Concerned asked me a couple of questions in my post Speaking of Church Polity. I think the content of the question and the corresponding answer needs its own treatment.
Here is what she asked:
John, in reading some things about the various forms of church government, it seems most “truly” reformed churches adhere to either a congregational or presbyterian form of church government. However, the SGM model is episcopalian it seems (heirarchy: power flows from the top down only)
So here is my question – why do you think SGM tries to pass themselves off as Reformed simply because they are Calvinistic when none of their other beliefs remotely resemble historical reformed theology?
Is is fair to say SGM is Calvinistic but not reformed, even though they call themselves reformed?
* * *
I LOVE these questions. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THESE QUESTIONS. LOVE IT. LOVE IT. LOVE IT. That means you all are catching on. These questions show forth that people are actually looking at the content of what the Hair Club for Men claim. And if you are looking at the content, it becomes very easy to see that the Arena of Ideas they fancy themselves in is NOT as neat and tidy and unarguable as Sovereign Grace Ministries would like to pretend.
Concerned, the heart of your question is WHY? Why does SGM do what they do? Why do they call themselves Reformed when in fact they don’t conform to the content of the Reformed Practice? It is always a bold undertaking to answer about someone else’s motive. But I’m up to the challenge.
The short answer to why does Sovereign Grace Ministries claim Reformed Status is fear.
No… let me amend. The short answer to why does Sovereign Grace Ministries claim Reformed Status is stone cold, stark terror.
What are they afraid of? They are afraid that they are not truly authorized to preach, that they really may not be in charge, that they might not have anything to offer, that at the end of the day that they (CJ) might be wrong.
I know… that is a rather bold, generalizing explanation, but given the time and space, I’m pretty sure that I can lay out the parts and pieces of their overriding preoccupation.
But Exhibit A is embedded in Eric “Phenomenal” Simmons’ comments about bloggers. Well, not about bloggers specifically but his overarching need to discredit those folks on the Internet as irrelevant post-adolescents with nothing but heresy to talk about. His comments are pure demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of his CLC audience to warn them away from ideas: ideas he cannot compete with.
The mindset of fear is endemic within the Sovereign Grace Ministries’ culture.
Exhibit B is their history. Long before SGM was… SGM, they were GOB and PDI/CLC. Their foray into shepherding is part and parcel of the same preoccupation: who is authorized to be in charge, and preach, and arbitrate God stuff. CJ and Larry Tomczak, et al were authoritarian LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before they read Piper, and Spurgeon, and Packer.
Exhibit C is how they use the doctrines of Reformed Theology. I want to expand on this last point so I need to illustrate some Sovereign Grace Ministries algebra.
“watch your life and your doctrine” = mentally reflecting + Good Theology = Sound Doctrine = a specific Theological system = Orthodoxy = Authentic Christianity.
Orthodoxy = Reformed Theology
Ergo
Authentic Christianity = Reformed Theology
AND
Reformed Theology = Calvinism
With me so far? Okay… good.
Now I need to add the last part of the SGM equation.
Passioned Orthodoxy = PDI Passion + Orthodoxy
The last part of the equation is most important to your original question “How can SGM claim to be REFORMED when they really don’t adhere to the totality of REFORMED TRADITION?”
See, Sovereign Grace Ministries wants to play both sides of the intellectual fence. They use “Reformed Theology” to deflect criticism. Object to the content of their doctrine and they immediately say, “But we are Orthodox, how can you object? We believe what all right-thinking historic Christians have always believed. How can you object to what Paul himself preached ‘Christ and him crucified’?” Upon criticism, the critic places himself unsound doctrine camp eliminating his disparagement from consideration.
But as PDI/CLC were making the transition from the charismatic-ish movement to the Reformed Tradition, they ran square into their first and second departure from Orthodox teaching. Reformed doctrine is the home of cessationist teaching… meaning the gifts of the spirit–tongues, healing, et al.–passed away. Many of the churches of the reformed tradition prohibited music and musical instruments from worship.
What to do? We are a bunch of ’60s throwbacks that like to jump around at a rock concert in our tie dyes. Bob Kauflin isn’t going to stop playing the electric piano. And we’re not going to suddenly disavow speaking in tongues for the last 20 years.
How do we justify departures from the very orthodoxy that we use to validate our doctrine?
Well… in reality, they just ignore the implications. But their PR machine went into full gear and decided their doctrinal deviations were the product of Passion. Well… who can argue with that?
Their use of Reformed Theology is a smokescreen to insulate themselves from criticism of the content of their practice. Their deviations from the Reformed Tradition are justified as modern expressions of their unique Sovereign Grace Ministries passion.
As for their use of Calvinism … well … if there was ever a body of teaching that absolved a man of the outcomes of his doctrine … this is it. If you pray for the sick and folks don’t get well, what is the reason? God is sovereign. Ergo, the content of your life is the product of Divine will. You preach endlessly that folks should not sin but yet they do. This is living proof of the doctrine of Pervasive Depravity. You pray for the unbeliever to get saved but yet they don’t respond. That is a function of Limited Atonement. You preach the hard truth of the Gospel, but folks leave your church and call you a cult. No mystery here, this is the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints in action. If one cannot persevere in the hard truth, those who leave are living God’s necessarily appointed deception.
As a pastor, how can you be held accountable to ANY outcome within the body? Logically, you can’t and practically you won’t because the doctrine exempts outcomes from your preview.
As for their polity … in practice, SGM are papists. Charles Joseph is the Vicar.
You have left out the 800 lb gorilla in this equation. Yes, they want control, and they do this by the fear tactic. But what else do they want?
Money….
These men make a living at preaching control, fear for what purpose? Money.
This may be a cynical view, but in the few times I sat in a SGM service, I was astonded by the methods and theatrics (I swear, CJ had crying down to a science) they used to get the green.
Does this mean they don’t have good motives for their actions? No, of course not. I know they provide for people as well. But they have salaries, a huge building and whatever else to support.
I’ve always found the arguments for reformed theology from the bible to be more convincing. However the evidence from human experience is overwhelming Arminian. One other advantage of reformed theology is that it is far and away the philosophical discipline more hostile to any sort of check or balance with respect to reason.
It is cultic by its very nature: the “truth” sounds ridiculous well your will is corrupted. Science and evidence are both suspect as “the words of men” when put against the “word of God”. Which means that one either has to wholesale reject their theology or the trap very difficult to escape from.
Dan… Hey man…
Here are my comments to what you said:
Money… see… this is one of those mixed motives of indwelling sin >snicker<
Meaning everybody wants to do good, but they tend to need money to do it–so much for a pure motive.
The reality is I don’t think there is a ministry on earth that doesn’t have a motive for money. Or maybe better said, they have the motive to obtain the capital and resources to continue with the vision, passion, or cause to continue advancing same. That means, of course, the bigger the organization—the bigger the buildings, the trappings, the machine—that is created to carry forth that vision, passion and cause, the easier the target. SGM has gotten big enough that it takes money to do what they do.
See, here’s the thing with me and SGM money. I tend to avoid being critical about the receiving of money for the cause of God’s kingdom. There is enough bible-teaching that A, giving is a good God thing; B, giving sets up a spiritual cycle of receiving; C, men/women who dedicate themselves to advancing God’s kingdom should be compensated for their efforts; D, I don’t think there is a limit to that compensation…
So, that means I don’t get fussed at how rich someone gets operating with the principles of the Kingdom of God. And I tend to think that blanket criticism of a ministry with money is unjust …
Having said that, it doesn’t take much to watch Robert Tilton on TV and find yourself appalled. (Is he even still on TV? Hope not) His utter, gross manipulation of Bible ideas to exploit money from folk is almost impossible to miss. There is a quality to the nature of his appeal that is so fundamentally repulsive as to be intolerable.
Conversely, CJ is capable of theatrics aplenty, but I’ve never really gotten the sense he is specifically after the money by any means possible. Actually, I think that CJ is a true believer. I think most of the men within SGM leadership are true believers. I think he/they would be exactly the same if they didn’t have a dime. They are capable of some powerful manipulations but I don’t see them manipulating for money.
All these bits and pieces lead me to not attribute the pursuit of money–greed and avarice–to Sovereign Grace Ministries.
CD-Host…
Well… I suppose Reformed Theology is convincing … or maybe the word should be compelling like a gun to the head is compelling. Most folk don’t actually read Calvin’s Institutes but a largish number of his foundational arguments go something like this: “What you don’t believe this very evident truth. Piffle … you’re just deceived! Repent of your deception or suffer God’s eternal wrath.”
Johnny C says it just like that. >snicker<
Which is what you identified as the trap.
When you realize that there isn’t a Calvinist in the world who can pull the trigger on the philosophical gun, it becomes lots easier to unravel the “logic.” There was a day when one had to worry about being fuel for roasting Marshmallows but not so much any more.
John, have you seen this blog yet? http://cfcfamilylife.blogspot.com/
It’s my old church’s blog, sometimes it’s ummmm, interesting…
“All these bits and pieces lead me to not attribute the pursuit of money-greed and avarice—to Sovereign Grace Ministries.”
I’m not saying their pursuit of money is about greed and avarice — I realize they are pursuing money to further their cause and their church.
They are about control and you can be more in control if you control where the money goes. I remember them talking about and pressuring people to “remember the local church.” They were talking about money.
I’ve no doubt they “believe” what they say — but I also have seen first hand what they do to manipulate their flock.
Greed? No, not greed. Control, certainly. Control = Money or Money = Control.
Julie… no, I hadn’t seen that blog… and yes… it is … uh… interesting.
Parents “exasperating” your children is the same as embarrassing them in public by whistling?
Reeheeaalllllyyyy??
If that is the case, then my parents are certainly going to where it’s warm and smokey!
Dan said: “Greed? No, not greed. Control, certainly. Control = Money or Money = Control.”
Hummm…. well said. There is little doubt that he who controls the resources controls everything else.
But I do have this observation… if one truly gives… then doesn’t he relinquish the right to commentate or influence how those resources are used. IF folk give cause that is what their heart tells them to do… >shrug< I don’t see the complaint about SGM or any ministry having or using those resources as they see fit. I figure they’ll answer for the stewardship of keeping Hunan Best in business. (BTW, is that still a great Chinese restaurant?) But make no mistake, if I find that folk have been coerced into emptying their pocketbook, my commentary will change dramatically.
Now you have it. And again, giving does not have to only be to a local church…it can be time, love, money — there will never be a shortage of people in need. How does the verse go? “There will be poor always….”
Hi again John, sorry to keep bothering you, I was wondering if you’d ever come across this blog?
http://rolecalling.blogspot.com/
I’d certainly be interested to hear your thoughts on SGM’s version of ‘Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ if you feel you have the time and the topic doesn’t bore you.
Hey Julie… you are never bugging me… I always like to be pointed at interesting things to look at.
as for my thought on men and women… hahahaha…
of course, I have thoughts… this is me you’re blogging to.
>snicker<
give me some time to think about a post or two and I’ll dedicate them to you.
ahhh,how sweet! lol
CD Host said: I’ve always found the arguments for reformed theology from the bible to be more convincing. However the evidence from human experience is overwhelming Arminian.
I’ve thought about this as well, and used to think as such, but I don’t see any more evidence pointing to calvinism than arminianism. And having LIVED OUT Calvinism, the fruit of that doctrine is certainly unbiblical. I think there are aspects of Calvinism that should be applied to Arminianism (I hate terms, but for sake of time) such as: Arminians typically rely too much on themselves to do everything, have a bit more faith in a bigger God than you do, also, Arminians tend to downplay their sin (while Calvinists over focus of course)
Arminian and Calvinistic views bolth hold some Biblical truths, but both are also extremes lived out. The reason people’s experiences seem to be Arminian is because people don’t have faith. And a life without faith looks like an Arminian life, and the other example in the world of a life without faith you see is the Calvinist.
John..thanks for the post and answering my questions..still not sure I follow it all, but I did at least want ot be assured I was not losing my mind when I see a huge discrepancy between reformed theology and charismatic. The two just don’t mix, and never will. They are doctrinally disctinct and historically have been for a reason. It’s like a web that is all mixed up and makes no true design. The parts aren’t connected properly..they don’t support one another, they destroy one another. A housr of cards. Remove one faulty teaching they have, the whole thing wobbles.
Concerned —
I’m not sure if I follow what you are saying in the above. Are you saying if people had faith their experience wouldn’t be arminian it would be reformed, but since they don’t the results of living a reformed lifestyle are unbiblical or…? Sorry, I suspect I’m being daft.