners.

And then, one day, behind the scenes, the e-mail chain will start again, and to those who lived the nightmare the first time will “perceive.” The illusionist never left and now CJ is unassailable.

SGM, welcome to CJ Mahaney’s Metaphysical Magic Mayhem.

Filed Under Sovereign Grace, Teachable Moments


Viola Lessons

Thursday June 9, 2011 • 9 Comments 

By John Immel

Somehow I ended up on a Frank Viola e-mailing list. Someone was very kind to add me. I suspect that the motive was either counterargument by proxy or they assumed that I would agree with what Mr. Viola is teaching. Whatever the reason and whoever put me there, thanks. I now have more fodder for my Spiritual Tyranny grist mill. Of course, I know some of you are Frank Viola fans, so this could get interesting. My fans are most affirming and vocal when I’m taking on the Sovereign Grace Ministries phenomena. I’ve said repeatedly that they are not my obsession, only a stepping off point. Anyone making a bid towards Spiritual Tyranny is fair game. To that end, let the frolic begin.

It must have been a divine appointment that I actually read the e-mail. As a rule, I delete what looks like spam. But I happened to notice that Frank weighed in on the Harold Camping End of the World deal. It was then that I knew I had another article to write. Actually, that is not quite right. I had an offline conversation with a long time reader first. They related a shift in their thinking after having read Camping Lessons. Here is a condensed excerpt from our conversation:

Reader: “I tend to treat the Harold Campings of the world as crazy and just dismiss their rambling. But after reading Camping Lessons, I realized that the issue is people’s fear. (…) their willingness to abandon themselves to any authority declaring an alternative reality. I’m laughing but it is scary.”

John Immel: “I was thinking about this a lot today. The issue is the ability to create a justification for ignoring reality. Camping’s problem is he has made a prediction that CANNOT be reconciled with reality, so he loses credibility almost immediately and therefore loses the stronger of his followers because they have sufficient personal identity to resist the moral judgment that compels rational compliance.”

Reader: “Well, reality proved Camping wrong. He has to discredit himself.”

John Immel: “But here is the real issue. What if an ‘authority’ can create a moral justification that CANNOT be challenged? In other words, what if the “authority” can create a rational environment where he can NEVER be disqualified?”

Reader: “Exactly. They appeal to our fears so that we will abandon CRITICAL REVIEW. Tsk. So any time someone appeals to your feelings instead of reason, that should be a red flag.”

John Immel: “It is more insidious than that. The issue is not reason vs. feeling. Feeling is as much a part of reality as any other human aspect. What tyrants succeed in doing is creating a “reason” to evaluate reality contrary to the cause and effect. They appeal to a transcendent ‘reality,’ a claim that dare not be evaluated or measured. They assert a morality that condemns all self-appointment. They do this to undercut how man knows what he knows.”

This conversation was in my mind when I caught Frank’s e-mail. As always, I have no interest in cherry picking content, so I have provided the full context here.

Let’s start in the middle and work our way out.

Frank Viola’s E-mail:

Lessons We Can Learn from Harold Camping’s Failed Prediction

Here’s are some of the more important lessons we can learn from the failed May 21st “end of the world” prediction . . . I think.

1. Leaders who have a lot of influence over a lot of people must have peers. Camping hasn’t allowed himself to have any peers. He is a man fully on his own out on a limb (and sawing hard). If a servant of the Lord doesn’t have peers, he or she will go off the beam at some point and end up hurting a massive amount of people.

2. God will never contradict His Word. Jesus made clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming. A simple statement, yes? But some have complicated it. Or ignored it.

3. Christians don’t know their history. Camping is part of a long trail of date-setters who set dates for Christ’s return. All were epic fails. They’ve always ended up the same way. Recall the book “88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988.” I watched the author as he was interviewed several times before 1988. He was so sure he was right. All his math added up. But his prediction failed. 1988 came and went. The same has happened with every date-setter for Christ’s return before and after him.

 

My Comments:

Point 3 is the most innocuous. Frank is right about Christians not knowing history, of which he is equally guilty. (More on this in a moment) I’ve already addressed why people get sucked into all things Rapture NOW. This is the ultimate Christian Hail Mary into the end zone of life. When people feel the intense pressures of their existence, the get-out-of-Tribulation free card looks like a great idea. Camping won’t be the last man to offer a date and time. And it won’t be the last time that a bunch of people embrace such predictions. And it won’t be the last time that everyone else sniffs and snorts, treating all guilty parties like the family dog that just piddled on the carpet.

So, big whoop.

I’m working backwards. Therefore, the next point of focus is number 2: “God will never contradict His Word. Jesus made clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming. A simple statement, yes? But some have complicated it. Or ignored it.”

For those of you who haven’t yet, read the previous article titled Camping Lessons.

See that I enumerated five observations about Bible interpretation. The first observation was: Everyone assumes they read the bible correctly. To be sure Frank Viola thinks that he reads the Bible correctly. He is clear about the superiority of his interpretive methodology: Literalism. Any other understanding is a manifestation of deliberate scriptural disregard or interpretive overcomplication. The disdain for any perspective that deviates from what he considers to be a “simple statement” is palpable. Anything short of his literal understanding is to require that God contradict his Word.

I suspect that most people share Mr. Viola’s unstated expectation: the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. The “it” is the literalist understanding of 21st century men and women. This sounds like a very spiritual very, righteous belief that gives highest honor to God’s power, Word, and integrity. But on second blush, realize the presumptuous reductionism buried underneath this metaphysical assertion. Or more plainly said: Notice the arrogant simplicity in daring to speak on God’s behalf.  “God will never contradict His Word,” is a metaphysical assertion about the nature of God’s existence. Meaning, Men have decided that God MUST possess specific characteristics that are measurable and then presume to impose an oblique moral standard on God’s conduct. So the underlying logic is this tautology:

God does not change his mind therefore he does not contradict himself.

Therefore,

He does not contradict so he does not change his mind.

As an interpretive standard, this makes each discrete Bible verse a divine command of its own standalone edict that brooks no review beyond the narrow simplistic sensibilities of the reader’s narrow historical perspective. A challenge to the interpreter’s sensibilities is transformed into a challenge to God’s character. Who could dare challenge God’s character? Well, only those people engaged in “overcomplication” or an outright disregard for biblical authority.

This is, of course, an absurd interpretive standard. Just because something is complex does not mean it is error. Christians believe some profoundly complex ideas— Pervasive Depravity, Federal Guilt, Limited Atonement etc.—that have been woven together from unrelated traditions. When was the last time you heard someone condemn those doctrines because they were overcomplicated?

Dear Spiritual Tyranny reader, do not fall for this argument to simplicity. It is little more than a cover for intellectual passivity and the hallmark of a very small mind that cannot prevail in the face of challenge. And that isn’t the bad part.

Notice that the tautology above is a False Choice, a.k.a. False Dichotomy or a Bifurcation fallacy.

Christians describe God as all powerful and able to do pretty much whatever He wants as it suits His GOOD pleasure. So why do mere mortals presume that God can’t change his mind? A few thousand years ago, standing on the side of a mountain, God decided that He didn’t want to spill the details on the Son of Man’s return. And in that moment, it was true: No man knew the day or the hour. But Jesus did not say that no man would EVER know the day or the hour. To be sure the moment the Son of Man cracks the sky, a LOT of men will know the day and hour. So Jesus cannot be saying that men will live a deaf, dumb, and blind existence for God to remain non-contradictory. Jesus’ point—while standing on the mountain—was the knowledge on date and time was God’s alone to give.

So here is a question: why is God’s GOOD pleasure restrained to tell whom He wills, whenever He wills? The disciples could have walked into Jerusalem the next day and Jesus said: “Guys, Remember what I said yesterday, well, never mind. My Father in Heave told me the Son of Man is coming back on October 21, 2011. Now, I know that means we will need a new calendar, but someone will change that in a few years. So it is all good.”  And how is that at any point a “contradiction”?

By calling any deviation from the literalist understanding a “contradiction,” jars of clay are insisting that God is obligated to act in accordance with their imposed rational limitation. Think of the conceit: A bunch of worms, demanding that God have a specific metaphysical nature, static consistency. How can Pervasively Depraved Man dare insist that God’s nature be understandable, let alone that He MUST remain dependent on their questionable grasp of reality? Can’t a “sovereign” God act how He dang well pleases? Since when did Man get such dictatorial power over God’s mysterious purpose?

This whole evolution is how Christians get the idea that there is no more knowledge. Whatever God “said,” that is it. There is nothing else. There is no expansion, or clarification, because WE have determined exactly what God meant for all eternity. So you just quit asking questions!

This is how church leaders get it in their head they should persecute Copernicus, and Galileo, and a host of other men and women who delved into the details of understanding and came up with ideas that ran contrary to mystic despots’ interpretive sensibilities.

OK … I’m laying it on a little thick, but you get the point. Frank Viola presumes that his understanding is the only “biblical” understanding and any challenge or deviation must necessarily be the product of …

1. Leaders who have a lot of influence over a lot of people must have peers. Camping hasn’t allowed himself to have any peers. He is a man fully on his own out on a limb (and sawing hard). If a servant of the Lord doesn’t have peers, he or she will go off the beam at some point and end up hurting a massive amount of people.

Evaluating the implications of this specific point is the heart and soul of my article: the foundational assumption within this bumper sticker theology.

Notice Frank Viola’s logic:

  • Camping error = no peers.
  • Leadership + Influence + (n) people = peers.
  • Servants of the Lord without peers = inevitable error.
  • Leadership without peers = pain x (n) people.

But before we drill down too hard on this section, I want to point out the premise. If Harold Camping is in error because he does not have peers, Frank Viola must believe his ideas are accurate because he does. This means, by definition, the e-mail blast represents Present Testimony Ministry’s composite accuracy. Or said another way: There should be no error within this email because Frank Viola has peers.

Let us evaluate the effectiveness of this collective truth check. Fortunately, we will not have to look far. The first part of the e-mail will provide plenty to review. Frank (And Peers) open the e-mail blast with a response to a “Recent Controversy Over Hell.” He starts with an oblique critique that some unnamed writers will be making “millions” selling books related to the subject.

(Just curious … but doesn’t Frank sell books for money?)

Anyway, we will take up the discussion at point three, the asterisk sub points. (I have designated them A through E for reference.)

Frank Viola says:

3. Here are my concluding thoughts on the matter:

A) hell (judgement after death) is real. It’s ludicrous to try to dismiss this fact.

So this is how peer review argues a doctrinal point—by blithe rebuff? This “concluding thought” is a mere dismissal combined with an assertion of mental defect. So people are just stupid to disagree with Viola and Peers’ conclusions. I’m not interested hashing out the doctrinal details of Hell but rather to dissect the logic employed to demagogue a conclusion. Here are two errors. (Well, here are the two errors I care to talk about.)

1. Frank and Peers call those who disagree with their definition of “real” as mentally unfit. This is called Special Pleading: the use of arguments that condemns rational challenge against.

2. Frank and Peers are failing to make the effective distinction between facts and beliefs.

Let me dig deeper.

Point 1a: No need to spend time rebutting the special pleading; it speaks for itself.

Point 1b: For anyone with the argumentative ability of a 15-year-old, the rebuttal to the assertion that Hell is “Real” is: “Prove it!” Of course, Viola and Peers cannot prove the existence of Hell or of judgment after death. This is not detailed in the comment, but Frank and Peers are making an appeal to authority. The authority is what vouches for Hell’s “factualness” and “realness.” And my readers know the moment we start talking about authority, we are really having a conversation about force.

Point 2: I need to explain the distinction between facts and belief.

It is a fact that the Protestant Bible speaks of final judgment.

It is a fact that the Protestant Bible references a place of torment for “evil” doers.

It is a fact that the some English Protestant Bible translations render the words Gehenna, Sheol, and Hades as Hell.

It is a fact that medieval theologians integrated these “facts” (plus many others) into the doctrinal tradition that modern Christianity understands as the place of eternal torment where all the bad, bad sinners go because they didn’t believe the missionaries.

It is belief to declare the historic philosophy/theology—that specific synthesis of facts—the only valid understanding.

Frank Viola Says:

B) Whatever hell is, it’s monumentally unpleasant.

Here again are two errors that I want to address.

Point 1) Uh … yeah, so what? There are places on earth that are unpleasant: monumental or trivial. The Sahara Desert and Antarctica are monumentally unpleasant, but their existence is irrelevant to my habitation good pleasure. Equally true is this: Utopia is reported to be glorious but that does not mean it exists. Santa Claus’s North Pole with all the elfs and toys and hot cocoa is supposed to be nice, but that doesn’t mean it exists.

Point 2) These six words do not follow: a.k.a a non sequitur.  “Whatever hell is” is a concession to metaphysical ignorance, or maybe better said, it is conceptual punt. Frank Viola and Peers are fully aware that Hell’s specific characteristics are a metaphysical construct, so they have no rational choice but to concede what they cannot measure. By itself, this would be a manifestation of humility, but connected to the next three words, it is a window into the logical failing of Frank and Peers. “It is monumentally unpleasant” persists with the assumption that Frank and Peers know exactly what Hell is.

Let me expand. It is important to understand the conflicting logic in Frank’s “concluding thoughts.” Frank and Peers are taking the abstract idea—Hell—and treating it as if it has properties that they grasp. Of course, Western culture has heard the traditions of Hell for so long in so many contexts that it doesn’t really occur to us that the details have been woven together from dozens of cultural customs and pagan sources that have nothing to do with Judeo/Christian roots. That is the “Fact.” All of those diverse traditions, all of those metaphysical assumptions, come together to shape OUR conceptual understanding. One intangible element of Hell’s characteristics is “monumentally unpleasantness.”

Notice that Frank and Peers concede ignorance—“Whatever Hell is”—and in less than a breath presume to know exactly what Hell is—Monumentally Unpleasant”?

They treat the argument over Hell’s characteristics as a triviality all the while insisting that Hell’s experiential reality is a bad thing. And this is what makes Frank and Peers’ comment so dishonest. Hell’s WHATEVER is the debate’s point: the reason people argue over Hell’s characteristics is because of its traditional function as the ultimate moral extortion. The assumption is that Man will not act right unless there is an eternal threat hanging over his head. We think that God must extort our moral action with the threat of eternal sanction. If Hell’s nature is a big WHATEVS, then why mention it at all? Why be fussed that people are making millions writing about it?

Frank Viola Says:

C) The greatest Christian minds have disagreed as to its exact nature, and there is much about it that’s subject to speculation.

I read this point and scratch my head. How in the world can a peer group with intellectual integrity go from the absolutist assertions of point A to this broad equivocation in point C? How can this rational discrepancy exist? I thought having peers assured accuracy?

OK … These are rhetorical questions. Hang on for a moment and I think you will grasp what this is really about.

Frank Viola Says:

D) Christians lose their way when they spend lots of time trying to analyze the fine points of hell while showing mild interest in knowing Jesus Christ deeply and restoring God’s eternal purpose in Him. I’d love to see the same passion that some Christians have over the hell debate applied to pursuing the Lord Himself.

E) many people will be surprised as to who makes it in the end and who doesn’t (see Luke 13:28).

F) as I’ve stated once before, when I get finished exploring and declaring the unsearchable riches of Christ with my brothers and sisters, I’ll get around to dissecting the anatomy of hell!

Point E is a Red Herring and irrelevant to any discussion on the existence of Hell. By his own definition, Frank and Peers could be the very people who end up surprised … so we’ll let God sort that part out.

I contend that D and F are the real point of this whole Hell “Concluding Thoughts” exercise: everything else is pretext and preamble.

As I was reviewing the list of logical fallacies I couldn’t find one that fit exactly, so I think I’m going to invent my own. I am going to call it Argument to the Moral Metaphysical Ideal, or maybe the Argument to Triviality, or maybe the Argument to Nanee Naee Boo Boo, I’m better than you. Here is the reality: “Concluding Thoughts” D and F are unadulterated sanctimony. Frank Viola and Peers are engaging in Doctrinal Narcissism of the deluxe class.

Christians lose their way? Is the way lost by analysis? Is the way lost by using “lots of time”? Is the way lost by trying to understand the “finer points”? How are we defining “Mild Interest”? How did Frank Viola and Peers become expert on the general state of Christian attention, focus, intensity, dedication, or practice? What yardstick must a man believe he holds to pronounce the rational pursuits of others as inferior?

And this statement, wow: “When I get finished declaring and exploring the unsearchable riches of Christ … blah blah blah …” This is Frank Viola’s argument to triviality. This is an overt effort to define a reality that so far exceeds the trifling preoccupation of mere mortals that it ranks lower than the sludge on his boot. This is why Frank and Peers can be so absolutist in one breath and logically vacant in the next. This is why they hold themselves to no real intellectual standard. Their “peerage” has nothing to do with holding each other to the highest rational and critical standards. Their peerage is in service to affirming the reality of their own choosing. And this is EXACTLY what Harold Camping did. They have already decided that whatever they believe are the facts. “So, tut tut tut … Nanee Nanee boo boo, we are better than all you slobs, losing your way, expressing passion on baubles, thinking about things beneath our lofty attention. Our reality is the ONLY reality worthy of consideration.” And this is EXACTLY Harold Camping’s treatment of all rejections and criticisms.

And this is the crux of the issue. Frank Viola and Peers presume to define the highest rational expression. They are overtly saying their metaphysical expectations are the highest moral high ground, and any failure to aspire to that goal is beneath their lofty consideration.

And now I want to draw your attention back to the start of this article.

John Immel: “ … What tyrants succeed in doing is creating a “reason” to evaluate reality contrary to the cause and effect. They appeal to a transcendent ‘reality,’ a claim that dare not be evaluated or measured. They assert a morality that condemns all self-appointment. They do this to undercut how man knows what he knows.”

Now you can begin to see what I saw those days ago when this e-mail blast hit my inbox. With this in mind, reread Frank Viola’s comments about Harold Camping.

1. Leaders who have a lot of influence over a lot of people must have peers. Camping hasn’t allowed himself to have any peers. He is a man fully on his own out on a limb (and sawing hard). If a servant of the Lord doesn’t have peers, he or she will go off the beam at some point and end up hurting a massive amount of people.

Again, this is Frank Viola’s logic:

  • Camping error = no peers.
  • Leadership + Influence + (n) people = peers.
  • Servants of the Lord without peers = inevitable error.
  • Leadership without peers = pain x (n) people

The error = No Peers is a Post Hoc and Hasty Generalization fallacy rolled into one epistemological criticism.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc means someone screwed up the cause and effect. And Frank has made massive leaps of cause and effect logic by insisting that Harold Camping doesn’t have peers. How can he know this? How does he define peers? How do we know that his definition is right? And equaiting inevitable error with inevitable pain as consequence for a lack of peerage is absurd. How do we know that Peers would have kept Harold’s hands off of a calculator?

Frank Viola (and Peers) are committing a Hasty Generalization when they say that being without peers means inevitable error. How can they possibly measure such a thing? Here is a short list that comes to my mind. One would have to measure isolation. How isolated is isolated? Is living in the desert for three years isolated? Would that man’s doctrine be disqualified? How about living in a monastery? We would have to measure doctrinal accuracy BEFORE entering isolation, and then measure doctrinal accuracy AFTER entering isolation. And we haven’t even begun to unravel WHOSE doctrinal accuracy is the defining yardstick. Anyone else seeing the absurdity in this?

Anyway, these two fallacies are peripheral to the much more problematic assumption underneath Frank Viola (and Peers) comments.

Epistemology is the study of how man knows what he knows or how man grasps truth. So when Frank Viola says that error = isolation, he is saying that individuals cannot know truth because individuality is the source of deception. He is saying that man cannot know truth unless he is part of a group. And more insidious: Truth is only found in a group of peers. Peers?  Defined by what standard? Qualified by what skill set? Confirmed by what governing power? Are we to understand that only this (ill-defined) subset of people is proof against error?

Really?

This is disaster!

Only the COLLECTIVE can know TRUTH? Only a special group within the collective can KNOW the TRUTH? How does that special group enforce its understanding to TRUTH? By rational persuasion? How can any form of intellectual inquiry be done when individuals are compelled to measure their ideas against a committee? The moment a man must subordinate his mind to the approvals of other men, he is no longer acting rationally. The inevitable conclusion says: Truth as property of the State and the State is empowered to use force. In ages past this was called Religious Orthodoxy. In the modern age it is called Political Correctness.

Frank Viola cannot have the faintest knowledge of Church history and offer Peers and proof against error. He is a Protestant for heaven’s sake. By definition, the failure of Catholic “Peers” are the reason Protestantism exists. Men protested the rational failures of those holding “influence,” over massive amounts of people.

Does he honestly believe that groups commit no wrong?

Here is a short list of groups hurting massive amounts of people: Cardinal Richelieu had the entire peer structure of Catholic orthodoxy and they were unrestrained bloody tyrants. The “Committee” of Public Safety was the Peer group that led the French Revolution battle cry “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” all the while whacking off people’s heads during the Reign of Terror.

How many Reformation Theology peers stood around and watched Michael Servetus burn at the stake? How many peers stood mute while little girls screamed for mercy as Salem Puritan despots burned them to ash?

And dare I mention the peer group of the Weimar Republic through the late 1920s to the early 1940s that did such a stellar job in beating back “influences” that hurt people: Paul Althaus, Gerhard Kittle, Emanuel Hirsch, Hanns Kerrl, Bishop Ludwig Muller, Herman Kappler, Joachim Hossenfelder, Lutheran state Bishop Heinrich Rendtorff, Friedrich von Bodelschwingh. This list represents the barest overview of the Protestant Church’s involvement—a connection that went all the way to the Final Solution.

Most people have no idea who these people are, so I will tell you. These are the names at the top of the list supporting the rise of National Socialism: men who worked to sustain the Third Reich’s Philosophical and Theological power. All of them were leaders within some facet of the Lutheran/Protestant church. All of them were in primary positions of authority with LOTS of peers who voted them spokesmen for their collective voice. All of them were sure that the people should “… follow them as they follow Christ,” because the Fuhrer was appointed by Gott. These are the people that helped create the moral justification that could not be challenged. They were the “authorities” that created a rational environment where the leadership could NEVER be disqualified. There is no excuse not to know the details of RECENT Church history!

Very few Protestant Christian voices rose against the rise of National Socialism because so few people had the fortitude, the moral clarity, and the rational strength, and the philosophical tools to stand against the collective tide. But one important voice did. While everyone else was demanding subordination to the community, deference to authority, peer-driven epistemology, and service to THE Moral Metaphysical Ideal, Dietrich Bonhoeffer defined rational individuality and acted against the pending tyranny.

Unfortunately, Bonhoeffer’s warnings were way too little way too late, with a massive hole in the center of philosophical resistance. But from his lessons we can learn the secret to prevailing against the tide of peer-driven error. Rational sovereign individuality: fully armed, fully trained, fully confident men and women with the fortitude to stand committed to their own rational judgment. Against such people, the Harold Campings of the world remain the circus side show they deserve to be. Against such people, the Adolf Hitlers of the world remain nameless painters, scrawling out their diatribes in deserved obscurity.

Dear spiritual Tyranny reader, the people who are far, far more dangerous, are those who appeal to a transcendent ‘reality’, morally condemn self-appointment, undermine critical inquiry, and insist: “We are right, because we are US.”

*    *    *

 

If you have been impacted by the ideas, and their worth consider exhanging value by offering a donation.

Copyright© Presage Publishing 2011.  All Rights Reserved

Filed Under Educational Posts, Teachable Moments


« Previous Page — Next Page »

This blog is protected by Dave\'s Spam Karma 2: 78836 Spams eaten and counting...