Sex and Power: What’s Up With Sovereign Grace Ministries?

How many witnesses does Challies need?  There are far more than the biblical "2" witnesses.  There are hundreds of witnesses.  Let's stop this insanity.

Challies' article is ridiculous.  He is certainly part of the ol' boy system.  See for yourself:  http://boarsheadtavern.com/2013/02/28/36079/#more-36079

This is a proper response to abuse in church and it is written by a pastor:  http://goo.gl/8EEkX

Mohler and Mahaney are definitely in it together.  SGM headquarters recently moved to be next to Mohler and Co in Louisville.  They have financial dealings with each other - each having donated thousands of dollars to each other:  http://kinnon.tv/2011/07/c-j-mahaney-semper-reformanda-or-not-so-much.html#comment-5199 

I've been watching the responses on other SGM articles posted here on SharperIron and the silence is pretty deafening.    Why is that?    What does it take before one says to another brother:  "hey, buddy, I think in the light of these strong allegations presented by multiple witnesses, you ought to step aside until this thing gets resolved."  Is anyone doing that?    Even if they are not a part of SGM church?   Or does it become "not my business" because I'm not a part of SGM?   Help me understand the logic of this silence, please. 
 

 

 

 

Tim Challies article is quite odd, and for me disappointing.   He says he hardly knows C. J. Mahaney after being a major SGM cheerleader for years.  I can understand his need to put distance there for his own reputation's sake, but it seems so transparent, why bother?  It looks bad.  Then he claims he will only read newspaper accounts to find out what's going on with SGM. What? Do not the public actions of churches, open letters from former SGM "apostles" and countless testimonies from former members and former pastors mean nothing?  There are public witnesses to incredibly poor shepherding, extreme legalism, abuse and cover up.  In the Tomczak case, probable blackmail. (This is not gossip, but rather an open claim). 

Challies also says we are to "think the best" about Mahaney.  But why isn't that extended to the hundreds of Mahaney detractors trying to expose very dark things in SGM, many of which are openly acknowledged by former leaders and exiting churches.  The abused sheep have as much right to be "thought the best of" as the shepherd, don't they? 

I am baffled  why Mahaney is so special, since other ministries are criticized or attacked for their errors all the time.  I can only conclude it is in fact the cultivated friendships he has made and shared events that have entangled so many with him publicly.

When the shepherds don't speak up for the sheep, God intervenes and the foundations of men begin to crumble.  That appears to be happening in very dramatic ways.  May the truth come out and the lessons the Lord wants to teach the church at large be received with proper humility.

Is this a true statement? "There have been no criminal charges of any kind"

Help me figure this out. Thanks

S/I I'm sure misses some important news .... but if you follow the tag = Sovereign Grace Ministries, the most recent news was a civil case (not a criminal case).

A criminal case is the state against a defendant. Such was the case with Jack Schaap. 

------- Please any attorney on S/I jump in and correct me -------

 

 

 

I've been watching the responses on other SGM articles posted here on SharperIron and the silence is pretty deafening.    Why is that?

It would be similar to why you don't see a lot of discussion on abuses within the Roman Catholic Church. It isn't that people aren't concerned or are defending the wrongdoing... but there is a lack of familiarity with the parties among the SI membership, so there isn't as much to say.

I'm not saying SGM is in the same doctrinal category as the RCC- but since they are not cessationists, they would be somewhat foreign to the vast majority of SI members, whose knowledge would be that they publish music, and that's where CJ Mahaney, Joshua Harris, and Bob Kauflin go to church... (That's somewhat tongue in cheek...)

I have to disagree, rather strongly, that there is a lack a familiarity with the parties among the SI membership. Maybe some but not with the consistent participants and certainly not the Administrators and Moderators.

If you type "Mahaney" into a search of comments with no ending dates (like the last 60 days or something) you will get 16 pages of comments, never mind what was provided as a link of SI articles with a plethora of response at the beginning of the article.

Secondly, many here are not only quite aware but quite regular participants or involvers in Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Reformed circles, not to mention a few semi-circles with some tolerant classic or orthodox Calvinist and Reformed, in which Mahaney has been celebrated and promoted as a leader and Teacher to be followed.

But it does not end there. It does creep into Fundamentalism, via NIU and Matt Olson who is embracing a relationship with the charismatic SGM movement with Mahaney as its head. I believe it is a hard case to make of unfamiliarity.

_____________

There is a very ugly reality going on, however in the broad spectrum. If this were observed as the doings of a Baptist Fundamentalist with his associates circling the wagons, blazing fire would be summoned by those who are allegedly so concerned about cover-ups and Evangelical/Fundamental ecclesiastical/spiritual abuse. But it isn't by a Baptist Fundamentalist, this time it is institutional and systemic abuse developed and implemented by the oversight of CJ Mahaney who was not qualified to lead a ministry in the first place. This time, those who have crusaded have one of their own to deal with and now you see the depth of their conviction, rather shallow to say the least.

Al Mohler (and all of his SBC and Southern Seminary resources), Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Russell Moore, Carl Trueman, Ray Ortland, Kevin DeYoung, T4G, The Gospel Coalition,Tim Challies and of course Ed Stetzer of Lifeway which has published and profited from Mahaney's books along with the some of the others above (I pick out Ed Stetzer especially for his hypocrisy in criticizing Baptist Fundamentalist for being slow and ineffective if not indifferent with the Hyles/Schaap systemic issues and subsequent problems vs his now "silent as a lamb and as complicit as Bonnie was to Clyde" treatment of the CJ Mahaney systemic abuse and rotten theology) all are now and will continue to be unable to mount concerns. They are doing the very thing that occurred to protect FBCH and its leader, Hyles and later, Schaap though Schaap's event, while sensational with regard to publicity, pales in comparison to all that Hyles did negatively during his reign.

I understand the care of another brother but this man, CJ Mahaney, has been unfit for ministry from the beginning. The money trail that the Wartburg Watch uncoverd regarding Al Mohler and Southern Seminary in which Mahaney's stature and promotion rose corresponding with the amount SGM(under his direction) gave to the school is the most rotten kind of smell one can encounter in ministry.

You will continue to hear the silence, you will continue to watch the wagons circle and many of you will foolishly continue to feed at the troughs of these men. They have a duty to remove CJ Mahaney from public ministry if possible either directly or withholding their approval and trust and certainly should abstain from partnering with Mahaney if he insists on continuing it independently, until this matter can be settled. If the church or SGM, I should say, wishes to continue to pay Mahaney until it is settled, that is reasonable and fine. The numbers of people affected and their volume is too great for anything else. And until these men take a position of such, they ought to be considered not having the best interest of the body of Christ in mind which is your interest and should be rebuked and avoided with regard to the acceptance and promotion of their ministry.

_________

As to the Internet Monk article. While I do not agree with all the theological views of the women or men of the Wartburg watch, I do agree with the matters of fact in the case of CJ Mahaney, much of the concerns are these.

Even assuming all your points have merit, a personal familiarity with public personalities or the presence of individuals raised in Fundamentalist circles flirting and meandering in those directions does not mean that people are intimately acquainted with the way specific churches function in that movement. If you compare the attention given to the situations involving Schaap or Phelps, for example, more was said at SI than elsewhere simply because it was closer to home and more of the SI membership is familiar with how such circumstances would unfold in an IFB church- not to mention we had members with various degrees of personal observation and experience in the situation.

Being familiar with an author or speaker does not make one an expert, say, on their personal life as a husband or father, or how they treat retail staff when they go to a store or restaurant. Knowing who a celebrity pastor is doesn't mean that you know how his church is run, or what the conduct of members in affiliated churches is.

I am merely observing that most SI readers are unable to say much more that, "wow, that's an outrage," which doesn't make for a very interesting comment thread. There isn't a lot of room for disagreement or discussion, since no one has much new or controversial to bring to the table, which is generally what makes threads get posting attention.

Somewhat related example: This thread shows up among the "Month most viewed" entries at SI. There is no commentary at all, though. What does one say about the matter? What else is there to say? Does that mean no one cares? I would say not, judging by the attention of people reading. Something similar is probably happening here. There are people who would be or are outraged, but don't know enough to say much, and no one has said anything here that is controversial to respond to.

No but then according to your threshold, "expert" you would not be permitted to raise any concerns about much of anything and no such threshold exists as a socially ratified prerequisite to express concern and both explore and present facts as well as understanding those facts and the trend of evidence and neither does the Word of God require such an expertise or assume it, it requires discernment, wisdom and honesty and that is becoming more and more distant with these men whose integrity is legitimately being called into question with their complicity and resistance in the matter. So as to the claim of innocence that one is "uninformed thus they cannot speak", while it might hold at the moment it does not hold for long seeing that when such controversy is part of the body of Christ it is incumbent upon believers to inform themselves that they may, indeed, know from whom to separate and with whom they may fellowship. Ignorance is not a valid plea as a way of dealing with an issue once one discovers they are ignorant about matters (I am speaking generally here).

So, in fact, the people speaking about Phelps or Schaap were not experts or intimately familiar with the details but they spoke and loudly and many who were not familiar enough to form reasonable views and express their concerns, made themselves aware, they did inform themselves. I don't have to be an expert to watch the Neo-Calvinist covered wagons circling.

No but then according to your threshold, "expert" you would not be permitted to raise any concerns about much of anything and no such threshold exists as a socially ratified prerequisite to express concern and both explore and present facts as well as understanding those facts and the trend of evidence and neither does the Word of God require such an expertise or assume it, it requires discernment, wisdom and honesty and that is becoming more and more distant with these men whose integrity is legitimately being called into question with their complicity and resistance in the matter.

Well, whatever, else, that's one really long sentence...

But to your point, I'm not arguing permission. I'm observing established connections and amount of invested interest. Read "expert" however you want, but all I meant was knowing who an author like some of the names mentioned in SGM churches doesn't mean people know about practical issues like church polity and so on. I know that speaking personally, I have never lived in an area that had an SGM church, myself. I don't know anything about how they function, other than what limited reading I've done online. My familiarity is limited to knowing who some of their authors are and so on. I've never heard any of them speak or attended a conference where they were featured.

I haven't chimed in on much lately at SI, but I did have a more vested interest in the other two stories that have been raised because of where I ministered in the past and circles of influence I was raised in. Others' reasons are different from mine, but there are among the SI membership a significant percentage who would have less institutional connection and investment in the SGM situations than they would in BJU/IFB connected ones. Like I said earlier, it is similar to how SI members don't spend a lot of time discussing sexual deviancy among Catholic priests. There just isn't the deep investment or familiarity to warrant the collective interest.

But I could be wrong. If so, people certainly don't need my permission to comment.

Jay said:

 

But I have no time or patience with rehashing all the things that someone may or may not have done and reiterating all the details.  Let the police and courts deal with the criminal stuff.  

Very interesting sentences here, Jay.  The victims were prevented from letting police deal with the criminal "stuff."  They were told that it would be wrong to report to police.  Have you read the lawsuit?  One of the complaints is that church leaders interfered with parents who were attempting to report.  They wanted crimes to remain within the church because they thought they could deal with it better than civil authorities.  

"Let the church deal with it's own mess, including excommunicating their own, where that's appropriate."

The church wasn't dealing with its own mess.  Corrupt leaders stood by other corrupt leaders and allowed the cover-up of abuse (including allowing pedophiles access to children) to continue.  This is what caused families to join together to file a civil lawsuit.

I sure hope someone has some patience with rehashing.  This needs to be resolved once and for all. 

There is plenty of responsibility to go around in these situations. Leadership becomes enamored of their own power and begins to manipulate Scripture to maintain their position. This eventually sears their conscience to the point where what are obviously unconscionable acts are tolerated, and perpetrators are protected in a warped effort to preserve a 'greater good'. They claim the greater good is ministry, which is Christian code for their paycheck.

These problems are not particular to religious organizations or a specific denomination. Predators look for easy prey, and people who are vulnerable are found in schools, doctor's offices, law enforcement, office buildings, and families. Any time we place the 'good' of preserving the status quo over upholding morality, Biblical principles, and the protection of the weak and innocent, those weak and innocent will be victimized.

However, once a person realizes their own victimization, they become responsible to do something about it. Yes, they've been hurt, betrayed, and violated. They are mentally and emotionally lying on the floor in pieces. But part of their healing will come from putting those pieces back together, standing up for themselves, and bringing about justice. Those around them are responsible to support them and encourage them to get the help they need- legal, physical, spiritual, and psychological. 

Our family was in a church where a turnover in leadership began a descent into all kinds of abuse and immorality. We did what we could to address leadership on many occasions, but were patronized and ignored. Eventually our conscience overcame our reluctance to leave, and we removed ourselves from the congregation, dealing with all the fallout of gossip and loss of friends. However, many who were supportive of our actions, knowing and even experiencing everything that we did, are still there, tithing and supporting this ministry because they'd rather be with the devil they know. Now those relationships are being left behind, because I can't in good conscience be in a relationship with someone who refuses to  address immorality. I don't want to be with the 'devil' of any stripe.

It's also easy to tell people to report things to law enforcement, but we have done so on more than one occasion, and the fact is, law enforcement will not take on every case, even with evidence. A member of the aforementioned church, who is also a cop, claimed that he searched my son's record and found charges against him for sexual offenses, and went around 'warning' people about him. First, this is in itself a felony called 'tampering with LEDS'. Second, there are no such charges against my son, so this 'Christian' cop was lying. This guy then coerced his daughter into filing rape charges against my son (as in "If I don't do what my dad says, he'll beat me"). These charges were dropped, not only because of a lack of evidence (not one trace of her DNA was found in his apartment where she claimed the attack happened), but she also wrote to my son to apologize and admitted in writing that she lied.

The police are also aware that she said her dad beats her, as this was in her letter, which was admitted as evidence. Then her father followed my son around a mall and into the parking lot, and threatened his life in public, (as in "I'm going to blank kill you, you blank blank blank") in front of witnesses. Cameras recorded him following my son around the mall, hiding behind clothing racks, and also into the parking lot. His car was not parked anywhere near my son's, so he had no reason to be in that section of the parking lot. The altercation itself was not on camera, but a couple of his friends were there and gave an account to the police. My son called my husband when he saw he was being followed, and my husband could hear someone screaming at him through the phone. After all this, the police decided that there wasn't enough evidence to continue investigating or press charges.

The church rallies around this psychopath, of course, claiming that the rape charges are probably true anyway, that the father was justified in making those threats, and that even if the charges were false, my son has probably done 'other things' that warrant these attacks, so he 'deserves' whatever they throw at him. It's a bunch of sick people enabling other sick people. 

I said all that to say, having experienced this situation, we know that while it is still important to report things to law enforcement, there is no guarantee that an investigation will happen or that justice, on this earth, will be done. 

Every single one of us has to do what we can where we are, and try not to be discouraged.  

I think it's easy to point fingers at these 'big names', but what are we doing about the problems we see in our own churches, and in our own lives? Are we tolerating immorality in ourselves, our spouses, our kids, our family, and in our church? Don't expect from others what you don't demand from yourself. 

I thought the Phelps thing was bad.  From what I've read Mahaney's appears worse.  But I think Susan hits it on the head below.  This will change when individuals and congregations are willing to take responsibility and hold both themselves and their leaders accountable. 

 

If I may, I'd like to share a bit about the culture of SGM.  I've been studying it over 5 years now.  I've been part of churches with similar teachings/philosophies which is what originally led me to the SGM survivor blogs - they were telling my story.

SGM and similar church groups have difficulty labeling what society would consider as  "crimes".  They keep it labeled as "sin", instead.   In SGM, there is a focus on the Cross, with not much mention of grace and the resurrection.  This creates a strong emphasis on sin.  I've heard the word "sin-sniffing" to describe it.  Care group leaders were encouraged to keep track of members and their sins and report it to pastors.  There is an obsessive amount of introspection of sin in one's personal life as well as the life of others.  This creates an oppressive church environment.

When word got to church leaders about sex abuse, it was not thought of as a crime (which should have been the obvious response), but as a sin issue.  Keep in mind the culture of extreme focus on sin.  In SGM culture, the most important thing is someone's spiritual health.  The idea of turning someone over to authority would in their mind, it would not benefit someone spiritually because obviously civil authorities do not address the heart issue of sin.  So pastors/church leaders took it upon themselves to make sure these sins (crimes) were dealt with in-house.  For some reason, they overlook Romans 13:1 in an attempt to achieve their goal of complete repentance and reconciliation between perpetrator and abused.  

In one incident mentioned in the lawsuit,  parents were told by church leaders to take their young toddler sex abuse victim to a meeting in which the sexual perpetrator was present in an effort to reconcile the two.  The toddler saw the perpetrator and hid beneath the table, crying.  You see, in this culture, the sin of unforgiveness and bitterness is every bit as evil as the sexual sin committed against the child.  The hyper-Calvinist thought of sin comes into play here - all are sinners, not one sin is more sinful than the other.  Equal amount of emphasis is placed on the victim to forgive the perpetrator as the perpetrator to repent.  

One very destructive pattern I've seen as a result of this obsession on sin and the cross without the balance of grace, love, mercy, and resurrection is that people question their salvation over and over again.  This becomes a pattern and it gets so spiritually and emotionally overwhelming that many feel they can never measure up (we really can't measure up, but they are missing the point of grace), and they abandon church altogether.  

One of SGM founders, Brent Detwiler published a 600+-page document in which he chronicles the behind-the-scenes correspondence and happenings, showing how church leaders attempted to show CJ Mahaney how he was out of line.  If you take a look at some of the correspondence between leaders, you should be able to easily see this "sin-sniffing" culture.  http://www.scribd.com/sgmwikileaks

 

Alex,

I endorsed one book, edited by Mahaney.  I would do that again in a heartbeat because I can't find any similarly helpful books on the subject, as I mentioned in the post you linked to.

I also said I *like* Mahaney.  I've listened to some of his Resolved sermons, and that's it, as I also already said.

So your point is...what exactly? 

Have a pleasant and restful evening, brother.  Looking forward to meeting you in Glory some day.

Why should I make any comments on a situation which doesn't come even tangentially close to my life and ministry.

It sure seemed a lot of people who had no connections with Penn State made comments about the sex scandal there.

Maybe. But not here at SI. Does that mean SI readers were approving of Sandusky?

Sorry Guys,

 

Julie Ann does have a point.  I think Sandusky was covered here.   No one defended him.  But I think that is the point.  Like I said, since I have been made aware of the SGM mess, I am disheartened and upset.  Because, any time abuse is downplayed, it is wicked and those who did it should be called out.  Many have anecdotal evidence of other big name pastors that have done this type of thing.  I will say this as lovingly and clear as I can.   Any pastor (including me - and by God's grace I haven't done this) that deals with an abuser (sexual, physical) in a downplayed way is wrong and has sinned.   He may have had some good intentions, he may have thought it was in the best interest of his church, but he dead wrong.  What the late Joe Paterno did was horrible.  But there have been pastors that have done similar things.  When a pastor counsels a family to let the perpetrator to go quietly, he has acted in the same way as Paterno.  That pastor has sinned against God, he has sinned against his church, he has sinned against the victim and the victim's family (as well as future victims), and he has sinned against the criminal.  Imagine how many people would have been protected had Paterno done the right thing when he found out.

 

Imagine how many people have been protected had leadership of SGM had done the right thing, many people would have been protected.  So while I think you are right to say this was not on our Radar, it was not.  But now that it is, and if this is verified, we should say what it is - sinful. 

Notice, I have not been specific with names.  Right now what is important is that we learn from this.  We can't tolerate it in our congregations, and we can't tolerate our friends tolerating.  Since these scandals broke I have said more than once in various places is this:  As a group fundamentalists have been rightfully hard on how the Catholic church handled their sinful problems.  But we have been soft on ourselves - even when there is hard evidence.  If we can speak out when a church has the wrong music, or wrong dress, then we ABSOLUTELY must speak out when a church protects preditors.  If we do not, then we look like frauds, and there is an element of truth in that.

 

Greg,

Back when the RCC scandals broke years ago, I heard it mentioned from the pulpits in many churches (that was pre-internet).  I even heard from pulpits that we would never tolerate that.  Well, clearly it has at times been tolerated.  What makes us look like frauds is to pull the "don't rush to judgment card' even a year into a situation.  That does make us look like frauds, IMO.

Maybe I a coming across stronger than I mean.  Everything I said I believe is true in a general sense.  I am not saying everyone or even the majority here feel this way (or in Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism for that matter).  But I do think there is a element of truth in what Julie Ann is saying.  I do think for a long time, many pastors have had the default position of protecting the church's reputation first.  That was wrong.

My perception of that comment was the same, and I agree. I've been involved with forums, especially Christian forums, for 15 years, and there is just no way to predict or explain why some posts receive lots of comments while others don't. It is an inappropriate waste of time to make judgments about people's thoughts and motives based on a lack of response or lots of responses. 

The first time I heard of Mahaney was because I was reading a couple of books with my kids by Josh Harris and his brothers, and I did some searching that led to articles about Mahaney or by him, I don't remember exactly. I then picked up one of his books, Worldliness, and thought it was fine, as far as that goes. 

We may not be able to speak particularly about Mahaney or SGM, but this topic, IMO, can't ever be discussed enough. We must constantly remain on guard in our personal lives, as well as where we work, play, and worship.

To some degree I don't particularly care from whence abuse comes- it exists in every place that people get together, because there are always going to be those who delight in taking advantage of the weak or defenseless. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place for a child is in their home and with their family. That is the most tragic notion of all.

But churches and schools, places we want to consider 'safe', are often the most problematic. Predators go where the prey is. If you are a pastor or in ministry, you need to not be naive about this. Dennis Raider, for example, was considered to be a very attentive husband and father. He worked for a company that installed security systems in homes. He had the reputation of being a stickler for rules and propriety, was a respected leader in his church and in Cub Scouts. Who is Dennis Raider, you ask? He is the BTK Killer, responsible for the murders of at least ten people. Everyone who knew him was stunned to find out that he was a serial killer. 

Some might think that this is an extreme example, but if you think this is not possible in your church, then your congregation and your family are sitting ducks. 

The best defense continues to be taking responsibility to educate oneself and one's children against the tactics used by predators- be they sexual, emotional, or spiritual wolves. If you know what the Bible says about authority, you know that your husband, your wife, your employer, the pastor, and others in church leadership, do not get a pass for misconduct because of that position or relationship. Family unity, church unity, and submission have never, EVER meant following someone into sinful behavior, or tolerating the wickedness of others in silence.