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.)
Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead.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.
115 comments
DB
February 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm DB(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For a sophomorish as CJ and his brown-nosed posse are, they have made one brilliant move; they have managed to hide their unique contribution to the history of Christian extremeism behind a relatively normal facade.
2+2=4 again
March 10, 2012 at 12:25 am 2+2=4 again(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for this post and all the comments! That hit the nail on the head, the SGM/Platonian/Augustinian curtain is the body of doctrine, because people just have to make God in our own image. We can’t believe that He actually said what He meant in scripture. The curtain which separated man and God was ripped in two at the moment of Christ’s death. Truly orthodox Christian faith is so very simple, so free, by Him, for Him, yes in Him!
Argo
March 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John, here is a quote from a paper by a Doctoral student of Theology in a new church we’ve been trying. I have been blase about the church…until today. This paper on answering the reformed “Doctrine of Inability” was plopped in front of me, quite unexpectedly, as I sat in a Sunday School class for the first time. I consider this a divine appointment, really. I was very surprised to have this given as reading by what is a very unassuming country church. Anyway, a footnote says:
“According to Luther and later reformers like Jonathan Edwards, desire is the impelling force in the operation of the will. Geisler notes: “the basic argument states that what is good by nature cannot will evil, and what is evil by nature cannot will good. Unless God gives evil men the desire to will good, they cannot will good any more than dead persons can raise themselves back to life;: see Geisler, Chosen, 27. The insistence by reformers that desire directly determines choices contradicts Paul’s treatment of desire and choices in Rom 7:7-25. There Paul depicts the exact opposite of the reformed understanding of the human condition. He laments that there is constant opposition between what he desires and the choices he makes.”
Wow. I thought that was an excellent summary of that passage by Paul. Would you agree with this assessment?
Like I said, very surprised, happily so, to be given this as “required” reading. Man…it was like a cool breeze compared to where I’ve come from.
John Immel
March 11, 2012 at 6:26 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m guessing this is Norman Geisler that is the author of this note? It has been a while since I read him, so I’d have to go refresh my memory to give a full evaluation. (If you have the whole source I’ll take a look)
Anyway, one of the harder things to understand about the reformers and most particularly Edwards and Owen’s (and the modern 20th generation shills) as that they are not looking to harmonize Paul within his own doctrinal assertions. Or maybe I should say it this way, the harmony they seek is in service to the Reformed theology construct.
Notice the general appeal to “scripture” as if it is an encompassing inviolate thing. This is no casual generalization, but rather the undergirding assumption about interpretive methods. Calvinist thinkers treat canonical literature as if it can be read in the broadest possible strokes. My phrase from Blight in the Vineyard was “They treat bible verses like Legos” This is what gives them the broadest interpretive license to snap any old verse together from any book of their choosing to clarify (or obscure) the doctrinal point du jojour. This is what gives them the interpretive power to ignore the conflicting conclusions of the advocated doctrinal assertions. So Paul does not stand alone, in need of discrete understanding. They have the ability to proof text the book of James as the founding authority to locate desire is the driving force of Will, and then point out that desire is the source of sin, ergo the will is in bondage to sinful desires that cannot be overcome unless God imputes Grace.
So however Paul used desire, is subordinate to the broader interpretive strokes. And if that doesn’t let them off the interpretive hook, they appeal God’s “sovereignty” (Jonathan Edwards emphasis/addition to the construct). This is how they hide the structural fault lines and are able to overlook Paul’s comments, or pretty much anything else that does not square with their “scriptural” plumb line.
Like I said, I will have to reread Geisler, but here is my take on the Will, VS desire issue. I cut this Gordian knot like this: I don’t except Luther’s premise: that the source of man’s specific failure is the bondage of his will. By elevating a part of man’s existence to the defining measure of man’s existence it wrecks the broader picture of human volition. I contend the issue of “will” is secondary to the issue of volition. If man is not free, that is if he cannot act, by his own self motivation towards good (or evil), everything else is moot. It doesn’t matter what part of man is broken if at the end of the day, he is unable to choose anyway. If this is man’s metaphysical foundation, then the world is determined and everything else is fully irrelevant. And I do mean everything: ideas, rationality, sin, love, hate, morality and existence itself. We are all automatons dangling on a string in the hands of a puppeteer fully disconnected from reality.
John Immel
March 11, 2012 at 6:30 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
2+2 … welcome.
Thanks for your comment.
FWIW
March 11, 2012 at 9:25 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In many situations, children make different choices than adults. Woman make different choices than men. There are many more husbands that beat their wives than vice versa. More men commit crimes than women. Most men do not want roses for Valentines day.
My point is that many things influence what we want and how we get it. Race, religion, upbringing, environment, schooling or education, peers, personality, DNA, etc.
Rape is normally male against female. Men are normally more sexually driven than women. We have more testosterone. Woman get PMS. So our chemicals and hormones effect our emotions, desires, which may effect our choices.
Why do more women go to church than men? There are very few churches than have more men than women. Why is that?
Why did 99% of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan “choose” Islam as their religion?
2+2=4 again
March 14, 2012 at 7:01 pm 2+2=4 again(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks, John. Sadly, the more I think about it, the more I see the perfect opportunity for behind the scenes hate groups present in the SGM church model. After all, Calvin and Luther were directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths; Calvin, for his best friend’s murder, and hundreds of Anabaptists and other Christian dissenters when he came to power in Geneva, and Luther advised the princes in Germany at the time of a peasant uprising, to simply kill them all, which they carried out. I can understand that they were raised in the Catholic culture, but such attitudes and behaviors speak much about some of the deficiencies of Reformed theology. BTW, how safe am I posting on this site?
John Immel
March 14, 2012 at 8:41 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
2=2….
Yes, I believe you are correct. The elements of the doctrine are what undergirded Protestant slaughter against pretty much any group that resisted the political powers that were in ascendancy through the 16th century in Europe and the theocracy of Massachusetts. I make this case in Blight in the Vineyard that Calvin’s real motivation with the Institutes of the Christian Religion was to create a religious ruling class that held the full moral authority for theocratic state rule. Europe was awash in bloodshed in pursuit of that very end.
The thing I have been trying to illustrate with these articles are the ideas that undergird statism and the monopoly of force that creates tyranny. It is the ideas that drive the actions. And it will be the ideas that give rise to the hate groups you reference. Whether they come from SGM is anyone’s guess, but the ideology that gives rise to “Christian” theocratic statist oppression is centered in the Puritan/Calvin construct. And the crazy part is … it has already happened. As you observe Calvin’s conduct … he is hardly the only one to use violence in service to despotic outcomes.
How safe you are?? Not sure what your concerns are but currently only one other person has access to my blogs admin panel and I trust them implicitly. I have some pretty steep security measures in place to prevent hacking. So, as long as people behave themselves they are safe in my mind. I did have two users that abused their anonymity to do things that were unacceptable … So I exposed their specific fraud. But that is hardly the norm. I won’t be handcuffed by someone’s anonymity but in my mind I give people who seek to remain a pseudonym the benefit of the doubt.
2+2=4 again
March 14, 2012 at 9:15 pm 2+2=4 again(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks! Have heard that there are folks around SGM who are trying, sometimes successfully, to track the posters.
God doesn’t want me fearful of anyone but Him, I do need more courage.
John Immel
March 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
2+2…
Oh…. I suspect their tracking success has more to do with a blog poster talking about specifics that only a select people could know about. Since this blog doesn’t really lend towards the tabloid, it is much easier to remain anonymous.
But beyond tracking folk down. If that is a genuine concern you have … I think this fear illustrates a profound failing within the doctrines. Only an utterly evil body of doctrine can instill such lingering fear of “public” exposure for daring to disagree in public.
If you haven’t yet, I recommend you grab my book: Blight in the Vineyard. I deal with the power of our fears and affections … and how these doctrines are designed to leverage those parts of our nature against ourselves. And I think you will benefit from the last two chapters. I lay out a path to getting out from underneath that fear.
The paperback version is most conducive to studying and taking notes. I picked a font and a book size that gives margins and space. The layout is very readable… if I do say so myself.
2+2=4 again
March 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm 2+2=4 again(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks, John, think I’ll pick up one for myself and husband. He’s why we’re still there, and although so far, he’s appreciated thinking he’s part of their boys’ club, (I think they see him as a means to their never ending quest for power), to me, the underlying issue with that is caring so much about how one is perceived by others. May free more than 2 birds with 1 scissor. “Perfect love casts out fear”. What does that say about us SGMers?
John Immel
March 15, 2012 at 8:18 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Perfect love casts out fear”. What does that say about us SGMers?” very well and sysinctly said.
As for your husband … Well… they are using him. Particularly if he is successful in any real meaningful way: like if he actually makes something useful. At CLC I was always amazed at how transparent the pastors were in pursuit of those with “worldly” success to “commend” them, all the while pretending that such things were trivial and even sinful to achieve. But the power of the boys club is a heady tonic so lots of men get sucked in.
I’d be interested to know how your husband takes my comments. I have some pretty harsh criticisms in Blight for those men who leverage the accolades of the boys club for their own “selfless” purposes. My chapter “The Interpersonal Train Wreck,” is particularly scathing.
Argo
April 28, 2012 at 7:09 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John,
I just re-read this, and I am convinced that this article is the best description of the fundamental roots of the problems within SGM. The problem IS the doctrine. The doctrine is not just a place to look, it’s really the ONLY place to look.
My head was so buried for so many years. I patted myself on the back for having the stones to do my own thing in the face of the dictates of the “authority”–I said the occasional “shit” or “ass”, I listened to Hank Williams Jr., I didn’t read my Bible everyday; oh, what an enlightened rebel I was!–never once thinking about the abuse in the name of the sound doctrine that I explicitly supported with my presence and tithes,, which were perpetrated upon those who actually had real life problems and were told just to shut up, stop hating God, and forgive.
I don’t ever want to pretend that I have chosen the path to freedom from SGM and her oligarchy because I’m superior, or smarter, or more loved by God. No…I chose the path because I am so ashamed.
John Immel
April 28, 2012 at 8:49 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo … that is a pretty powerful comment and an incisive summation of how so many people are complicit in the unfolding drama.
Argo
April 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hi John,
Re-reading this. Not to be a suck up, but this is so friggin brilliant. I’ve never read such a concise and blunt examination of CJ’s “doctrine”, and which proves just WHY it’s so damn destructive.
You wrote this:
“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.”
And this is exactly why I submit that, despite AOR’s timid, milquetoast calls for changes in polity and structure, and chains of communication, and avenues for grievances, and processes whereby laypeople and pastors can be assured of a consistent and fair hearing of concerns and disciplinary protocols and blah, blah, blah, when pigs fly, etc., etc….it will never, ever happen.
It will not happen because this kind of structure and CJ’s epistemology are completely at odds. He simply cannot have a structure of pastoral discipline, for example, where all pastors go through the same channels in a fair manner that is based on objective protocols because each case will be subject to the whims of his “divinely inspired” perception. He needs to allow himself the freedom to decide how to think and act in any given situation in a way that allows his particular mood that day to dictate outcomes which will appear consistent with his special, divinely inspired moral superiority.
Mark my words; I don’t care how much the TALK about protocols, CJ will never allow them to exist. And if they do, it will be in lip service to their “promises”. AND IF they do exist, they will only be used when and where CJ decides; another tool of his ability to act as he “perceives” he should, in any given moment. If CJ will not be held accountable to a group of “apostles” of HIS OWN choosing, do we really think he will be held accountable to processes and committee rules that were recommended by an outside organization. What even?
« Previous 1 2 3