And like Dorothy, with her three friends standing before the disembodied head after having acquired the token of their commitment, they are perplexed by needing to beg the “Wizard” to keep his promise. It isn’t supposed to be this way. How could so many other men in “positions of authority” turn such a universal blind eye to what is before them?
Here is the answer. People fail to see the real machine, the real animating power behind the curtain of these events. CJ Mahaney is not the wicked witch. He is not a Pied Piper theological mastermind. He is many things and has many specific traits that have brought him to the forefront, but he is not the animating power of the SGM juggernaut. He has managed to surround himself with like-minded people willing to be utterly consistent with a specific set of ideas. But make no mistake. He and the broad list of names and personalities connected to the specific SGM drama are fully irrelevant to the much broader picture. This is no absolution for their conduct and their specific metaphysical mayhem. I am only drawing your attention to where it really needs to be focused. Notice the curtain off to the side?
It is time for us to take up the advanced studies of Christian thought on which this blog focuses. It is time for us to pay attention to the doctrine behind the curtain.
It is true. There is a host of doctrinal redefining and meaning-nudging. There is a storm of proof-texting. There is an ocean of Bible verse contextual indifference. There is a sea of theological and philosophical license being demonstrated that is producing a tidal wave of mutually exclusive conclusions breaking across the Christian landscape. But the deviation is not with SGM or their theological peers (in as much as they grant anyone the privilege of sharing that title). They are executing flawlessly the Platonist/Augustinian worldview, also known as Luther-based Reformation theology, also known as Calvinism. SGM is utterly consistent with the historic Orthodoxy. They are masterful in their execution of historic interpretive methods. And this is why—as far as the broader Neo-orthodoxy movement is concerned—YOU are the problem.
“… if I ever go looking for my heart’s desire again, I won’t look any further than my own backyard.”
The first thing that attracts so many people to the Neo-Reformed movement is security. The glossy brochure says that if you believe what the true church has always believed, then all will be well with your life . . . sort of. And more importantly, if everyone would believe right things, all would be well with the world . . . sort of. Then preachers set out to organize life into neat hospital folds. And when life refuses to look flawless like Glinda with her fairy wand and glitter, the wire brush of the doctrines forces everything to lay in the right order.
Church leaders are the keepers of the gate against the spiritual barbarian horde, and the price of Christian authenticity is a rational subordination to Eldership edicts. We are all members of the true faith after all; what is the big deal? We agree on the major points of the ‘orthodox’ confession, so it isn’t like those preachers are ever going to do anything to US. The problem is all those Charismatics with bad attitudes believing bad things, taking Bible verses out of context, teaching heretical doctrines, committing a crime by not reading Holy Scripture correctly, doing bad things with body parts, and causing all the chaos. We believe right things, but would someone make those empty-headed scarecrows get their mind right?!
The moment that happens, the game is afoot. As John Locke observed:
“For whatsoever [all] people boast . . . of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ.”
Of course, some man says, “Sure, I’ll be the authority wielding the sword of the state—oops, sword of the spirit.” He jabs a finger at a Bible passage and says, “This day, this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears,” and he is forever authorized to defend your delicate mind against bad ideas. Everyone sings “We’re off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz,” very sure that the wizard is their source of answers.
In many situations, children make different choices than adults. Woman make different choices than men. There are many more husbands that beat their wives than vice versa. More men commit crimes than women. Most men do not want roses for Valentines day.
My point is that many things influence what we want and how we get it. Race, religion, upbringing, environment, schooling or education, peers, personality, DNA, etc.
Rape is normally male against female. Men are normally more sexually driven than women. We have more testosterone. Woman get PMS. So our chemicals and hormones effect our emotions, desires, which may effect our choices.
Why do more women go to church than men? There are very few churches than have more men than women. Why is that?
Why did 99% of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan “choose” Islam as their religion?
Thanks, John. Sadly, the more I think about it, the more I see the perfect opportunity for behind the scenes hate groups present in the SGM church model. After all, Calvin and Luther were directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths; Calvin, for his best friend’s murder, and hundreds of Anabaptists and other Christian dissenters when he came to power in Geneva, and Luther advised the princes in Germany at the time of a peasant uprising, to simply kill them all, which they carried out. I can understand that they were raised in the Catholic culture, but such attitudes and behaviors speak much about some of the deficiencies of Reformed theology. BTW, how safe am I posting on this site?
2=2….
Yes, I believe you are correct. The elements of the doctrine are what undergirded Protestant slaughter against pretty much any group that resisted the political powers that were in ascendancy through the 16th century in Europe and the theocracy of Massachusetts. I make this case in Blight in the Vineyard that Calvin’s real motivation with the Institutes of the Christian Religion was to create a religious ruling class that held the full moral authority for theocratic state rule. Europe was awash in bloodshed in pursuit of that very end.
The thing I have been trying to illustrate with these articles are the ideas that undergird statism and the monopoly of force that creates tyranny. It is the ideas that drive the actions. And it will be the ideas that give rise to the hate groups you reference. Whether they come from SGM is anyone’s guess, but the ideology that gives rise to “Christian” theocratic statist oppression is centered in the Puritan/Calvin construct. And the crazy part is … it has already happened. As you observe Calvin’s conduct … he is hardly the only one to use violence in service to despotic outcomes.
How safe you are?? Not sure what your concerns are but currently only one other person has access to my blogs admin panel and I trust them implicitly. I have some pretty steep security measures in place to prevent hacking. So, as long as people behave themselves they are safe in my mind. I did have two users that abused their anonymity to do things that were unacceptable … So I exposed their specific fraud. But that is hardly the norm. I won’t be handcuffed by someone’s anonymity but in my mind I give people who seek to remain a pseudonym the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks! Have heard that there are folks around SGM who are trying, sometimes successfully, to track the posters.
God doesn’t want me fearful of anyone but Him, I do need more courage.
2+2…
Oh…. I suspect their tracking success has more to do with a blog poster talking about specifics that only a select people could know about. Since this blog doesn’t really lend towards the tabloid, it is much easier to remain anonymous.
But beyond tracking folk down. If that is a genuine concern you have … I think this fear illustrates a profound failing within the doctrines. Only an utterly evil body of doctrine can instill such lingering fear of “public” exposure for daring to disagree in public.
If you haven’t yet, I recommend you grab my book: Blight in the Vineyard. I deal with the power of our fears and affections … and how these doctrines are designed to leverage those parts of our nature against ourselves. And I think you will benefit from the last two chapters. I lay out a path to getting out from underneath that fear.
The paperback version is most conducive to studying and taking notes. I picked a font and a book size that gives margins and space. The layout is very readable… if I do say so myself.
Thanks, John, think I’ll pick up one for myself and husband. He’s why we’re still there, and although so far, he’s appreciated thinking he’s part of their boys’ club, (I think they see him as a means to their never ending quest for power), to me, the underlying issue with that is caring so much about how one is perceived by others. May free more than 2 birds with 1 scissor. “Perfect love casts out fear”. What does that say about us SGMers?
“Perfect love casts out fear”. What does that say about us SGMers?” very well and sysinctly said.
As for your husband … Well… they are using him. Particularly if he is successful in any real meaningful way: like if he actually makes something useful. At CLC I was always amazed at how transparent the pastors were in pursuit of those with “worldly” success to “commend” them, all the while pretending that such things were trivial and even sinful to achieve. But the power of the boys club is a heady tonic so lots of men get sucked in.
I’d be interested to know how your husband takes my comments. I have some pretty harsh criticisms in Blight for those men who leverage the accolades of the boys club for their own “selfless” purposes. My chapter “The Interpersonal Train Wreck,” is particularly scathing.
John,
I just re-read this, and I am convinced that this article is the best description of the fundamental roots of the problems within SGM. The problem IS the doctrine. The doctrine is not just a place to look, it’s really the ONLY place to look.
My head was so buried for so many years. I patted myself on the back for having the stones to do my own thing in the face of the dictates of the “authority”–I said the occasional “shit” or “ass”, I listened to Hank Williams Jr., I didn’t read my Bible everyday; oh, what an enlightened rebel I was!–never once thinking about the abuse in the name of the sound doctrine that I explicitly supported with my presence and tithes,, which were perpetrated upon those who actually had real life problems and were told just to shut up, stop hating God, and forgive.
I don’t ever want to pretend that I have chosen the path to freedom from SGM and her oligarchy because I’m superior, or smarter, or more loved by God. No…I chose the path because I am so ashamed.
Argo … that is a pretty powerful comment and an incisive summation of how so many people are complicit in the unfolding drama.
Hi John,
Re-reading this. Not to be a suck up, but this is so friggin brilliant. I’ve never read such a concise and blunt examination of CJ’s “doctrine”, and which proves just WHY it’s so damn destructive.
You wrote this:
“Each person-to-person interaction is a wholly unique event that is measured up against … nothing … but the ability to “perceive” as God grants grace.”
And this is exactly why I submit that, despite AOR’s timid, milquetoast calls for changes in polity and structure, and chains of communication, and avenues for grievances, and processes whereby laypeople and pastors can be assured of a consistent and fair hearing of concerns and disciplinary protocols and blah, blah, blah, when pigs fly, etc., etc….it will never, ever happen.
It will not happen because this kind of structure and CJ’s epistemology are completely at odds. He simply cannot have a structure of pastoral discipline, for example, where all pastors go through the same channels in a fair manner that is based on objective protocols because each case will be subject to the whims of his “divinely inspired” perception. He needs to allow himself the freedom to decide how to think and act in any given situation in a way that allows his particular mood that day to dictate outcomes which will appear consistent with his special, divinely inspired moral superiority.
Mark my words; I don’t care how much the TALK about protocols, CJ will never allow them to exist. And if they do, it will be in lip service to their “promises”. AND IF they do exist, they will only be used when and where CJ decides; another tool of his ability to act as he “perceives” he should, in any given moment. If CJ will not be held accountable to a group of “apostles” of HIS OWN choosing, do we really think he will be held accountable to processes and committee rules that were recommended by an outside organization. What even?
John,
I agree with one of the conclusions of this article, that modern pastors/bishops function as Plato’s “philosopher-kings”, by way of interpreting all doctrine, initiating force, etc. What I am wondering, is how you view the biblical role of elder/bishop? Do you think this is a righteous idea, do you condemn the whole idea from the root? Do elders or pastors serve any wholesome functions?
Hey Jacob,
I’m always glad you like the articles. BTW.. I put up the last TANC session. And I have a new article up.
“What I am wondering, is how you view the biblical role of elder/bishop? Do you think this is a righteous idea, do you condemn the whole idea from the root? Do elders or pastors serve any wholesome functions?”
Well, my first response to all of this is tied to dispensationalism. If we presume that Apostles and Prophets no longer exist, why do we magically assume that Pastors, Evangelists, teachers and Elders still exist? The very same arguments that dismiss apostles and prophets could be applied to the rest of the titles … but it just never has. If the “Authority” of the first two offices vanished why do we maintain an “authority” for the rest?
And this last question is really the heart of the matter: the quest for Authority. Any time someone wants authority he/she is in pursuit of force, which means he is in pursuit of the ability to compel a given outcome. Since you are a long time reader here, you already know where that goes.
In your comment, you are still referring to mere logic (if..then logic) “if not Apostles… then not Bishops”. When we should examine what the basis of truth, the Bible, has to say on the matter. The Bible explains the need for authority in the context of order and organization (He is a God of order), but with clear directive of servant leadership – not dictatorship and power- mongering. Jesus was the ultimate example. He, who is God, washed the feet of the disciples. Yes, man by his nature will distort God’s word and intent, but once a person is “born-again” he then has the “mind of Christ”, the very Spirit of God indwelling him, allowing him to make wise decisions. I think this is overlooked in the whole “human depravity” debate. With the mind of Christ, a man can be a good leader. With the mind of Christ, a man can understand God’s word as intended.
JAL, the problem with that approach is the nearly infinite versions of the Bible based upon who is interpreting it.
Historically, Religious Professionals interpret the Bible (and construct and teach doctrines) in a way that cements their power over the congregants. Remember, for instance, that the KJV was translated by edict of King James, who famously had a political agenda: he wanted to ensure that the Church of England (and by extension, the British Throne) was cemented as authoritative in God’s eyes. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version).
Because most Christians have been taught to interpret the Bible in a fashion that supports the concept of “the authority of the Clergy,” most Christians believe in an interpretation of the Bible that is skewed in favor of “The Clubhouse.”
For instance, most Christians believe it is biblical for Christians to tithe (which benefits the Clubhouse) even though there is zero evidence in the New Testament for this practice. You could argue that Jesus mentions tithing, and you would be quite right. But it is very clear in context that Jesus is speaking of tithing to Jewish Religious Leaders, who have a legal obligation to tithe and teach tithing to their congregants.
Anyway, back to the original point. Why not just trust Christians to exercise the “mind of Christ” to understand the Bible? That would work just great if there were not this constant pressure to conform to church doctrines. If the doctrines are in conflict with the “mind of Christ,” congregants have to choose whether to remain loyal to the Clubhouse or to trust God. That is a choice very difficult to make, since inclusion is based on doctrinal adherence. For this reason, the “mind of Christ” is largely silenced in the typical believer, replaced with the Law that is preached from the Clubhouse Pulpit.
I have recently been discussing this issue in another venue. The idea that any group of adults ALWAYS need a perpetual leader. Could it be the goal has been to amass followers and not make “disciples”?
These “functions” are fluid not static. Someone “pastors” a new disciple and that disciple becomes “perfect” like their heavenly father is perfect (mature, fully developed which is what that means) and so it goes. There is no “authority” involved. An elder would be someone who is fed to the lions first so the others can get away.
“Servant leadership” is an oxy moron. It does not exist but sounds nicer. I was around in the old days when Ken Blanchard was hawking this term to mega church pastors as a kinder way to amass power. Make them see you as a servant who is a leader.
You know, we have had about 2000 years to get this “Body” thing right. Yet, we keep going in despotic circles. Could it be our premises are wrong? God was angry when the Jews begged for a king (like the pagans had). He was their king but he gave them what they wanted. I find it ironic that Jesus was pegged as King of the Jews. Which He was! We still don’t get it.
Adults have a “leader” in Jesus Christ. Anyone else is potential danger.
Lydia,
I agree completely.
Amassing followers to what end, though? In America, the purpose seems to be pecuniary — providing a living and a retirement to the Clergy Class. More universally, there is power in the position of Anointed Proclaimer, and the pseudo-love congregants shower on their Leaders. All of these ends align perfectly with the ends of most religious systems. Congregants need to be led, Clergy Men and Women need to be praised. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism. All fit the same pattern, and it comes from a root of self-righteousness. If The Self does the Right Things, The Self is Declared Righteous by the Doctrines of whatever Religious System is being proffered.
People desperately want to be Declared Righteous, because they do not want to face their shortcomings. So, any religious system that proffers Self Righteousness in a palatable way is going to gain adherents. And the cost of the Self Righteousness is Spiritual Domination. Every. Time.
Christ alone breaks the pattern of Spiritual Domination by the Clergy Class, but only for those who understand that the Clergy Class is not of His making, and is actually Demonic. Hard to get that message across to those who continue to be dominated, because, like Théoden King, their “minds have been overthrown.” A lot of the fighting that we see on sites like this are about the blind, impotent rage people feel when they realize they have been duped. They don’t know precisely what is wrong, but they have clues. And when they see any of the “warning signs” of despotism, they attack. When they see a Great Leader who seems to agree with their plight, they sometimes attach themselves to such a Great Leader. No matter how incomprehensible.
JustaLayman,
What do you mean by “the Bible is the basis of truth”?
And can a person understand the bible without being saved first?
Just a layman… welcome. Thanks for you comment.
I’ll wait for your response to Argo before I follow up on your observations.
Hope to hear from you soon.
John
One cannot touch “couch” any easier than he can touch “blue”. It always boils down to this: what physically IS, which is infinite. And how it is conceptualized, which is a product of the observer and makes that which is infinite relatively finite, with the absolute reference being the observer.