By John Immel
(For those of you who don’t care about the specifics of the SGM phenomena, give me a minute. This is going somewhere.)
Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up – sleepy head
Rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead.
She’s gone where the goblins go,
Below – below – below. Yo-ho,
let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong’ the merry-oh,
sing it high,
sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
So some time has passed since Vicar Charles Joseph headed off to sit in the bad preacher doghouse. Rumor has it that the doghouse has traveled to other states and other countries south of the border where he is speaking in behalf of the very church he said he should not be leading. Or maybe that was just the local church he had committed grave sins against, and the universal church is fair game for his metaphysical mayhem.
Anyway, for a few days the blogging world tried to hum a few bars of the song in the Wizard of Oz: “Ding Dong, the Witch Is Dead.” People seemed to breathe a collective sigh of relief: “See, we really aren’t crazy! It really is bad in Sovereign Grace Ministries. It really is!”
Joshua Harris, beta big dog for the SGM Vatican in Gaithersburg, Maryland, took to the plexiglass podium and admitted that yes, there were grave sins in the church. It really was as bad as it seemed. We don’t answer fools, but God was disciplining US because He loved US.
SGM admitting they are wrong? Why, how could it be?
People broke out in group hugs, speaking of grace and love and mercy and nodding sagely as people thought this was God finally showing up. Why, if the CJ Mini Me was willing to say it was bad, very bad, then surely this was a sign that the bucket of WikiLeaks in the face had really worked:
“Ding Dong the Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!”
Armed with ruby slippers, a flood of outrage-filled articles poured forth taking El Primo Doctrinal Mover and Shaker to task. If it wasn’t for his faulty Bible interpretation, his Bible proof-texting, a host of church polity mishaps, and his temerity for seeking to place himself in the same category as John Calvin, all these thing would not have happened.
“Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.”
SGM WikiLeaks seemed to embolden a few more victims to take their story public: yet another story of molestation swept under the pervasive depravity rug and another parent villainized for a lack of love and grace and forgiveness showed up on www.sgmsurvivors.com. Rumor has it that this story hit very, very close to SGM Vatican home. The CLC faithful were summoned to a members’ only meeting. The women are in an uproar; the men are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to proof-text their masculinity to get their theologically deficient wives back in line. The pastors are doing their gossip and slander two-step all the while woeing and tumulting about the great sinfulness of man and the great evils of human ego.
“Wake up – sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.”
With only a few exceptions—from those on the “anti-SGM” side of the blogging world—Brent Detwiler was heralded as a hero with the pooper-scooper for the SGM dirt and applauded for his courage to face down the green-faced villain of Gaithersburg, Maryland.
“Don’t you talk mean about Brent! Don’t you dare remember he was one of them for decades! Brent, please come in. Yes, make yourself at home. You are one of US now. Besides, we need you to tell us we are OK. We can’t know anything unless a pastor makes it clear for us. We can’t understand what is really happening unless a leader tells us. We are so confused. Can we get you some hot cocoa? Yes, tell us how hurt you are. We are very hurt. So you must be hurt. Brent, tell us where you hurt. Is it in your heart? Is it in your soul? We are hugging you. Brent? Brent? Brent, aren’t you going to tell us?”
Denigration of those dastardly bloggers in their underwear daring to speak ill of SGM leaders all but forgotten, Brent slid into the kiddie end of the cyber pool ready to take his side of the story public. Floaties firmly around his arms, like God before Balaam, the very blogs he denounced for a failure of attitude, and gossip and slander became his voice to the world. See! I’m not apostate! I’m not evil! I did it right! But CJ, this is all his doing! It’s him!
“Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.”
When a house didn’t drop on his head for the rational larceny of joining the blogging world, Brent was encouraged to take his kiddy pool backstroke into the lap lanes. With the debut of brentdetwiler.com, he came out splashing; the mist was felt all over the blogosphere. Tim Challies took his blogging towel to Rat Fink Brent D concerning his documents; yet another Neo-Reformed shill weighing in on the general impropriety of reading the leaky PDFs. Rat Fink Brent D defended himself by pointing out that “two anti-SGM blogs” had been in existence for years before the documents, so he really didn’t have a personal vendetta.
Hey Sopy… Well… you are certainly welcome.
But I must not have made my point successfully. Reducing this dynamic to “legalism” and a “twist” of truth is in fact on the same level as calling the SGM faithful “poor people” As if the rank and file pew sitter has been led down a path they are not able to see.
They do see… and accept the SGM conclusions because those conclusions suit them. Or maybe I should say they do read Galatians (and the host of other bible literature) with the same interpretive lens, (Calvin’s Lens) which means they arrive at the same leadership interpretive outcomes. The average pew sitter reviews the biblical calculus the pastors have done, and arrive at the same sum. Everyone participates in the group hug and wonders why no one “gets” the TRUTH.
You think they are twisting the truth… they think you are deceived and God has not revealed His TRUTH.
You think they are throwing away freedom. They think you are walking towards license. (Or they are fully influenced by Hegel and presume that state compulsion is man’s truest state of “freedom.”)
The issue is not Legalism qua Legalism (that wonderful catchword so casually bandied about against those zealous for an absolute interpretive conclusion) the issue is moral authority as qualification for interpretive authority, as qualification for pastoral autocracy. As long as this progression suits the SGM faithful, they stay in the pew.
The reality is very, very few people want the responsibility of their own lives. The pain comes when people suddenly decide they want the moral value of their own lives and the right to determine their own mind. This is what SGM NEVER conceeds.
The only thing that unravels the SGM (and the broader Neo Reformed movement) is rational equality based on moral clarity. This is the lynch pin of this whole fuss.
A friend of mine who was in the Calvinist camp for quite sometime said recently that it will take serious de-programming for people to see the error behind this philosophy. And a herculean task at that!I think this post shows how serious this is going to be. We now have almost a whole generation of American”Christians” immersed in this philosophy.
Believe it or not, he makes a great case that it is actually antinomian. He is writing a book about the New Calvinism and it’s recent comeback and traces it’s recent history. I will let you know when it is published.
Oh, and I can hardly read over at the anti sgm sites without getting a case of hives. Recently, I read one commenter give a litany of all the things wrong and then make a plea to the CLC leaders: Won’t you lead us out of this mess.
There, in a nutshell, is the Herculean task. This poor soul wants the abusers and those who made the mess to lead them out of it.
Is there any fix for that, I wonder?
“The issue is not Legalism qua Legalism (that wonderful catchword so casually bandied about against those zealous for an absolute interpretive conclusion) the issue is moral authority as qualification for interpretive authority, as qualification for pastoral autocracy. As long as this progression suits the SGM faithful, they stay in the pew.
”
I explain it to people like this: People want rules, roles and formulas to live their life by. They love self help books. They love Dr. Phil. Always searching for magic bullet to life. Christians want a Christian version of these things. It made Dobson rich beyond belief. Add to that the cult of personality and claims of pure intellectual orthodoxy and you have the formula for the Neo Reformed.
I do not see them as any different than the Isrealites who begged for a king. Of course, God was their King, but the Jews wanted one like the pagans had.
” This is an intensely personal, intensely demanding, intensely lonely process. No one can do it for you, and it requires the highest and best effort from every man and woman that chooses to walk the path. The weak of will, the weak of character, the weak of moral development, will wither on this path because it demands absolute courage and ruthless self evaluation.”
You had better believe it is lonely! And I see the same mistake over and over with people who start on this path. They think they are in sin for going it alone. I was blessed in that I had no where else to go! There was NO ONE around me who were even questioning any of it and thought I had just checked out. Oh…and they told me they prayed for me! Or that the leaders were just having a bad hair day or something. I always got a chuckle out of that…many times I thought to beg them not to pray for me but just kept my mouth shut. :0) In their minds I had LEFT the Faith. No, I just left the evil system that makes a mockery of truth.
My faith has never been more vibrant and real. And I can now face the hordes who have no clue how decieved they are by these charlatans. Many will say that is arrogant. So be it. My life is about introducing them to the One True God. Anyone notice how the Neo Reformed rarely mention the Holy Spirit. There is a reason. He does not fit into their formula.
“the answer to the question: Why do people “put up” with Sovereign Grace Ministries conduct? Why do people “put up” with all forms of civil or religious tyranny?
Because it suits them . . ..”
When I admitted this concerning the evil system i was in…it was the first step on the path. I quit making excuses as to why an intelligent woman like myself was decieved. I admitted that I had liked it and supported it. I admitted that I had turned a blind eye to many things and rationalized them away. I admitted that I had not been a Berean and took their teaching as truth without testing it. I admitted that I was not following Christ but man.
Kind of like AA but without the fellow ex drunks around.
“Believe it or not, he makes a great case that it is actually antinomian.”
Oh this is absolutely true. I have been saying this on this blog now for the better part of four years. I have repeatedly said that Pervasive Depravity is really the root assumption behind moral relativism. It is the flip side of the Antinomian coin.
Morality is merely the foundational values of human existence, so when a philosophy condemns the very root of human existence—i.e. man is pervasively depraved—it destroys the very foundation of moral value, hence all human action, want or desire becomes evil. Since man cannot LIVE with that as a metaphysical starting place, because by definition any action want or desire is “affection” for sin which is the same as an affection for DEATH. Man can not suffer this guilt and condemnation and despair implicit to this metaphysical absolute. It divides him against himself placing him at war with himself. He breaks down under this endless internal conflict and kills Man at his root.
Who can save him from this body of death?
In the Calvinist world view man is NEVER delivered from that body of death. So the only “choice” man has to find any space, to live, any harmony within his moral right to exist is to renounce moral judgment qua moral judgment. Alakazam poof! Antinomianism.
‘Oh this is absolutely true. I have been saying this on this blog now for the better part of four years. I have repeatedly said that Pervasive Depravity is really the root assumption behind moral relativism. It is the flip side of the Antinomian coin.”
It has taken me a while to connect these dots with Calvinism. The New brand of Calvinism is even worse as they are combining justification and sanctification. It means we cannot really live out the Christian life as in being Born Again. We can never do anything righteous when we are Born Again.
“I do not see them as any different than the Isrealites who begged for a king. Of course, God was their King, but the Jews wanted one like the pagans had.”
This is a great analogy. For all of Christianities preoccupation over authority and government structure, it is a striking contrast that the first “government” the Children of Israel had was in fact very, very limited government structure. Or more directly said, there was no monopoly of force vested in the hands of a select few in the original conception of the twelve tribes of Israel.
Once the land was pacified, God did not let the Mosaic military structure persists. The Children of Israel were among the first people to live in a confederation of tribal states organized around a world view (read philosophy) that facilitated self governance and free trade. This was in direct contrast to most every other contemporary culture: a statist warrior clan culture founded on heredity, morally enforced by religious authority (the religions of Dagon, Ashtaroth, Moloch, et al.) that granted the local tribal king boons for sacrifice.
Yahweh’s objection to a king was that he (the king) would ultimately expand his use of force to encompass the subjugation of his own people, and use that tyranny to wage wars of conquest. (Which is—among other things—what got Israel in trouble and ended with them in exile.)
Anyway, the Children of Israel were willing to forgo freedom; they were willing to abandon self government, to obtain what they considered as “security”. They didn’t want the responsibility of the rigor of their own lives and looked to another man to take up that rigor.
Historically this preoccupation has never changed. People would rather have someone tell them what to do, so they can maintain deniability in the failures of their own lives. But the price for that deniability is the sum of all individuality. This is why Thomas Jefferson said: “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
In modern Christianity this obsession to abandon personal responsibility is taking shape in two primary movements (that I can think of off the top of my head): the Marxist Social Gospel advocates and the Neo Reformed Movement. (And in many instances they are one in the same.)
What we are seeing within SGM is the logical outcomes of doctrines that declare Man without moral justification for self governance, combined with man’s indolence. The disaster we are witnessing unfold in the blogosphere is the inevitable outcome. This is what Tyranny looks like. Well, maybe I should say this is what tyranny in its infancy looks like. When it has come of age, (a full monopoly of civil force, organized to defend and advance the “glory of God”) we will think that a few molested little girls, and some parents who let themselves be indelicately treated by some twerp in a pastor’s office, will have had it easy.
“Once the land was pacified, God did not let the Mosaic military structure persists. The Children of Israel were among the first people to live in a confederation of tribal states organized around a world view (read philosophy) that facilitated self governance and free trade. This was in direct contrast to most every other contemporary culture: a statist warrior clan culture founded on heredity, morally enforced by religious authority (the religions of Dagon, Ashtaroth, Moloch, et al.) that granted the local tribal king boons for sacrifice.”
I never thought of it like this. We tend to erroneously think of them as under the yoke of the law even when they were basically self governing in their tribes with God as King.
They simply screwed it up over and over. As we do now. The parallels of the history of the NT church with Israel in the OT are uncanny. Also the parallels of the Pharisees and modern day pastors are strikingly similar.
“It has taken me a while to connect these dots with Calvinism. The New brand of Calvinism is even worse as they are combining justification and sanctification. It means we cannot really live out the Christian life as in being Born Again. We can never do anything righteous when we are Born Again.”
I wanted to expand on this comment, because you are voicing a common modern theological distinction that often confuses people’s understanding and what makes it so dang hard to argue the specific doctrines ascribed to “orthodoxy.” The Venn Diagram of All things Calvin and All things Bible and All things Orthodox get dumped into the same pot and pretty much considered identical. They are not. Christian thought has not remained static since the Reformation. This distinction is in fact an evolution of thought that came many years after Calvin. That was why I wrote this sentence in the post above:
“People will thump their ESV’s in pious outrage for biblical purity and then by small logical steps deviate from Dordrecht and Westminster; endlessly smuggle Wesleyan assumptions into bible interpretation; or flat out hijack Charles Finney’s rebuttal’s to the Puritan construct when the strictures become too oppressive.”
Many of our modern day assumptions about sanctification, and justification come from the historic micro steps away from Calvin “orthodoxy” in service to successful counter arguments to their presumed authority. One microstep led to another and another until, the past doctrine has little relationship to the present understanding.
Since people do not get their doctrine from the source, accepting pretty much whatever comes out of the pulpit. They read 20th generation shills, (who have sanitized the original ideas and made every effort to hijack whatever intellectual traditions suits their doctrinal ends) with little or no grasp of the root ideas. So people have no real understanding how far the theological plum line has moved. And to dare challenge the shills is to dare to challenge the bible… and woe to all heretics.
Anyway, I’m about ready to digress….
I won’t dissect the evolution in this comment because I have a book that is headed to press in about two weeks that will address this in much greater detail, but I will say this now: Augustine, Luther and Calvin did not make this distinction. For background on to what I refer, read (among other things) Augustine’s Letters to Simplicianus, Luther’s Bondage of the Will, and Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, specifically chapter 3.
The “orthodox” position, that is to say the kings of the theological hill, (the sacrosanct names of Augustine, Luther and Calvin) did not make these distinctions. To be sure they condemned these distinctions directly. Calvin called those who tried to make the distinction between human action before and after the New Birth—Justification vs Sanctification—Neo Palagians. He was condemning the advocates when he said it. (Like I said, read chapter three)
So, SGM and the broader Neo Reformed movement are not the aberrations. They are acting with increasing consistency with the “true” plumb line. The way these people act and preach IS consistent with Calvin, and Luther and most directly with Platonist Augustinian thought. This is the progression towards Christian religious despotism. This is what it looks like. And these are the ideas that drive people down the path.
Don’t doubt me here… this is all geared towards one end: Protestant governmental (civil and religious) autocracy.
“Calvin called those who tried to make the distinction between human action before and after the New Birth—Justification vs Sanctification—Neo Palagians. He was condemning the advocates when he said it. (Like I said, read chapter three)”
Yes!!! This is astonishing when we think about it. We CANNOT be obedient to God? We are not able…they tell us and people believe it!
“So, SGM and the broader Neo Reformed movement are not the aberrations. They are acting with increasing consistency with the “true” plumb line. The way these people act and preach IS consistent with Calvin, and Luther and most directly with Platonist Augustinian thought. This is the progression towards Christian religious despotism. This is what it looks like. And these are the ideas that drive people down the path.”
And the result are truck loads of people who have the deer in the headlight look abuot them…confused….in despair…so they must look to the leader for understanding and then they are dependent. And then we see the cloning.
I am looking forward to the book being published. This is very important. As another friend said, it will take serious deprogramming to get people to see this for what it is.
“The only thing that unravels the SGM (and the broader Neo Reformed movement) is rational equality based on moral clarity. This is the lynch pin of this whole fuss.”
-John Immel
Thanks again for your astute clarification…(really)
Now fer da Flipside? (snicker)
SGM: “I’ve Got You Under My Skin?”
hahahahahahaha
Sopy ;~)
___
…rational equality? :
Muppets “I’ve Got You Under My Skin”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkDshJNIdSM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
…moral clarity? :
http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/10/02/group-reconciliation-assistance-made-easy-facetiously-speaking/#comment-39805
Hi John. Another thought-provoking post. The parallel with this SGM stuff and the current discussion/battle in the secular, public arena is striking. Clearly this is a battle that is not limited to the church pew. I am concerned about the sheep mentality among citizens as a whole who seem completely content to let the government run their thinking and their lives. Tell me what the difference is between being content with the government running us or the church running us? Either way, we’ve lost our liberty.
I am interested in learning more about the Platonian/Augustine vs Aristotle/Aquinus distinctions. I’ll start on my own, but when your book is ready, I’d like to read it.
A question I have regarding SGM. Our negative experience with them where we encountered all of the authoritarian elitism in full bloom was BEFORE their behind-the-scenes turn to Calvinism. That’s why, in my own mind, I have been somewhat dismissive of Calvinism being the crux of the problem. Could it be that SGM, in an effort to be counter-cultural, had those authoritative tendencies even before they discovered the “right doctrines” they love now? Wasn’t Brent one of those who came in early on with a seminary degree? Was he influential in bringing these ideas in? Or others? Is it possible that some of the early “apostles” had these elitist, man-dominating, authoritarian leanings farther back?
A question I have regarding SGM. Our negative experience with them where we encountered all of the authoritarian elitism in full bloom was BEFORE their behind-the-scenes turn to Calvinism. That’s why, in my own mind, I have been somewhat dismissive of Calvinism being the crux of the problem. Could it be that SGM, in an effort to be counter-cultural, had those authoritative tendencies even before they discovered the ”right doctrines” they love now? Wasn’t Brent one of those who came in early on with a seminary degree? Was he influential in bringing these ideas in? Or others? Is it possible that some of the early “apostles” had these elitist, man-dominating, authoritarian leanings farther back?”
Hi Gracie, I had the same questions! I come from the seeker movement where elitism is huge and many of the same tactics are used to control people. Same stuff but different approach. The seekers use ‘relationships and evangelism’ to control you. The difference is that Calvinism uses intellectual elitism and fatalism. You have no moral authority. You are totally depraved even after being saved. You can do nothing righteous.
From what I can gather, Calvinism in method is a short walk from “shepherding”.
I watched a lot of groups go to New Calvinism. I think it was a matter of watching where the wind was blowing and it was a great way to show a backlash against the shallow seeker movement. People wanted meat and the New Calvinism claimed to have it because they were intellectuals who did not preach topical 3pt sermons meant to entertain. I think it gave Mahaney intellectual cover because he is uneducated. He could appeal to the intellectuals and be accepted by them. It gave sgm some credibility that PDI did not have.
Why else would someone like Mohler dare associate with someone from a group called “People of Destiny” and a guy who called himself an Apostle? He would be laughed out of the SBC. That would not have gone over well at all. And he is still an employee of the SBC…even though he forgets that a lot.
To give you another view…in the past few years, stats tell us that over 30% of all seminary students in the SBC seminaries are identifying themselves as Calvinists. That is unthinkable for the SBC and shows how far and deep it has spread. Just a few years back, 10% woudl have been shocking.
John may have better insight. I am basing it on experience and what I have seen up close and personal.