107 Responses to “Sovereign Grace Motive”

1. Dan on August 5th, 2008 8:43 am

   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.

2. CD-Host on August 5th, 2008 8:48 am

   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.

3. John Immel on August 5th, 2008 9:36 pm

   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.

4. John Immel on August 5th, 2008 9:49 pm

   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.

5. julie on August 6th, 2008 8:57 am

   John, have you seen this blog yet? http://cfcfamilylife.blogspot.com/
   It’s my old church’s blog, sometimes it’s ummmm, interesting…

6. Dan on August 6th, 2008 9:09 am

   “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.

7. John Immel on August 6th, 2008 3:49 pm

   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!

8. John Immel on August 6th, 2008 4:00 pm

   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.

9. Dan on August 6th, 2008 4:24 pm

   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….”

10. julie on August 6th, 2008 8:20 pm

    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.

11. John Immel on August 6th, 2008 9:22 pm

    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.

12. julie on August 7th, 2008 7:15 am

    ahhh,how sweet! lol

13. Concerned on August 7th, 2008 2:05 pm

    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.

14. Concerned on August 7th, 2008 2:08 pm

    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.

15. CD-Host on August 7th, 2008 4:20 pm

    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.

16. John Immel on August 7th, 2008 10:30 pm

    Hey Concerned,

    No… you are not losing your mind. Calvinism is at a polar opposite to the broader body of Charismatic thought.

    My comments weren’t really designed to address the disparity. Your original questions were about polity, the nature of Reformed Theology, and Sovereign Grace Ministries’ use of Calvinism.

    But I do understand the frustration you have. Part of the problem is Charismatic thought has really never had an academic body or a formal doctrinal statement to give it a certain form. The reason for this is twofold. Most Charismatic/Pentecostal/word of faith churches are started by men who think themselves called and so they put out a shingle. Just like in my random quote … Ed Deufresne says: “God didn’t call me cause I’m eloquent, he called me cause I was available.” Ed’s commentary is axiomatic of most Charismatic style church leaders. They didn’t come into Christianity through seminary. They came into Christianity because God worked in their heart and said, “I pick you… go preach.” That coupled with a profound anti-intellectual undercurrent in the charismatic churches, most intellectuals are left with little place to participate in the Body.

    So they go where they are appreciated, the American scholastic tradition that is predominantly Reformed Theology, unless you want to become Catholic… But that whole celibacy thing puts a damper on most men’s interest in Catholic doctrine.

    Reformation Theology was born in an age where EVERYTHING was an academic and scholastic preoccupation. Luther’s famous or infamous thesis was called Disputation Against Scholastic Theology. The body of academic thought that has been developed over the last 500 years is an almost insurmountable body of thought for some good ol boys from BFE to have to address.

    Add to the academic body of thought the vaunted title of “Orthodoxy,” and who can argue the content of thought without being dismissed as a heretic?

    Most intellectuals just decide that if it was good enough for everybody else to believe, who am I to say otherwise? Viva la Reformation!

    As for the theological house of cards… I’d like to offer this thought. You have just come from a group of people where EVERYTHING is a doctrinal statement filtered through a very specific theological system. You have learned patterns of thinking that will take a while to unravel. Give yourself some time and as I said before… go read the Red and pray for power. Just go see how Jesus did what he did and said and let your mind soak of those details and don’t worry about much else. It really isn’t as vaporous as it seems right now. The certainties and affirmations really are there. God will get them to you. Truth has a profound capacity to bear itself out regardless of doctrinal pedigree.

17. keepinstep on August 8th, 2008 9:21 pm

    John, there is a “Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research,” which publishes peer-reviewed articles:

    http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/

    The website lists a number of C/P academic groups:

    http://www.pctii.org/academic.html

    So, the C/P world is not as anti-intellectual as it may seem.

18. John Immel on August 8th, 2008 10:19 pm

    Hey Keepinstep… thanks for the links. I’m always interested in good resources and places of interest.

    The anti-intellectualism I’m talking about… is inside the walls of the local congregations. I know there are thinking folk—like yourself—out there. What I am identifying is the attitude of the local church. Modern American Chariscostal piety has been hijacked by a bunch of bible school dropouts who openly disparage thinking man’s Christianity.

    I contend that the mavens of Chariscostal thinking haven’t done a good job penetrating the hearts and minds of the folk of like faith, nor have they/we successfully entered into the mainstream of academic or intellectual conversation. Some of that has to do with the fact that there aren’t many of us… and the other part is directly related to what you said on the Refuge: “I’d rather be out praying for the sick than talking about it.” That does seem to be the more expedient path, because it seems like the proof would be success of the healing/miraculous. But the manifestations of the Spirit don’t penetrate the very detailed thinking of theological constructs like Calvinism as proof of the Truth.

    There is an entire segment of American Christianity that will never be reached with the message of the Spirit of God on human flesh to remove burdens and destroy yokes, baptize with fire, and confer access to the Blessing of Abraham, by some good ol’ boys from Texas and Louisiana no matter how long they’re on TV and how expensive their suits.

    Chariscostal mavens and apologists need to enter the fray and do the job that mavens and apologists have always done: affect mass public opinion. The measure of that success will be apparent when local Chariscostal churches work hard to keep their intellectual capital as part of the body … not chase them out because they’re possessed of the spirit of intellectualism.

19. Reformed Teacher on August 8th, 2008 11:17 pm

    Hi John, et al,

    Great site! I am really enjoying reading.

    I do need clarification, especially in light of my giveaway blogname.

    When you say “read the Red,” I assume you mean the words of Christ in red in scripture, yes? In your opinion, are these words of greater import than the rest of the Word? Would there be something in the words of Jesus that would contradict, say, David’s in the Psalms, or Timothy’s?

    Thanks for the help.

20. keepinstep on August 9th, 2008 3:51 pm

    John, good points about the “CharisCostal” church.

    I think the best answer to perplexity about the lack of an intellectual tradition in C/P comes from scripture itself.

    Paul, perhaps the greatest intellectual converted to Christ in the early centuries, apparently believed that his intellectualism did not assist him in spreading the gospel and building churches. The three times in Acts that he testified before rulers, he gave his personal testimony of being saved through the vision of the risen Jesus, not lofty statements.

    When he spoke with Sergius Paulus (Acts 13), “an intelligent man,” the thing that made Sergius accept Christ was the miraculous sign of Elymas being blinded: “When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.”

    The one time we’re told of Paul’s standing before intellectuals (on Mars Hill), however, he gave an “intellectual” message, and wasn’t very effective.

    He also did not try to go toe-to-toe with the silver-tongued “super apostles,” preferring a simple gospel presentation, with demonstrations of God’s power, to wise words. (1 Cor 4)

    His most intellectually rigorous letter, Romans, appears to draw, for its inspiration, mostly upon the direct revelation of the Spirit being given to the apostles and prophets of his generation (the “all things” Jesus promised in the Upper Room). He combined that with deep personal insights into the mind and spirit, which he derived not from philosophy or psychology texts but, again, from the direct revelation of the Spirit upon his intellect.

    He also stated that the foolishness of the gospel caused most, but not all, intellectuals to reject it: “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” became believers (1 Cor 1:26). I think that is why the overwhelming majority of Christians have always been rather simple folk, and why intellectuals find it so difficult to believe and to flourish in the Church.

    Finally, I love this: Jesus agreed with Paul’s emphasis on demonstrations of the Spirit’s power – not intellectual arguments – to provide the most authoritative witness of the gospel!

    Jesus told both the Word-focused Pharisees, and the unschooled disciples, to look to his miracles as final evidence of his being Messiah:

    to the Pharisees he said:
    “I told you [I am the Christ], and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me….though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (Jn 10)

    to the Twelve he said:
    “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.” (Jn 14)

    So, in the New Testament, the gospel of Jesus was authenticated as genuine not by persuasive words (as we do today), but by unmistakable demonstrations of the Spirit’s power that resulted in conversions, healings, deliverance from the devil’s grip.

    Even in explaining the deep things of God, the writers deferred to the revelation of the Spirit, working together with the redeemed intellect of Man, rather than build intellectual castles or cite other (non-scriptural) authorities.

    It’s said of Thomas Aquinas that, late in life after writing his Summa Theologica, he had direct revelations of Christ. These revelation affected him so deeply, he told his assistant that everything he had written was “straw.” He was moved increasingly to silence, as revelation-meditation overcame intellectual activity.

21. John on August 9th, 2008 10:04 pm

    Woohooo…! Reformed Teacher in the house!

    Sorry… I had to keep with the 24-year-old blogger image…

    Anyway… to answer your question, “Read the Red” does indeed refer to the red-letter edition bibles…

    As for importance… uh… my reason for advocating his words wasn’t about importance in my mind. But since we are on the subject, I’ll say that since Jesus is the fulfillment of what came before and the foundation of what came after … I suppose that qualifies his commentary as more important.

    The “read the Red” part isn’t advocating ignoring what comes before and after his words, its just a simplistic way of saying specifically read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as source for how God thinks and acts. We are all familiar with Jesus’ assertion that everything he did was the product of his Father’s direction. Therefore, in my pea brain, it seems reasonable to believe that this is the easiest way to see the heart of God in action and the Kingdom of God expressed.

    I advocated that to Concerned because in the middle of the whole Theological big deal related to SGM, sometimes it’s all to easy to lose sight of specifically that: the heart of God in action and the Kingdom of God expressed.

    Reformed Teacher said: “Would there be something in the words of Jesus that would contradict, say, David’s in the Psalms, or Timothy’s?”

    Actually, I’d advocate that the better question might be “Is there something in the rest of the Word that might contradict Jesus’?” But that’s just me. It’s all about the Anointed Jesus… so the starting hermeneutic is the Anointed Jesus. As for contradictions…. mmmm… since I haven’t talked about contradictions, I’m not sure how to comment.

    Glad your out there, Reformed Teacher. Love your comments on http://www.sgmsurviors.com and on http://www.sgmrefuge.com

22. John on August 9th, 2008 10:40 pm

    Keepinstep…

    “Paul, perhaps the greatest intellectual converted to Christ in the early centuries, apparently believed that his intellectualism did not assist him in spreading the gospel and building churches. The three times in Acts that he testified before rulers, he gave his personal testimony of being saved through the vision of the risen Jesus, not lofty statements.”

    This is sooo true… The power of the Gospel of the Anointed Jesus is not the product of thinking. As Paul’s efforts on Mars Hill illustrate. Amen and so be it…. ; ).

    However, think on this. While it is true that Jesus demonstrated his Anointing and the Kingdom of God, he was also able to answer his detractors. We don’t hear the intellectual side of his argument because most people don’t know enough of the Mishna and the historic Midrash to hear how Jesus was addressing his contemporary Theological issues.

    (For you silent readers who want more info on what I just said I highly recommend the Jerusalem Perspective and just about anything David Biven writes or recommends.)

    And while, as you pointed out, Paul didn’t lead with slick arguments to persuade he did have the ability to answer his intellectual detractors. And look at the legacy. Paul is among the top five most influential thinkers in the Western World. Paul is what I would call a maven: a man who can demonstrate and articulate his body of ideas.

    I have as little interest as you do in pointy headed academic debates for the sake of themselves. I have my share of THD and MDIV friends and could sit about and splice up greek roots until we all wanna puke.

    Keepinstep—“Finally, I love this: Jesus agreed with Paul’s emphasis on demonstrations of the Spirit’s power – not intellectual arguments – to provide the most authoritative witness of the gospel!”

    Yeah baby yeah!

23. Ellie on August 9th, 2008 11:54 pm

    We are all familiar with Jesus assertion that everything he did was the product of his Fathers direction. Therefore, in my pea brain, it seems reasonable to believe that this is the easiest way to see the heart of God in action and the Kingdom of God expressed.

    I agree, John! (NOT with the pea brain part, though!!!)
    When I am confused about anything, I go back to reading Jesus’ words and they just calm me down.

24. db on August 11th, 2008 2:41 pm

    Julie,

    You sure know how to sniff out SGM’s distinct flavor of BS in the blogosphere.

    You have a gift.

    And, I don’t know which one is worse. The date night piece was priceless. The man gets to decide what will be discussed, huh?

    And the open questions for egalitarians? Women and children first like when the Titanic sank? WTH, revisionist history, it was survival of the richest. The women and children in steerage has little chance of survival.

    Give these clowns enough bandwidth and they will be hanged with their own words.

25. Ellie on August 11th, 2008 3:51 pm

    And the open questions for egalitarians? Women and children first like when the Titanic sank? WTH, revisionist history, it was survival of the richest. The women and children in steerage has little chance of survival.

    Exactly, DB! Especially when the third class gates were locked and guarded.

26. Concerned on August 12th, 2008 7:13 pm

    John, thanks for your answers and ecnoruagement. I am trying not to piece together so many of hte answers anymore. I just want Jesus. So your exhortation ot read the Red was exactly what I needed to hear.

    I’m going ot sit at His feet to get any answers He may give, but I am no longer going to go stirring the pot unless He tells me to, and not worry about tomorrow (or answers)

    anyway, thanks as always for your pointing me to Christ.

27. John Immel on August 12th, 2008 10:49 pm

    You are very welcome… And for all the mess at the moment … trust me… you will be OK. The answers, the wisdom, the understanding you want and need will come to you.

    So peace.

    Be blessed, free, and whole

28. CD-Host on August 12th, 2008 11:59 pm

    I guess I’m one of those point head guys that make arguments….. I adore Summa, whenever I have a tough question it is the first resource I turn to. It quite commonly opens the gateway to the church fathers.

    That being said…. I think experiential religion is vital. I don’t see a conflict between them anymore than running and doing math conflict. One can compute properties of jogging but that doesn’t provide any exercise and one can run to a math class but the running doesn’t teach anything about math.

    As for Paul not being an intellectual I’d dispute that strongly. What Paul was not however was a philosopher he was a theologian. He could argue from within a system but not abstractly. It was left to the 2nd century Christians to argue outside the system.

    Churches, particularly protestant churches are impoverished from their lack of mysticism and spirituality. This was the point on Jim’s blog. Experience God, believe theology don’t try and experience theology.

29. Concerned on August 13th, 2008 12:08 pm

    Mysticism and spiritualism are terms that need defining, I fear when those are words people conjure up various perspectives and understandings. So I’d rather not even address those terms unless I understand where someone is coming from. As for Summa, never heard of it.

    Myself, I turn to God in prayer and HIs Word when I come across questions I have. That, and creation, offer all the answers I need. (Romans 1,2 has been a tremendous help to me in this regard)

    I think churches are improverished not because of their lack of mysticism and spirituality (however defined) but because of their lack of personal faith, it’s that simple to me. When you don’t have personal faith, church is just religion and practice. Works stemming from everything BUT faith. And so there is no saving faith.

30. John Immel on August 13th, 2008 3:17 pm

    Hey CD—

    I love the way you think…. I learn something every time I read something you’ve written.

    “I guess I’m one of those point head guys that make arguments….. I adore Summa, whenever I have a tough question it is the first resource I turn to. It quite commonly opens the gateway to the church fathers.”

    You know… I love what you love. I think God ideas are a riot. I love how humans think and why they arrive at those thoughts. I love finding out how others have solved the intellectual problems that have plagued men. I am unapologetic when I stand on the shoulders of giants. Man’s mind is a profound tool. I love exploiting the one I’ve been given.

    But here is the thing. Most humans do not live their life out of their head. This is not a bad thing… it is just a fundamental reality of existence: some don’t have the time, some don’t have the inclination, some don’t have the ability. Fine and all right.

    What ALL human beings do … uh… do is seek effective knowledge. I define effective knowledge as ideas that improve any pursuit in life. The light bulb, sliced bread, spaghetti sauce are all manifestations of effective knowledge. But someone had to do the thinking work to bring those things into existence.

    Sitting around thinking pointy-headed thoughts is not the bad thing. Somebody had to think those thoughts when they decided to weigh the pros and cons of sliced bread. Somebody had to come to grips with the historic traditions of breaking bread. Someone had to decide if it was a serious cultural violation to cut bread with a knife. Then they had to extrapolate how that particular evolution of thought could be used to advance the palate of eaters in the castle.

    But think of this. How about if the pointy-headed thing never left the ivory towers? What if scholars were still debating which knives were the most appropriate to cutting bread? Or if some 15th century thinker somehow managed to corner the market on which condiments could be added to the bread and titled it Mayo Orthodoxy? Why that is what everybody has always put on bread and to do anything else is … is… inconceivable. And think of the hue and cry of the Reformers as they sought to add some bacon, lettuce, and Tomato.

    This is my criticism of the pointy-head pursuit, intellectual inquiry for the sake of itself is useless. Whatever the perfect doctrine for making the perfect sandwich might be those who think the thoughts have an obligation to teach others the reason for those thoughts … to improve their lives.

    Sandwich mavens are those who master both sandwich-making with sandwich-teaching … to the masses.

    Intellectuals/philosophers/theologians have the obligation to explain why some ideas are better than others—and more importantly, how they arrived at those conclusions—to show forth the effective knowledge that better people’s lives.

    I think we are in agreement… This is not an either-or… this is a matter of emphasis and outcome. The endgame of Christianity has always been experiential religion. God has always been interested in thriving relationships with individuals, so individuals need to learn what it is to experience God. Some ideas in that pursuit are better than others. Some ideas are more effective than others. The only way to get those better ideas to the folk who will thrive with them is to come out of the tower and get on the street.

    Hey all you readers … did you catch this in CD’s comment above? He is referring to an ongoing conversation here (you’ll have to read through the entire post to get the flavor of the issue) This statement is sooo true.

    CD-Host said: “This was the point on Jim’s blog. Experience God, believe theology; don’t try and experience theology.”

    I absolutely love this.

31. John Immel on August 13th, 2008 3:18 pm

    For whatever reason my hyper link did not translate to my comment above. Sooo… this is the link to the conversation that CD host is refrencing.

    http://sgmrefuge.com/2008/07/23/sovereign-grace-ministries-hyper-charismatic/

32. CD-Host on August 14th, 2008 1:22 am

    Concerned –

    Summa is essentially a FAQ for the Christian faith composed at the end of the 13th century. wikipedia article and online version. It was in many ways a mini reformation, it was part of a move out of the Christianity of the dark ages and back to the earlier Catholicism of the 5th century; at the same time it was modern in its own way.

    As far as mysticism or spiritualism, standard dictionary stuff:

    mysticism — engaging in rites and practices in search of direct knowledge of ultimate reality and God.

    spiritualism — interacting with the non material world.

    Is there a difference between praying to God and praying to a wall?
    Does the holy spirit do anything?
    When the author of Hebrews asserts God speaks through our now greater sacrifice and we should listen, was she right?

33. CD-Host on August 14th, 2008 2:31 am

    Hey John –

    Wow! Glad you enjoyed.

    I like your separation between living out of your head and effective knowledge. The thing is I don’t know of much ineffective knowledge if you look across a reasonable time frame (say a few centuries). A century after a pure theory is worked it is generally part of applied theories and within another century part of an important technology. It may not always be obvious what would be the application.

    I love the example of Pascal and matrix algebra. Pascal developed the theory almost fully. He himself could never imagine the usefulness of a mathematics which required little theoretical understanding and substituted instead the ability to do thousands of simple arithmetic problems accurately and quickly. Pascal found it fascinating that it was possible to reduce theory so effectively to computation, but the number of computations was so overwhelming…. no one would ever want to do math this way. But of course today we know of things that are rather stupid but can do simple math really really fast. Matrix algebra + computers has transformred: physics, chemistry, medicine, cinema, manufacturing, navigation…

    Or to choose another example where the process even faster… after the first World War Structuralism became an academic fad. Can one imagine a more facile naval gazing endeavor than a group of professors studying how Professors in different fields organize their literature? Yet less than 100 later it is the lens through which most young people read every piece of literature (structuralism became literary post-modernism). The fact that John MacArthur has to author a rant about how members of his congregation are being seduced by what amounts structuralist approaches to the bible is pretty clear evidence that this navel gazing has born some fruit so much so that many 20 year olds can’t conceive of how to read in a pre-structuralist paradigm. A complete transformation of the way man understands reading and narrative so complete that the younger can’t imagine that their views were ever not part of human understanding.

    And finally modern art. The awareness of the relationship between place and sight that men like Picasso gave us a century ago is what makes complex visualizations, for example in a video game, even possible. Sure you need the matrix algebra to do the computations but without Picasso what would you be trying to compute?

    So I guess I don’t think this sort of pointless study actually exists in practice. Building pyramids requires the labor of thousands, even intellectual ones.

    I agree with you btw on your comments regarding Mishnah and Jesus (particularly Q2 material). I’ve been rolling around in my mind creating a good study of Enoch cross linking to the rest of the NT both ways. A good blog which explores Christianity in a Jewish context is (Voice of Iyov).

34. John Immel on August 14th, 2008 4:48 pm

    CD Host said: “When the author of Hebrews asserts God speaks through our now greater sacrifice and we should listen, was she right?”

    LOL… you really are gonna mess with people, aren’t you?

    hahahaha

35. CD-Host on August 15th, 2008 6:03 am

    you really are gonna mess with people aren’t you?

    Yeah, why not. You have a mostly female crowd… Prisca / Apollos as the author of the Hebrews has a pedigree from Luther through to Harnack. I figure it undermines CBMW nonsense that C.J. likes to teach.

    I actually have an actual current SGMer on my board. I don’t know if he has seen the SGM threads. So far he’s been focusing on the pro-homosexual, pro-choice and pro-women threads.

36. V. Bauer on August 18th, 2008 3:33 pm

    This whole website and connected comments makes me laugh. First, I haven’t found a single line of scripture referenced, only vain arguments of a bunch of people whining about how they got “burned.” (we aren’t in heaven yet people, remember people still do sin, deal with it) I’ll keep looking for some Bible verses, but so far haven’t found any(oh wait, I found 2!). Second this entire site is slander and therefore quite dangerous. Tread gently friends. Blogging slander against Christ’s bride is not anonymous from Him or the Father. (oh and this site IS decidedly slanderous clearly breaking all Biblical steps for how to be reconciled with a brother in Christ) It’s clearly a complain fest.

    How about we add a little truth to this site? :
    Psalm 15:3 “and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman.”
    Psalm 35:15-16 “But when I stumbled, they gathered in glee; attackers gathered against me when I was unaware. They slandered me without ceasing. Like the ungodly they maliciously mocked; they gnashed their teeth at me.” (sounds like the author visited this site.)

    Psalm 10:19 Whoever spreads slander is a fool. (God said it, not me)

    1 Cor 6:10 “nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (It sort of puts whining about your bad church experiences into perspective huh?)

    1 Peter 3:16 “keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

    Listen, if any of you are believers in Christ and have received a new heart that is justified by his redemptive blood, then you should not be blogging in this manner, It does not bring glory to God and you will be held accountable for every word typed as this is not Biblical. If your first reaction to this comment is defensiveness then you know you are in a wrong place as I have used the Word of the God of Heaven to state my case. If you still have a problem at that point, take it up with God now, before He takes it up with you. At that time, you wont have a keyboard to post a witty reply. Clearly you are all without sin because you sure are tossing a lot of stones.

37. John Immel on August 18th, 2008 6:18 pm

    Vaughn,

    Welcome to the party. Hope to see more of you.

    Peace …

38. db on August 19th, 2008 9:20 am

    What is worse than no Bible verses?

    Using scripture to bully people. SGM leaders seem to have taken Bible-bullying to a fine art.

39. Vaughn B. on August 19th, 2008 2:33 pm

    **db** I fail to see how the Holy, inerrant scripture breathed by the One who formed the fingers you use to slander His church, can be used to “bully” people. Perhaps you can explain to me how the Word of God that accomplishes everything it sets out to do can be used to “bully?” And there is nothing worse than not using scripture to tether one’s self to reality. Better be without sense than misapply it as you do.
    What happened? Did someone in a Sovereign Grace church make an observation about your life using the word of God to point out an area that was in need of change? Did that attack your pride? Did that hurt your feelings? Was that shocking for you? Is that what you are calling “bullying?” If so, grow a thicker skin and realize that we are all sinners attempting to walk through life helping each other grow. –as God has commanded us– Guess what? You are a sinner, as am I. Just deal.

    I like how you had no response to 99% of what I wrote and instead bypassed that whole silly part about slander in order to slander more about a church’s leadership. Oh foolish person, who has bewitched you? I don’t write these bold things of my own wisdom or knowledge. Based on objective truth found solely in the scriptures, you are a fool. There is no getting around it. This isn’t simply my estimation of you, it’s God’s. If you call that “bullying” then you hate wisdom and correction ergo the Bible calls you even more the fool.
    Bear in mind, I’m also a fool. I don’t think myself better than you. Quite the opposite, my foolishness and sin are (in my opinion) very much worse than yours. So do not hear that I think I’m “holier than thou.” This should lead us both to a race to the cross as opposed to a battle of wits and semantics. I can only say such things in the boldness of which I have spoken because I have been quite foolish in my past and it took someone to kick me in the rear and tell me I was being a stupid, foolish person. Again, if defensiveness is your first reaction, then it’s clear your heart is hardened and only God’s spirit, not my words, that will ever soften it. I will trust in the Spirit to do it’s work in His perfect timing.

40. db on August 19th, 2008 3:52 pm

    Vaughn,

    You apparently know little of the particulars of my circumstances with SGM (PDI in my day.)

    I was dismembered from one of their churches and was accused of being unsubmissive when I challenged *them* to open up their Bible and justify their actions. And by, “Them” I mean the pastors one of whom has a recognizable name.

    I would welcome the use of scripture to justify and defend actions but I must remind you that Satan, himself bullied Jesus with Bible verses so get off your high horse. People have misused scripture to keep people in their place for thousands of years. I find it somewhat astonishing that you would attempt to cowl me with the very word that has been the source of spiritual nourishment.

    I will defend the practice of exposing some of the practices at SG churches to the light.

41. CD-Host on August 19th, 2008 4:43 pm

    Vaughn B –

    I’ve been chatting on my blog and related blogs with people from SGM and people from x-SGM groups for a while. I have no personal biases against SGM.

    So far of the maybe 3 dozen SGMers I have yet to see one who can actually stand on scripture on a single point that has been questioned. You are 0 for 35 in being subordinate to God’s word when it conflicts with your doctrines. Starting with requirements that you be aim to be correct in public rebukes which you seem to feel doesn’t apply to you.

    In DB’s case (while I haven’t finished documenting it fully yet), SGM committed a clear cut heresy of holding a non scriptural doctrine (Gary Ezzo) as an essential of the faith sufficient for excommunication, and performing an excommunication in violation of the doctrines as set down by Jesus in Matt 18:15-8 (essentially having a contested erasure). Further after having been confronted about this in writing refusing to correct the error.

    Those are clear cut violations of scriptures. Those scriptural violations are doctrinal. Those violations were done by SGM leadership intentionally, volitionally with foreknowledge. They have been upheld and defended for years. That constitutes unrepentant heresy not someone hurting her DB’s feelings and her over reacting.

    Maybe next time you should know what you are talking about before swinging away?

42. CD-Host on August 19th, 2008 5:06 pm

    Yipes I missed a critical word in my post. John if you can correct please do if not let this post stand:

    So far of the maybe 3 dozen SGMers

    should be:

    So far of the maybe 3 dozen active SGMers

43. Vaughn B. on August 19th, 2008 5:39 pm

    __DB and CD Host__ I bring my observations in this manner (publicly and with boldness) because you’ve chosen to air your offenses against SGM and slander them in such a public manner, without an iota of accountability! Should anyone call you out on your practices, you point a finger at them and cry, “See! This is exactly what I’m talking about.” There is no room for any disagreement. Whereas in SGM churches, the leadership welcomes observations regularly. You claim violation of scripture by your previous leaders in a manner that is a gross misapplication of scriptures in and of itself. (Repay evil with evil, THAT works great) Of course there is going to be violations of scriptures and misuse of Bible doctrine in leadership, whats the Duh factor there? We are sinners! Wait, hold on… Someone SINNED against you?! Whoa. Why are you shocked? I’m shocked at your shock. People sin and mess up all the time. And in God’s perfect timing He gently corrects those He loves. You take from God’s Glory by arrogantly positioning yourself to take the burden of announcing to the world the faults and sins of others, and the drawing up of their personal road map to holiness. We’re all very grateful for your concern of the souls of the people that may, or may not have offended you. But I assure you, God has it all under control, thank you very much.
    Were you all expecting leadership to be perfect and without fault? Instead of trusting God’s sovereignty in these matters you’ve chosen to gripe about it amongst yourselves. So you got burned by a pastor or church. This gives you right to generalize ALL of SGM pastors and ALL churches to be similar? That’s the astonishing part. Even secular wisdom would scoff at the child-like generalization. (I had a bad drink at Starbucks, therefore, every drink at every Starbucks is bad because they all have the same standards) Have you been to all the churches in SGM? Have you personally talked with CJ? Have you attended SGM leadership conferences and gotten a chance to interact personally with a wide range of pastors in this movement? I have. For 18 years. I do know what I’m talking about.
    I know for a fact that the Pastors in SGM churches routinely ask men of character for their input on a wide range of subjects including: humility, teaching diet, forms of leadership, direction of the church etc… I’ve sat in those meetings. I’ve heard the heart for the local church expressed in the words of many, many SGM pastors.
    You are still hurt over something that happened while SGM was PDI?! Years of bitterness? Yeesh.
    I’m so sorry for whatever your experience. I really am. No one every said you HAD to be in a SGM church. It’s not the only movement. But how about instead of trying to derail and divide a movement that you disagree with, you simply find another place to grow in? Wouldn’t this be a better use of your time? Then you wouldn’t be slandering the Bride of Christ… I think this would be the safest.

    You say, “So far of the maybe 3 dozen –active– SGMers I have yet to see one who can actually stand on scripture on a single point that has been questioned.”

    What point being questioned would that be? Indulge me.

44. CD-Host on August 19th, 2008 10:38 pm

    air your offenses against SGM and slander them in such a public manner

    Slander requires the accusations be false. Do you have any evidence at all that what DB is saying is false? Several neutral witnesses have investigated and confirmed and even SGM itself doesn’t deny most of the details.

    Should anyone call you out on your practices, you point a finger at them and cry, “See! This is exactly what I’m talking about.” There is no room for any disagreement.

    No. The problem with SGM is heresy and cultic abusive practices. The problem with SGM supporters are loose accusations based on no evidence or logic. Entirely different problems. The one doesn’t prove the other though they are both obnoxious.

    Whereas in SGM churches, the leadership welcomes observations regularly.

    What evidence do you have that SGM leadership welcomes comments. My experience is the opposite and I would assert you statement is categorically false. I’ve dealt with church leaders from many denominations on issues of spiritual abuse. They generally are very receptive to these types of reports because they want to make sure that issues of misconduct are addressed. SGM itself so far has even refused to engage their critics.

    Moreover SGM has a structure designed to discourage communication.

    You claim violation of scripture by your previous leaders in a manner that is a gross misapplication of scriptures in and of itself.

    Misapplication to you means what? An application of scripture consistent with the majority of Christian writing on the topic, major doctrines of the reformers and enshrined in major speeches involving literally hundreds of church officials for the last 500 years strikes me as an appropriate application of scripture. Again what evidence do you have for your assertion?

    So you got burned by a pastor or church. This gives you right to generalize ALL of SGM pastors and ALL churches to be similar?

    The institution stands behind the pastor’s decision. They have not revoked or corrected it even after being made aware of it. Further they types of problems she has had have been documented at over 15 churches. Further people like Harris have worked hard to design church covenants at member churches so that these sorts of abuses can occur more readily. So yes that does make it an institutional problem.

    But how about instead of trying to derail and divide a movement that you disagree with, you simply find another place to grow in? Wouldn’t this be a better use of your time?

    No, not really. The movement is dangerous and harmful and making information about it is dangerous and harmful available is likely to make is less dangerous and less harmful to others. At this point hundreds have been steered away from getting involved in SGM by the bravery of woman like DB telling their story.

45. guy on August 19th, 2008 10:47 pm

    Vaughn / V. Bauer / whoever -

    You seem like such a pleasant person, easy to talk with, eager to have an observation pointed out.

    I know for a fact that the Pastors in SGM churches routinely ask men of character for their input on a wide range of subjects including: humility, teaching diet, forms of leadership, direction of the church etc…

    Are any of these “men of character” from outside of SGM? Is there even such a thing?

    I’ve sat in those meetings. I’ve heard the heart for the local church expressed in the words of many, many SGM pastors.

    Does local church = ANY local church, or only the local SGM church? Are you routinely working alongside Anytown Assembly of God or Mainstreet Baptist? Were any “men of character” from these churches there to provide input, or were only SGM approved PC graduates allowed to provide this loving help?

    You are still hurt over something that happened while SGM was PDI?! Years of bitterness? Yeesh.

    We’ve heard it before…I reckon the answer truly is “get over it”.

    I’m so sorry for whatever your experience. I really am. No one every said you HAD to be in a SGM church. It’s not the only movement. But how about instead of trying to derail and divide a movement that you disagree with, you simply find another place to grow in? Wouldn’t this be a better use of your time? Then you wouldn’t be slandering the Bride of Christ… I think this would be the safest.

    How is this a response? Telling someone that they don’t HAVE to got to an SGM church? Do you even give a flip that there are tons of people that have been hurt by your beloved “movement”? Why do you spend so much time defending, and zero time trying to see the hurt that has been caused? I believe you folks have a script that spells this stuff out – we’ve heard it all before…

    I sense your heart in your comments. I can’t imagine why anyone would think poorly of this “movement”…

46. CD-Host on August 19th, 2008 10:52 pm

    You say, “So far of the maybe 3 dozen –active– SGMers I have yet to see one who can actually stand on scripture on a single point that has been questioned.”
    What point being questioned would that be? Indulge me.

    I wanted to separate this out since this is my claim and not DB’s. As for the points in question there have been many. To name some that come to mind:

    1) A doctrine of sacrifice and dedication for a cause proves rightness of the underlying cause.

    2) SGM fabricated history of courtship, and incorrect and misleading information about courtship’s effects on human sexual behavior. Of particular concern given their homeschooling crowd is failure to understand sexual incompatibility among adults.

    3) The proper relationship between leadership and lay membership within the reformed tradition

    4) The doctrine of covering

    5a) Large numbers of claims made by CBMW regarding translation and grammar of Greek (for example uses of aner in other Koine Greek)

    5b) Large numbers of claims made by CBMW regarding history (when various doctrines were adopted and by whom)

    I can keep going but that is a good sample.

47. keepinstep on August 19th, 2008 11:03 pm

    Vaughn Bauer saith: “I know for a fact that the Pastors in SGM churches routinely ask men of character for their input on a wide range of subjects including: humility, teaching diet, forms of leadership, direction of the church etc…”

    “Men of character” must mean “men who are fellow SGM pastors or care-group leaders, who can be counted upon not to challenge any SGM practice with biblical citations that contradict SGM practice.”

    I know for a fact that “men of character” who were not SGM pastors or care-group leaders, and who confronted SGM pastors with biblical citations contradicting SGM practice, had their observations disregarded and were asked to leave the church simply for pointing these things out and asking for a discussion to occur.

48. James on August 20th, 2008 3:05 am

    I wonder how different things would be if we stopped arguing and criticising each other and got on with proclaiming the Gospel with which we have been entrusted? I speak as one who also criticises by brothers when the say or do things I don’t like or feel are unbiblical or unethical. There but by the grace of God go I. And I could spend all my spare time as a pharisee criticising the pharisees for being pharisees, instead of sharing the glorious freedom of the Gospel to those who need to hear…

49. musicman on August 20th, 2008 3:43 am

    James-

    Was Jesus wrong for warning people about the Pharisees? Maybe he should’ve just preached that day instead of wasting his time criticizing people?

50. keepinstep on August 20th, 2008 12:08 pm

    James, I see your point. Hopefully all of us are reaching out to others with the good news of Christ and not just sitting here blogging.

    However, the full gospel that Jesus proclaimed was that “the Kingdom of God is at hand” – not simply salvation through his shed blood. The Kingdom of God is the kingdom to which one journeys, after having been released from the bondage of Egypt. (Egypt = legalistic performance to earn God’s favor.)

    The purpose of this and several other blogs, is to open people’s eyes to how SGM has – through legalistic doctrine and practice – kept thousands in bondage, rather than releasing and equipping them on a joyous journey to the Kingdom of God found in Jesus Christ.

51. Dennis on August 20th, 2008 12:44 pm

    SGM talks about humilty, but they refuse correction on doctrine, church polity, exclusivism, isolationism, sectarian party spirit, lording it over those in their charge, being puffed up with knowledge (false knowledge at that!) etc etc.

    They call themselves a “family of churches”. Just look at all of the things that are required to be a part of this special family! People don’t like the word cult, but they sure do come close. Never ever will I go back to such controlling religious system as SGM. “FLEE temptation”. You would not think that warning could apply to a “church” group, but it sure does.

52. John Immel on August 20th, 2008 2:50 pm

    Well said, Keepinstep… well said.

    Musicman… good to see you. Always enjoy reading your comments.

53. John Immel on August 20th, 2008 3:41 pm

    James … welcome to the Arena of Ideas. I have these thoughts in response to your question.

    The answer to your question: “How would things be different…” is we will never know. While I understand the virtue that question is intended to highlight, it fails to take into account the cause and effect of human interaction. No matter our mystical dreams of a spiritual zenith where we all link arms and sing kum ba yah, the world we live in requires contending for the truth. Paul called it the Good Fight of Faith. That fight requires thinking and thinking requires discriminating between good and bad ideas. And that process if fundamentally critical.

    So I have said that I have three other points to make:

    First… I don’t accept that the content of this site is critical for the sake of criticality. As others have well said, the content of the objections discussed here has to do with a specific body of practice and my own particular take on the ideas that drive the practice.

    Second … I don’t accept that there is one highest and best expression of spiritual action. Even a casual reading of the narrative accounts, Jesus’ life illustrates a profound diversity of expression. The parts and pieces of preaching, teaching, debating, rebuking, healing, traveling, et al all had a place in the overall proclamation and demonstration of the Kingdom of God.

    Third… there is no such thing as going along to get along. One cannot address tyranny by ignoring it. The Chamberlain approach did not work in the world of Global politics; neither does it work in the world of Spiritual practice. Peace is not the product of a lack of argument. Unity for the sake of itself does not exist. History is replete with examples where those who were subject had to rise up and contend for the freedom that was theirs. That contention is on occasion at the point of a gun, but in most cases it is a battle for the minds of people.

    And to that end … this site exists.

    Peace…

    PS… BTW, I can’t help but see some irony in criticizing our use of time by blogging when we could be preaching the gospel…

    Uhhhh… in the few minutes you were criticizing US, how many folks did you evangelize? Heheh… just messing. I just happen to really like irony.

    Hope you come back and join the party.

54. Butterfly on August 20th, 2008 5:09 pm

    Hey All,

    Kris shared on her site about the posts here and I decided to give them a read.

    Dear VB: you state:
    …”Then you wouldn’t be slandering the Bride of Christ… I think this would be the safest.”

    Just for the record no one is here to slander the Bride of Christ. Actually WE ARE the Bride of Christ. It is not about WHAT church you go to..but WHOSE church..and where is SGM leadership? Reading in private, talking about how slandered they are…They should be more concerned about themselves and so should you. Better questions to ask is “What are we doing as a church that is making people more dependant on us than Christ”. “Are we leading God’s people in our churches, or controlling their behavior?” Are we allowing the Holy Spirit to be the one that leads and are we leaving Him room to work in people’s lives? How can we as a church show care to those we hurt? What can we do differently? You seem to think that people here are offended simply because they were given biblical correction…when people are corrected for things that are not commanded in scripture…then that is a problem. The person in scripture that was excommunicated was committing serious sexual sin…there is not an example in scripture of someone being excommunicated for disagreeing with leaders, not beleiving in calvinism, being freinds with other people in the church they were told not to, not being submissive enough wives, or kids kicked out of youth group for not participating enough (hello…teenagers will do that)…or kicked out because their parents wouldn’t come….there is alot that happens at SGM that is wrong, and people here would have never posted here except your leaders are deaf and refuse to hear their cries. Cries not of, How could I be wronged, but cries of I loved these people why are they suddenly a non-comminicating brick wall. I think really VB you shouldn’t worry about defending your “movement”…If they are right – God will judge and God is able to defend them. Again I state….If they are right….

55. Vaughn B. on August 20th, 2008 6:34 pm

    You are absolutely right. I wasn’t sure what i was thinking defending my movement against a group of people determined to tear it down. A silly and fruitless exercise. I see any sort of dissenting thought is attacked without giving it a second thought… (A fault many of you seem to find in SGM) I think I posted what I did mostly out of an experiment. Should someone come in and just say whatever they felt like, (which this site is rife with) in response to someone’s critical attacks on what they believe, does that make it right? Clearly you all see the error of my ways. A group of people complaining, “SGM doesn’t listen to anyone!” and in that complaint following suit. Tell me, do you consider it possible that you are wrong? Many of your grievances with SGM may very well be accurate… I’m sure they are. Your methodology of “reconciliation” is puzzling however. “Lets point out every nitpicky thing we can that’s wrong with SGM in a manner that allows no one to disagree with us or defend themselves.” Setting out to defame a movement because you are hurt causes every sort of mischief. Even if under the guise of “informing others.” You seem to equate level of hurt as a means to justify lashing out. Personally, it’s sad to see that so many people have been hurt by leaders that have sinned. I myself have been hurt by church splits, sinning leaders and the like… I’m left with, however, a better understanding of the sovereignty of God in every situation. Not a desire to get back at that one pastor whose actions had life-long effects on my world,even if he was following the old PDI values at the time. You have 2 options when people sin against you, you can document it and make darn sure they remember that they really hurt you, or you can respond in Love. Before, I didn’t respond to you in love, and for that, I ask for everyone’s forgiveness, primarily from the Lord, and second from you all. It’s not my place to tell you what you are doing is wrong, thats the Spirit’s job and He’s been at it longer than I’ve been alive. If any changing needs to take place either in my heart, or yours, I have full confidence that it will take place in God’s perfect timing.

56. keepinstep on August 20th, 2008 8:07 pm

    Vaughn saith: ““Lets point out every nitpicky thing we can that’s wrong with SGM in a manner that allows no one to disagree with us or defend themselves.” Setting out to defame a movement because you are hurt causes every sort of mischief. Even if under the guise of “informing others.”

    You may be surprised that I agree with you, that the discussion on the SGM-examination blogs has at times become nitpicky and overly defensive. In a number of cases there should have been more self-examination and self-censoring.

    I’m not going to try to make the standard defense, that these people have suffered so much that one should understand their pain. One can debate either side of that argument with equal effectiveness, IMO.

    That contestable portion of these blogs’ content does not, however, invalidate the other portion, in which people have been able to share their SGM-related experiences and thoughts with others who have undergone similar experiences (but have thought theirs was an exceptional or isolated occurrence).

    It’s been the freedom to discuss these experiences, without fear of pastoral silencing or repercussions, that has been so valuable. Now, for the first time since the late 1970s, not only these ex-SGMers, but current SGM members and pastors alike, can see that these experiences aren’t exceptional or unique at all – but instead are an almost-routine part of the entire SGM culture. And, that this is a part of the SGM culture of which SGM pastors have been knowledgeable, but have refused to acknowledge to their members.

    In addition, these blogs are allowing ex-SGMers and current SGMers to discuss a wide range of non-abusive SGM policies and practices, which SGM never allows to be discussed in public at all.

    Despite some excesses, these blogs are doing what SGM has never allowed its members: they’re discussing the policies and culture of an organization to which these people have given, in many cases, thousands of hours of their lives and thousands of dollars of their money. In secular terms, these bloggers/commenters are consumers who are now able, for the first time, to discuss the quality of the products and services they’ve paid for, and to compare the reality of their experiences against their expectations based on their “owner’s manual.”

    Since, in the past few year, frank, honest discussion by consumers on blogs and other social media have caused many companies to change their policies (e.g., JetBlue’s response to consumers’ rage when JB’s airliners sat on runways for hours, refusing passengers permission to exit), SGM’s leaders should be profoundly grateful that these SGM-focused blogs have been so surprisingly civil. Their gratitude should start with the fact that none of these blogs is titled “SGMSucks.com”, and their gratitude should include the fact that, to date, no individual or group has yet filed lawsuit against SGM for various forms of emotional distress or other illegalities that a decent attorney could identify without too much effort.

    No, rather than being upset about a few outbursts, SGM should be very, very grateful indeed that its former customers have been so polite, so forgiving, so very … godly.

57. musicman on August 20th, 2008 8:56 pm

    keepinstep-

    well said-you nailed it exactly. For the first time we can actually discuss SGM. Yes some of us (myself included) have wandered from constructive criticism, but I feel most of the discussions have been honest and healthy.

    John I.-Thanks for the welcome-I’ve enjoyed your “musings” as well.

58. John Immel on August 20th, 2008 9:00 pm

    Keepinstep…. WOW!!!

59. John Immel on August 20th, 2008 9:00 pm

    and did I say WOW! Keepinstep!!

60. John Immel on August 20th, 2008 9:02 pm

    Musicman…

    LOL… and as soon as my mom finishes washing my Superman undies, I’ve got more coming.

61. keepinstep on August 20th, 2008 9:22 pm

    Thank you, gentlefolk, for your kind response.

    As an encore, I’d like to post here a reply I gave at another blog, on which the Harris Twins’ (of Rebelution fames) Do Hard Things tour was being discussed (see: http://snurl.com/3i8rv). One commenter, Concerned – probably the same Concerned we’re familiar with – made some good remarks, which included this:

    “The kids that came back from rebelution were such walking ironies. They were wearing those silly t-shirts saying “Do Hard THings” and putting all the details on their pre-teen and teen blogs, and NOTHING about what that actually meant. No mission work, no mingling with the world which would be hard, they live at home and study at home, and how hard is that??”

    Here is my reply:

    RE Concerned’s comments….

    For the SGM audience of the Harris Twins, “do hard things” should be things that really *are* hard for them:

    1) compel SGM to release the annual salaries, speaking honoraria, and expense reimbursements of its pastors; and, to release detailed accounting of its churches’ annual contributions to non-SGM missions and other ministries

    2) compel SGM to allow non-pastoral members’ attendance and input into church business meetings

    3) compel SGM to send its pastors to accredited training in biblical counseling and conflict resolution

    4) compel SGM to have at least one pastor from each of its local churches join their city or municipality’s ministerial association, and to attend meetings regularly

    5) compel SGM to have its pastors establish working relationships with local Christian psychological and mental-health counselors, and local governmental social workers, to whom pastors can turn in cases of counseling with members who have serious needs.

    If these “hard things” can be done, then certainly there is a God who works miracles.

    [end]

    What other “hard things” should this highly motivated young generation of SGMers seek to do – starting with the “hard things” that are right in front of them?

62. Reformed Teacher on August 21st, 2008 1:18 am

    I don’t understand one aspect of V’s posting, here and over at the other sites: why does he always refer to a denomination as a ‘movement?’

    Does this mean that SGM is superior to the PCA, to the Southern Baptists, to the Assemblies of God, etc., the other gatherings of the Bride of Christ?

    What makes his denomination a ‘movement?’

    I find that terminology, used over and over and over, just plain WEIRD.

    Do you think he perceives that anyone in the greater body of Christ sees SGM as anything other than a very small (70 or so churches) new denomination that is struggling to find their groove theologically?

63. CD-Host on August 21st, 2008 8:13 am

    Vaughn –

    I see any sort of dissenting thought is attacked without giving it a second thought

    Your comments were provably factually false. That’s why they were seen and rejected. That is giving them thought. What you haven’t done is considered why you would come onto a board, talk about things of which you know nothing, throw around personal insults and expect that you would be taken seriously.

    This method of debating which involves constant attacks against other people, strong assurances of facts which are in fact wrong and all sorts of bizarre emotional reactions is part of the SGM game plan. It is not however particularly impressive. If you want your positions to be considered: collect information, verify the information from multiple sources and then draw conclusions warranted by that information.

    Many of your grievances with SGM may very well be accurate… I’m sure they are.

    This is the exact opposite of how you started this thread. If you have changed your mind you owe DB an apology. You started this thread by indicating she was in opposition to the Word of God not heretical practice within SGM.

    “Lets point out every nitpicky thing we can that’s wrong with SGM in a manner that allows no one to disagree with us or defend themselves.”

    Putting things in quotation marks means you are quoting somebody. You aren’t quoting you are inaccurate paraphrasing. Doing the one while pretending to do the other is called lying.

    If you want to see an example of how denominations have been able to defend themselves against claims like this, the first thing is to determine what their defense is.

    1) These events did not occur — Present counter evidence
    2) These events did occur but are ad hoc and not structural — Present studies and statistics about incidence rates.
    3) These events did occur and do occur frequently but are not C.J.’s intent — Present a program designed to realistically address the issues

    Right now the method has been:
    a) lie about whether they occurred
    b) refuse to discuss problems with critics
    c) argue then they did occur they are non structural in nature and just a result of individual sins
    d) claim that the victims of these policies are morally deficient for calling attention to how they have been victimized.
    etc…

    No those methods are not going to get a warm reception.

    Your methodology of “reconciliation” is puzzling however.

    The goal is not AFAIT reconciliation, it is lobbying for structural change and that failing to warn others about a dangerous and destructive movement so that they do not get involved.

64. keepinstep on August 21st, 2008 9:09 am

    RT saith: “why does he always refer to a denomination as a ‘movement?’”

    Because that’s what his SGM leaders call SGM.

    My hunch is that like the Church of Christ denomination, SGM’s leaders believe that their “local churches” are the true Church. Therefore, they can’t possibly be just another denomination.

    This would also explain why they believe it necessary to install one of their own churches in neighborhoods already well-represented by denominational churches.

65. Ellie on August 21st, 2008 11:43 am

    No, rather than being upset about a few outbursts, SGM should be very, very grateful indeed that its former customers have been so polite, so forgiving, so very … godly.

    KIS,

    Let me echo John – wow!!!! I wish I had time to comment more, your whole post was soooooooooooo good!!

66. Jim on August 21st, 2008 11:57 am

    Keep-

    LOVE the “do hard things” list!

67. db on August 21st, 2008 12:55 pm

    I agree with the notion that some of us, cough-me-cough, were so silenced in the PDI/SGM environment that we (or should I say, “I”,) take a little excessive liberty in a place that is free and uncensored.

    Free speech and free thought weren’t well tolerated in my old church. We actually had at least one *prayer* meeting shut down because we were praying for one of the pastor’s wives and it got translated into gossip. You read it right, prayer was banned.

68. keepinstep on August 21st, 2008 7:39 pm

    John, I’d like to ask you a question, but I don’t see an email form or your address on the site. If you’re accepting private emails, please send your address to me. Thanks.

69. John Immel on August 21st, 2008 8:55 pm

    Hey Keepinstep… et al… My email is listed under tech support link left side of the page.

    and you can get it here john@spiritualtyranny.com

70. John Immel on August 22nd, 2008 1:12 pm

    So did I let enough time go by to see if Vaughn would offer response to those who responded? I’m thinking this is another example of drive-by blogging… you know… spray all sorts of commentary … and see if anyone says: “OMG… you are sooo right. We are such sinners… We never thought of it like that before.”

    (Sigh)

    Anyway… CD-said:

    So far of the maybe 3 dozen SGMers I have yet to see one who can actually stand on scripture on a single point that has been questioned. You are 0 for 35 in being subordinate to God’s word when it conflicts with your doctrines. Starting with requirements that you be aim to be correct in public rebukes which you seem to feel doesn’t apply to you.

    I think it is safe to say that you can add another number to your running count of those who cannot successfully rebut the great error being talked about here.

    Truthfully, I’d really like to see one of these guys hang around and carry the conversation to a conclusion. I don’t think that will happen but it would be interesting to see how that played out.

    Vaughn, come back and play!!!

71. keepinstep on August 22nd, 2008 3:20 pm

    Over on SGMSurvivors.com, Vaughn came back to apologize for writing comments “decidedly not filled with Love and Compassion.”

    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=149
    comment #13

72. CD-Host on August 22nd, 2008 5:41 pm

    John –

    In the end they have nothing to say. For all their talk about how great a church SGM is it keeps the membership remarkable ignorant about everything. They also focus on emotions a great deal and encourage a very visceral non logical, non rational approach while claiming the opposite.

    Even on courtship which is one of their trademarks. What does Josh’s book boil down to: lust is bad, dating is about lust so don’t date.

    Or their strong support for the ESV, to quote Mahaney, “the ESV Study Bible. It is a potent combination indeed: the reliability and readability of the ESV translation, supplemented by the best of modern and faithful scholarship.” The ESV, scholarship..!?

    Vaughn’s apology was interesting. He basically claimed he was reasonable but not loving. As if virtually everyone one of his points was refuted. What exactly does the think logical means? I was shocked at Debra accepting is apology after the way he went after her. A half assed I’m sorry would not have made it up for me if I had been her.

73. John Immel on August 22nd, 2008 7:14 pm

    The quickness to forgive a non-apology …uh… apology has more to do with folks’ sincerity to heed Jesus’ words. And the second part is most folks would really just like to get along. So in some measure I understand why folks are quick to accept to whatever effort to reconciliation is offered.

    However, it is really no reconciliation. For all of Vaughn’s bluster, he made virtually no effort to engage. And for all of his accusations, he was not much willing to back them up with effective commentary. I ask what ownership of his comments he demonstrated? Uh… not at all.

    And I see this phenomenon directly related to SGM with regularity. I am seriously considering doing a side by side comparison of three drive-by bloggers from here, Survivors and the Refuge. The consistency of the pattern is striking. Usually, they sign off just like Vaughn: I’m sorry… I wasn’t loving but what I said is reasonable and just ignore the glaring inconsistencies.

74. CD-Host on August 23rd, 2008 9:40 am

    I agree. If you go way back you can start with Jessie on refuge, who is a name.

75. Vaughn B. on August 23rd, 2008 7:07 pm

    It seems quite clear that it would not be a good idea for me to come back and “play.” I could not in good conscience condone any sort of public defamation of any “group of churches.” That being said, any sort of follow up posting I could do would be met with fierce rebuttal and any dissenting idea would be quickly dismissed and just as quickly forgotten. This is hardly my idea of “playing”. I’ve been accused (by proxy and directly) of being legalistic, half-assed, unable to think for myself, blind, involved with a cult, and drunk with kool-aid. However these things mean completely nothing to me, my reputation is of no concern or value to me.
    But something that is interesting to me on a personal note: if these things are true, why ask me to come back to “play?”
    You either are concerned for my soul and want to help me. Or you would like to simply debate an issue, in which any issue will do. While there may be other underlying reasons, I think we can use previous comments directed towards me on this site to rule out the former and look to the latter. Then again, I could be wrong, it’s been known to happen.
    So here’s what I suggest.
    Here’s my e-mail. vaughnbauer@gmail.com
    If you would like to continue a discussion about your thoughts on SGM, one on one instead of publicly, I’d be more than happy and willing to discuss it personally with you. May I be the first to offer a sort of Olive Branch?

76. CD-Host on August 24th, 2008 7:57 am

    You either are concerned for my soul and want to help me. Or you would like to simply debate an issue, in which any issue will do.

    No actually there are other options.

    1) I”m concerned for your mind and would like you to get it back. The idea that content will be listened to based on the quality of evidence presented not who you are nor what we think of you personally will be very healthy for you. You are used to a world where information is evaluated based on authority not evidence.

    2) In the meanwhile watching current SGMers in action allows people to see their techniques. The appropriate SGM reaction to wild accusations is not to be “prideful and unteachable” by examining the content and determining if they are true. Seeing how silly they were

    3) You give good examples of the misuse of words by shifting their definition which is a common cult technique. We’ll take an example you and I have already discussed. Slander requires false information. So for example when you accused Debra and myself of talking about things that were not SGM policy but rather were individual errors that is arguably actually slander. But rather you have been using the word about people discussing true information about the “family of churches”.
    Seeing this technique in action is useful for people. You see SGM also does the same kind of things on theological issues which is part of how they twist Christianity. I discuss their use of the ESV and how that bible mistranslates to bolster certain non Christian theological positions.

77. John Immel on August 24th, 2008 5:04 pm

    Hey Vaughn… glad to know you are still out there nosing around and willing to play. (sorry couldn’t resist) I define play different than most…

    Here are my thoughts…

    Vaughn said: “I could not in good conscience condone any sort of public defamation of any “group of churches.”

    First… this is not defamation. Strictly speaking:

    “Defamation is an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from the false statements or actions of another. Defamation is a false attack on your good name. Your good name is regarded as a proprietary interest, not a personal interest. Defamation is an improper and unlawful attack against your proprietary right to your good name, your reputation.”

    This goes directly to what CD-Host has pointed out to you repeatedly. The striking willingness to change the definitions of words to make your point—a trait observers of pro SGM commentators see with profound consistency. The technique of redefinition is so overwhelmingly consistent that it cannot be accidental. Something within the SGM culture indoctrinates this reaction so deeply that pro SGM commentators use almost the exact same phrases in almost the exact same argumentative context. This overwhelming consistency is what makes people respond with Kool-aid drinker and half-assed and unable to think.

    Second, if your reputation is that irrelevant, I really don’t understand this comment. It implies that your continued participation somehow validates the conversation.

    You can participate—I’ve given you an open invitation—by giving your considered commentary. Brother, be released, you are not condoning anything. Neither do you have the power to validate or invalidate the conversations on this blog. The conversation legitimacy is in the mutual engagement in the Arena of Ideas. Whether SGM leaders like it or not, whether you like it or not, SGM placed themselves in the broader context of historic Christianity and contemporary Christian practice. That means they don’t get to exempt themselves from criticism with some curiously crafted non sequiturs and linguistic redefinitions.

    Vaughn said: “…any sort of follow up posting I could do would be met with fierce rebuttal…”

    OK… So what? How is it you don’t believe the force of your ideas can bear out? This is where you can demonstrate that you are not half-assed… that you can in fact think for yourself. This is where you can hold us accountable. (I actually found that criticism rather funny. This is a PUBLIC conversation, open to all who want to participate… how can it not be accountable?) Anyway… in my mind the more fierce the rebuttal, the more profound the vindications when the ideas one puts forth bears out. I enter the arena with the full knowledge that someone might hand me my ass on a platter. More power to them. But after the fact, my ideas will be refined and my pursuit of truth will be that much sharper.

    And I think your reluctance to buck up is shortsighted. You are playing to a much larger audience here than just the few posters. The readership of this site—if I read my stats right—is quite a bit greater than attendance at good Sunday at CLC … and growing.

    Vaughn said: “You either are concerned for my soul and want to help me…..”

    My motives are not nearly so lofty… concerned for your soul? I don’t think your soul is in danger. I have no interest in saving you. And if you are a good Calvinist, you know nothing I can do will save you. If you believe bad things, it is because God has appointed you remain in delusion. If you believe saving things, then it is because God’s sovereignty supplied the grace.

    >shrug<

    No Vaughn, I was interested in actually encountering a pro SGM commentator that has the willingness to defend his rather broad, brushing commentary. I was interested in finding one of you guys/gals that wasn’t a drive-by blogger.

    As for olive branches… it wasn’t specifically personal to me… my ideas are not my identity, so I’m content. There are others that might feel differently. They can take you up on the olive branch if they’re inclined. And it is my observation that most of the commentators here are quick to resolve interpersonal conflict.

    Vaughn… whatever you decide… however you participate, peace.

78. John Immel on August 24th, 2008 6:53 pm

    OK… CD-Now we can fix our mistakes in posts.

    Took me a while but I finally got this cool widget for the blog

79. Ellie on August 25th, 2008 9:26 am

    “Brother, be released, you are not condoning anything. Neither do you have the power to validate or invalidate the conversations on this blog. The conversation legitimacy is in the mutual engagement in the Arena of Ideas. Whether SGM leaders like it or not, whether you like it or not, SGM placed themselves in the broader context of historic Christianity, and contemporary Christian practice. That means they don’t get to exempt themselves from criticism with some curiously crafted non sequiturs and linguistic redefinitions.”

    Your whole post is excellent, John and I especially like this part. I am confused as to why some in SGM think that they are THE “in crowd” of Christianity and that they can come along and condescendingly tell us that we are not as good as them. It’s like the old highschool clique people coming along at the 20th year graduation reunion and thinking that they still have any power over anyone. Sorry, but those days are LONG gone, ROFL!

80. Ellie on August 25th, 2008 9:27 am

    BTW, John, how do we do the “quote box” feature?

81. keepinstep on August 25th, 2008 9:57 am

    John saith: “Whether SGM leaders like it or not, whether you like it or not, SGM placed themselves in the broader context of historic Christianity, and contemporary Christian practice. That means they don’t get to exempt themselves from criticism….”

    Excellent, John. Your entire statement above should be the stock response to anyone who shows up spluttering, “how dare you speak any word contrary to the wishes and views of the Leadership Team?”

82. John Immel on August 25th, 2008 10:44 am

    It’s like the old highschool clique people coming along at the 20th year graduation reunion and thinking that they still have any power over anyone. Sorry, but those days are LONG gone, ROFL!

    Ellie… this is an absolute riot…..  cool kids in high school.. hahahaha… 

83. John Immel on August 25th, 2008 10:49 am

    And Ellie, I am grateful for you HTML expertise.

    For those of you who don’t know how, Ellie told me how to make block quotes in a post…  

    <blockquote>
    <p>here is a long quotation here is a long quotation</p>
    </blockquote>
    put this bit of code fore and aft of the comment and it should indent the content.  You might have to use the edit feature to retype the syntax

    but when you save it, the HTML block quote tags should be gone and the text set off.

    Thanks, Ellie!

84. Ellie on August 25th, 2008 2:33 pm

    John,
    are you putting the <p> in? because when I did the blockquote thing for my earlier post, it didn’t work.

85. John Immel on August 25th, 2008 3:13 pm

    No … the <p>  is not necessary.  All you need is (<blockquote>) ….  (</blockquote>)

    However, I will say this… for whatever reason wordpress changes the < …>  to &lt;p&gt   If you select the edit comments feature, you can look at how the HTML has been changed. I then go into the editor and retype the syntax. 

86. musicman on August 25th, 2008 4:27 pm

    Vaugh said

    “__DB and CD Host__ I bring my observations in this manner (publicly and with boldness) because you’ve chosen to air your offenses against SGM and slander them in such a public manner, without an iota of accountability!”

    What happened to your boldness?  Why do you keep changing the rules of conversation?  You come in guns blazing and as soon as we ask you to defend your “bold” and “public” convictions that we’re nothing but slanderous-you cry wolf and ask that we have a private conversation via email.  So which is it? 

    To me this is classic SGM mode of operation.  You get to break the rules of normal conversation and then redefine the rules of the conversation when it starts to go in a way that you don’t like.

87. Butterfly on August 25th, 2008 11:07 pm

    VB,

    Again you are assuming that the goal here is to air offenses and slander. Might you take time to read Galatians – you will find strong language for those that preach a gospel other than salvation by faith. For an example,  when I didn’t do as I was told by SGM (not a mandate of scripture) I was told that past sins I committed were no longer forgiven by God, that I was going to Hell, that I was separated from God, I was disfellowshiped from the church, my marriage, and God…by SGM…all of which was contrary to the gospel which states I am forever justified when I accept Christ – the bible does not state anywhere that I am justified when SGM says I am, or when I do as I am told. I forgive them…but they are preaching a gospel contrary to what I received. Think about it. You have not been a part of every pastor-sheep meeting or every care group leader-sheep meeting. You might not know all that goes on.  And, where is the love you apologized for having lacked in prior conversations? Then you declare all conversations must be private after you post on a public forum. Reminds me a little of my ex-husband’s method of conflict resolution. I tell you what to do, if you don’t like it you have two minutes to spit out a thought and then I will declare the conversation over and rule on the matter. You don’t get to do that and that kind of conflict management will never resolve why people are here. Sorry VB you are a brother, but your church has things it needs to repent of. It happens. Your leaders are mere men and make mistakes. I can’t say how intentional their actions are but how many websites like this are out there for other churches? I am telling you there are things that need to be addressed. You should be asking hard questions of your leadership as to why we are here.  I do forgive my pastors but I also have a great concern for the next SGM counseling causality and am concerned when the gospel is being distorted – preached on Sunday, changed to fit some other pattern Monday through Saturday – this should not be. Then people drop by this and other websites and accuse brothers and sisters on this site of slander, gossip, sin – that action will not resolve anything. Maybe you and SGM should pray and ask God how to resolve why people are here. What in our ministry needs changed? Where is the humility your leadership speak so much about? Instead they say Ignore the people on these websites and they will go away – but that hasn’t worked, and some will try dropping by and accusing the bloggers of slander but that hasn’t worked – I think it is time to ask God what will glorify Him in this situation. God, how can SGM glorify you in regards to those they have hurt or harmed? How is what we are doing as a ministry legalistic? You all need to get out your three trees diagram and work harder on coming up with why people blog here something other than and deeper than – they must be in sin. As a side note, I pray often for SGM. I pray for its success. I pray for SGM to be the church God wants. I pray for them to hear from God clearly. I also pray for my ex-husband on a regular basis. I pray his new marriage is healthy and blessed. How much time have you prayed for your brothers and sisters here?  

88. db on August 26th, 2008 8:14 am

    I tell my story not to slander, but to help people with more recent experiences process what has happened to them within the context of knowing what has happened historically to other people before them.

    See, VB, there is something about SGM that doesn’t allow free flow of ideas. People end up not sharing their experiences and the result (something planned by SGM or simply a side effect,) is that people end up isolated thinking they are the only ones that have had anything close to their personal experience. Oftentimes, this is accompanied by the feeling that I must be a particularly rotten sinner because everyone else seems so happy.

    That mirage collapses upon the weight of truth.

89. John Immel on August 26th, 2008 2:00 pm

    Butterfly… I haven’t gotten to say welcome…   : )

    Glad you are here, and thanks for your contributions.

90. Butterfly on August 26th, 2008 9:43 pm

    John,

    Thanks for the welcome!

    BFly

91. Concerned on August 27th, 2008 1:55 am

    Butterfly! Hello! I’ve missed you and wondered how you were doing – glad to see you here…just wanted to say that to you, not getting involved in this comment section – feel like I am in the middle of wild bees or something

    hope you are continuing to heal Bfly, I think you have my private email – please let me know how you are!

92. Butterfly on August 27th, 2008 10:40 am

    Concerned,

    Thank you for your kind words. God has brought me much healing! I again know the joy of my salvation. I am deeply in love with Christ. God has opened my eyes to see the truth of His words, He has given me a kind and understanding pastor, a new church that I am just getting to know but appreciate. God has met my deepest need – which is to know that I am His and He is mine. It is great to face life as a free person. I used to face life and trials as a person that was already exhausted from my SGM baggage. But now each day is new, His mercies are new, and on my worst day life is easier without carrying the extra weight of SGM sin and sadness. God is good.

93. justahausfrau on April 22nd, 2009 3:10 pm

    I just discovered your blog and have been wasting time here when I should have been folding laundry : )

    Having just come through a 2 year period of difficulties in a local church,  I resonate with much I have read here and on the SGMsurvivors website.  We have since left that church and are courting (not dating, ha, ha!) an SG church in town (yeah you read me right), one reason being that in our former church there was no higher “court of appeal” for a discipline case in which we were witnesses than a group of elders who I think feared a lawsuit from the very wealthy man we were blowing the whistle on.  We were hoping that some apostolic authority over pastors/elders might be a good thing based on our previous experience.  I’ll have to rethink.   I really didn’t want to go back to Rome or a reformed version of it…I left Rome at 18.  The irony is that our previous church may have had a better/healthier form of government (independent, plurarity of elders, congregational voting) than SG, but that, with the weak men in leadership,  I could not enjoy its strengths.  Maybe I should be happy that my husband and I were mostly ignored and neglected rather than called to endless meetings with leaders (we called all the meeting we ever had trying to make our testimony known and acted upon.)  Eventually our testimony (which was credible, precise, plentiful) was confirmed by more evidence and so we were “vindicated” I suppose.  But we felt we’d probably never be forgiven for being right and for catching the leadership with their pants down (vulgar comment tempting, but I am an aspiring SG’er woman, so I better refrain), even though we assured them of our forgiveness and readiness to work together with them in ministry (we’re ALL sinners, right?  so why should the leadership continue on in the shame and embarrassment of their failures?)  But for whatever reason, the neglect, silence, exclusion and personal abandonmentwhich persisted after the major firestorm was so excruciatingly painful, that pastors who care (and I am convinced that our potential new pastors do care…this church is also very new to SG) seem like heaven on earth.  But I’m old enough to know the double edge of just about any sword and the very fine distinctions between caring and controlling.

    Since I am first a lover of Jesus and His Word and only secondly a convinced Calvinist and charismatic (3rd waver) I do have quite a vested interest in something you wrote  in a very long article about Sovereign Grace (can’t remember which one or the exact words.)  One of your points was that the doctrine of total depravity, partnered with dictated “good” from a spiritual “authority” leads to a  loss of freedom in Christ..these are my words because I don’t remember yours.  Would you contend that the doctrine of total depravity is the root of such abuse or that it only becomes that if coupled with authoritarianism?  After all, if we are all totally depraved (meaning we are fallen in every respect…body, mind, will etc..and not that we are as evil as we could be) then that means all church leadership is depraved as well and needs checks and balances.   Or would you argue that leadership is unnecessary in the church since every one does/should interpret the Bible for him/herself?  Do you think that organized churches have a place in God’s plan?  Do you think they are the pinnacle (as SG does) of God’s plan?  I think the Presbyterian/Calvinist roots of infant America’s government and their understanding of the corruption sin will bring to power is what gave us a system of checks and balances.

    Which article had your Adolph Hitler quote on the ego’s need to sacrifice itself for the common good?  I want to copy and send it to someone.

    Oh, BTW, CLC was my fomative church as a new believer in Christ (went from Rome to possible a future Pope CJ as my pastor : )  I benefitted greatly from my many years there (the 80′s).  Then my husband and I were in various churches due to several out of state moves and kind of lost touch with SG except for one set of friends who we love “dearly”..sorry for that word…I’m being naughty.

    But we are making our decision slowly.  We have many questions which should make the new members classes interesting to say the least. 

    Are there any stories of churches who have left the SG family and for what reasons?  I’m interested in how a church is allowed to leave…with their own property etc?  another question for the new member’s class.  I really, really hope that my potential new pastors are as humble as they appear to be with me asking my confounded questions!  I actually believe that they are…I’m believing the best of them and the worst of me at all times : )

94. Juli on April 22nd, 2009 3:35 pm

    Hausfrau,

    Hello and welcome

    You certainly don’t sound like any SGM woman I know – in that you think and have a mind of your own. I find that healthy and strong. That will be the first thing they will squelch if you stick around long enough. If you want to fit in, Learn to walk three steps behind your husband intellectually and just shut your mouth, you’ll fit right in if you truly are an aspiring SGM woman.

    You have some good thoughts and observations – glad you are here I like “listening” to people who aren’t afriad to ask questions, especially women!!

    Juli

    PS don’t ever believe the worst of YOU. Believe the best of you, and you’ll be much happier and at peace. And if you’re wrong, the Holy Spirit will let you know. No condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, remember?

95. John on April 22nd, 2009 8:25 pm

    JustaHausfrau…

    Welcome… and thanks for your post. Your story is like so many, but no matter how many times I hear the themes perpetrated, it bugs me afresh. You sound like the resilient sort… so I suspect you will find yourself (and husband) on the road to recovery and peace and life.

    So now to your questions:

    One of your points was that the doctrine of total depravity, partnered with dictated “good” from a spiritual “authority” leads to a loss of freedom in Christ..

    I am saying that the content of the doctrine is antithetical to any concept of freedom.

    Would you contend that the doctrine of total depravity is the root of such abuse or that it only becomes that if coupled with authoritarianism?

    I contend that the doctrine of pervasive depravity is used as a tool of preemptory disqualification. It is a direct predicate of creating a compliant body politic. If you can convince people that they are morally inferior in the face of leadership, they will accept any moral judgment leadership makes and therefore be willing to accept any decree, or demand.

    After all, if we are all totally depraved … then that means all church leadership is depraved as well and needs checks and balances.

    Read this post: http://spiritualtyranny.com/defining-insanity/
    I submit that the idea of checks and balances cannot exist when our moral predicate is pervasive depravity.

    I will quote the relevant parts:

    As absurd as that is, I still haven’t gotten to the real evasion: the Fallacy of Checks and Balances.

    If authority dictates “GOOD,” there is no need of check and balance. Whatever Authority dictates IS good. So, there is no such thing as injustice, oppression, exploitation, or infringements of freedom.

    If Authority dictates GOOD, what then are we checking? The accuracy of the Authority? Checking also implies the ability to curtail some kind of action. But Authority defined GOOD and Dictates action. What action needs to be curtailed? The dictated actions ARE GOOD. If Authority says: “Kill the Infidel,” the action of killing is GOOD. If Authority commands “Stone homosexuals,” then warming up in the bull pen is GOOD. If Authority says “Take from the Rich and Give to the poor,” then stealing a man’s substance by force is GOOD.

    If Authority dictates GOOD, what are we balancing? In context, balancing implies a rational, objective standard; the ability to weigh both sides of a moral equation. How did we see the need to offset one side of the teetertotter with more weight? Man is insane, how CAN we balance?

    Whatever action Authority proscribes is GOOD. There is no just or unjust action as long as the actions are in obedience to authority. So authority commits no unjust action. Injustice, oppression, exploitation, all assumes individual rights: they presume individual freedom. Individual freedom requires an objective standard of free action. And it presumes that capacity to “…observe the same world and grasp what they see. His faculties are sound and under his control. He can fathom cause and context, extrapolate effect, and project outcome.”

    Or would you argue that leadership is unnecessary in the church since everyone does/should interpret the Bible for him/herself?

    No… I am ultimately going to argue that the nature of Leadership has nothing to do with compelling people to any given body of actions.

    Do you think that organized churches have a place in God’s plan? Do you think they are the pinnacle (as SG does) of God’s plan?

    This question assumes a definition of church: a building with guys who are somehow in charge of the people, places, and things at that geographic location. Do I think this has a place in God’s plans? >shrug< Jury is still out on that in my mind.

    Which article had your Adolph Hitler quote on the ego’s need to sacrifice itself for the common good? The first place I mention this is here: http://spiritualtyranny.com/what-about-individuality/ The second place I quote it is here: http://spiritualtyranny.com/to-reform-or-not-to-reform/

96. Sopwith on April 22nd, 2009 11:59 pm

    Gnädige Frau,
    Be sure to “mention” Herr Immel’s name when attending your SGM new members class.  Bring a copy of your post comment here, when you do.”  –für Gelächter !

97. Juli on April 23rd, 2009 1:02 am

    Hausfrau,

    I should have included that dropping John Immel’s name (or any mention of these blogs) would be the single most effective way for you NOT to be an up and coming SGMer woman. haha

    Because reading blogs is sinful, if you don’t already know. And for you to assume that you have the ability and reason and intellectual capacity to not only read freely but discern what you read? – well, that is the epitomy of pride and an unteachable spirit by their definition.

    They want/need insecure, confused, spiritually lazy, mindless, emotionally deficient, ignorant, cowardly masses of people so they can control them and be their covering. It is as simple (and as evil) as that. And if you aren’t like that when you come, the longer you stick around, they will attempt to break you down until you are. Because it’s impossible to own someone who believes they already own theirself.

    And you do you know – own yourself. But you are also in a unique position (for now anyway) to challenge them since you are currently in an SGM church AND you aren’t buying what they are selling – or at least you are questioning it, which is more than most prospective members do. 

    Of course if you believe you own yourself, such interaction with the uber-men in leadership will just be annoying to both of you, but the look on their faces when you refuse to roll over and play dead would be worth any inconvenience to you I’d think.

98. Spuds on August 16th, 2010 12:02 pm

    I just made a decision to not join an SGF Church. My only reason for not joining is they appeared to be calvinistic (Capital C) and gospel (little g). I prefer the other way around.

    This result of (captial C and little g) seemed to cause some overbaked calvinistic language barriers I had during worship time and with the associate Pastor as well as people from the congregation talking. The Sr. pastor was not as bad.

    The language made the worship somewhat stoically datached (in my opinion) from the words Jesus himself would have used.

    John Piper was 2 rows in front me…. oh his Sabattical at several services I want to at this sovereign grace Church

    Spuds

99. waseem yousaf on March 20th, 2011 1:41 pm

    Dear Brother,

    Greetings

    I am Waseem Yousaf from Pakistan. I have studied your web site, and
    have found it to be one of many wonderful sites offered on the
    internet which gets to the Truth of the Word of God. As is the case
    with others whom I have contacted, you have created material which is
    full of knowledge concerning development of religious faith. Living in
    Pakistan, weChristians face many obstacles in getting access to God’s Word. Most
    people in Pakistan speak Urdu, and are not capable of understanding the
    English language. Because of limited access in our native tongue, my
    people have a true hunger for fresh Christian Perspectives.

    Proficient in both English and my native languages, I would like to
    offer my services as a translator to you. Presenting your material in
    both Urdu and Punjabi would be a true blessing to the Pakistani and
    Indian people. For a nominal fee, I will enable you to bring the message
    of Salvation to a most deserving people.

    Blessing you in advance for your consideration,

    In Him,

    Waseem Yousaf

    Email: wygodblessyou2@gmail.com

100. John Immel on April 2nd, 2011 12:00 am

     Waseem,

     I do appreciate what you are asking. I’ve had this same request from German speakers and the Czech Republic. While I would be thrilled to make something like this happen, I foresee some challenges that I don’t have a sense how to overcome. Not least of which, I would have no way to verify the translations and follow any subsequent comments.
     And I am not in a position to organize such a means.  So, I’m not sure where to take your offer from there.   
     If you are inclined, you can email me direct at john@spiritualtyranny.com  with your further thoughts.

101. Eric on May 2nd, 2011 11:50 pm

     Could you inform me of what your theology consists of. I would like to spend time reading each post to try to filter it out but i Just dont have the time. It sounds like most of your arguments are semantic. Could you argue from scripture specifically to defend your theology.

102. John Immel on May 3rd, 2011 10:17 pm

     Uh…  Eric I don’t think I’ve ever felt so cheap in my blogging life.  First of all … if the word that leaps to mind after reading much of anything on this blog is “semantics,” you need a thesaurus because your vocabulary is miserably small or a dictionary because your vocabulary is wrong.

     Second, maybe the girls you hang out with will give it all up, even after you tell them you don’t have the time to get to know them.  Maybe your Craigslist chicks will tolerate you being express in having no interest in listening to their ideas.  Maybe they will display their wares in all their glory and let you sniff in derision demanding they reveal more to satisfy your judgmental feng shui.   I mean, is chivalry dead?  Whatever happened to courtship? 

     If you were sitting across from me, I would swat you with my pink hanky.   You cad! You beast!  I’m just not that kind of girl.  Have you no shame?   At least buy me dinner before you demand that I dance to your tune.  Maybe make a pretense at romance before demanding that I unveil my all my parts.  Or if nothing else, dangle Benjamin towards my theological G string so we can at least define the nature of our relationship.  (There is a PayPal button on the right.)

     If you want a private lap dance … or a blogging two for one…

     Uhh..

     Errrr…

     OK, so that metaphor ran out of steam…

     But hey…  This is the Arena of Ideas.  This is a tremendously time-consuming, highly individualistic place to live. I expect at a minimum that the people who walk here will take on the rigor of their own participation. If you won’t spend the TIME to actually READ what is here, why in the world would I spend a second spoonfeeding your “biblical” sensibilities?  That was a rhetorical question. 

     Since you are looking for brief, I will give you an answer that fits your primary value:  “I could, but I will not.”

103. CD-Host on May 3rd, 2011 10:47 pm

     John –
     A lap dance metaphor for an SGMer?   Either you are being more provocative than I or you’ve gotten way out of touch.  LOL funny post for me, but for Eric?

104. John Immel on May 4th, 2011 1:24 pm

     Hey CD– 

     Provocative?  Yeah… that is me. I think we’re probably cut from the same cloth. Glad you’re still reading.
     As for being out of touch, oh no.  Aren’t SGMers “The greatest sinners they know?”

     By definition, that means they all frequent those clubs, right? To be consistent with the declaration, they all have to be sexual, pedophilic, war-making, persecuting, torturing  degenerates on par with Caligula to qualify.

     I had to look up the tawdry lingo on ine in an effort to talk their language, but never let it be said that I don’t try to be all things to all men.

105. Dan on May 4th, 2011 2:55 pm

     Good answer John.

106. don myers on July 23rd, 2011 7:53 pm

     yOU ALL ARE FIGHTING WITH cj OR SHOULD i SAY WITH THE PEOPLE OF sgm. bUT gOD SAYS THAT the FIGHT IS BETWEEN PRINCIPALITY AND powers we can not see. God says our fight is with satin. So put on the armor of God and put the fight were it should be taken, not between our selfs but against satin. Know your fight.
     Jer 1:12 Father, We have prayed according to your word, and you have said you would watch over your word to perform it.

     (Just rise up and live big within us today, for we are yours, in the names of Jesus)  Thinking it doesn’t work-you must claim it by the words of your mouth.

     Alway’s remember: Every word spoken becomes a living thing to minister or destroy Proverbs 19:21, 6:2, 4:20-22

     Don Myers

107. John Immel on July 23rd, 2011 9:08 pm

     Don…. Shhhhh…. The adults are having a conversation.< You need to go concentrate on your spiritual warfare. 

     The Caps lock daemons and the spelling devils are winning.  Satin is gonna get you if you don’t rebuke it fast.
     It will probably be smooth, but it will still win.

Got something to say?