Concerned asked me a couple of questions in my post Speaking of Church Polity. I think the content of the question and the corresponding answer needs its own treatment.
Here is what she asked:
John, in reading some things about the various forms of church government, it seems most “truly” reformed churches adhere to either a congregational or presbyterian form of church government. However, the SGM model is episcopalian it seems (heirarchy: power flows from the top down only)
So here is my question – why do you think SGM tries to pass themselves off as Reformed simply because they are Calvinistic when none of their other beliefs remotely resemble historical reformed theology?
Is is fair to say SGM is Calvinistic but not reformed, even though they call themselves reformed?
* * *
I LOVE these questions. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THESE QUESTIONS. LOVE IT. LOVE IT. LOVE IT. That means you all are catching on. These questions show forth that people are actually looking at the content of what the Hair Club for Men claim. And if you are looking at the content, it becomes very easy to see that the Arena of Ideas they fancy themselves in is NOT as neat and tidy and unarguable as Sovereign Grace Ministries would like to pretend.
Concerned, the heart of your question is WHY? Why does SGM do what they do? Why do they call themselves Reformed when in fact they don’t conform to the content of the Reformed Practice? It is always a bold undertaking to answer about someone else’s motive. But I’m up to the challenge.
The short answer to why does Sovereign Grace Ministries claim Reformed Status is fear.
No… let me amend. The short answer to why does Sovereign Grace Ministries claim Reformed Status is stone cold, stark terror.
What are they afraid of? They are afraid that they are not truly authorized to preach, that they really may not be in charge, that they might not have anything to offer, that at the end of the day that they (CJ) might be wrong.
I know… that is a rather bold, generalizing explanation, but given the time and space, I’m pretty sure that I can lay out the parts and pieces of their overriding preoccupation.
But Exhibit A is embedded in Eric “Phenomenal” Simmons’ comments about bloggers. Well, not about bloggers specifically but his overarching need to discredit those folks on the Internet as irrelevant post-adolescents with nothing but heresy to talk about. His comments are pure demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of his CLC audience to warn them away from ideas: ideas he cannot compete with.
The mindset of fear is endemic within the Sovereign Grace Ministries’ culture.
Exhibit B is their history. Long before SGM was… SGM, they were GOB and PDI/CLC. Their foray into shepherding is part and parcel of the same preoccupation: who is authorized to be in charge, and preach, and arbitrate God stuff. CJ and Larry Tomczak, et al were authoritarian LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before they read Piper, and Spurgeon, and Packer.
Exhibit C is how they use the doctrines of Reformed Theology. I want to expand on this last point so I need to illustrate some Sovereign Grace Ministries algebra.
“watch your life and your doctrine” = mentally reflecting + Good Theology = Sound Doctrine = a specific Theological system = Orthodoxy = Authentic Christianity.
Orthodoxy = Reformed Theology
Ergo
Authentic Christianity = Reformed Theology
AND
Reformed Theology = Calvinism
With me so far? Okay… good.
Now I need to add the last part of the SGM equation.
Passioned Orthodoxy = PDI Passion + Orthodoxy
The last part of the equation is most important to your original question “How can SGM claim to be REFORMED when they really don’t adhere to the totality of REFORMED TRADITION?”
See, Sovereign Grace Ministries wants to play both sides of the intellectual fence. They use “Reformed Theology” to deflect criticism. Object to the content of their doctrine and they immediately say, “But we are Orthodox, how can you object? We believe what all right-thinking historic Christians have always believed. How can you object to what Paul himself preached ‘Christ and him crucified’?” Upon criticism, the critic places himself unsound doctrine camp eliminating his disparagement from consideration.
But as PDI/CLC were making the transition from the charismatic-ish movement to the Reformed Tradition, they ran square into their first and second departure from Orthodox teaching. Reformed doctrine is the home of cessationist teaching… meaning the gifts of the spirit–tongues, healing, et al.–passed away. Many of the churches of the reformed tradition prohibited music and musical instruments from worship.
What to do? We are a bunch of ’60s throwbacks that like to jump around at a rock concert in our tie dyes. Bob Kauflin isn’t going to stop playing the electric piano. And we’re not going to suddenly disavow speaking in tongues for the last 20 years.
How do we justify departures from the very orthodoxy that we use to validate our doctrine?
Well… in reality, they just ignore the implications. But their PR machine went into full gear and decided their doctrinal deviations were the product of Passion. Well… who can argue with that?
Their use of Reformed Theology is a smokescreen to insulate themselves from criticism of the content of their practice. Their deviations from the Reformed Tradition are justified as modern expressions of their unique Sovereign Grace Ministries passion.
As for their use of Calvinism … well … if there was ever a body of teaching that absolved a man of the outcomes of his doctrine … this is it. If you pray for the sick and folks don’t get well, what is the reason? God is sovereign. Ergo, the content of your life is the product of Divine will. You preach endlessly that folks should not sin but yet they do. This is living proof of the doctrine of Pervasive Depravity. You pray for the unbeliever to get saved but yet they don’t respond. That is a function of Limited Atonement. You preach the hard truth of the Gospel, but folks leave your church and call you a cult. No mystery here, this is the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints in action. If one cannot persevere in the hard truth, those who leave are living God’s necessarily appointed deception.
As a pastor, how can you be held accountable to ANY outcome within the body? Logically, you can’t and practically you won’t because the doctrine exempts outcomes from your preview.
As for their polity … in practice, SGM are papists. Charles Joseph is the Vicar.
You 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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
Well said, Keepinstep… well said.
Musicman… good to see you. Always enjoy reading your comments.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
Keepinstep…. WOW!!!
and did I say WOW! Keepinstep!!
Musicman…
LOL… and as soon as my mom finishes washing my Superman undies, I’ve got more coming.