"Over the last few years some former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace have made charges against me ..."

I may disagree with some of CJ's theology, but I greatly respect the man. I find his transparency & humility refreshing.

But he didn't say anything other than he offended some pastors and he is taking a year off. But it wasn't "immoral".

I'll be the first in line to offend someone so I can get a year off. I probably already have done that with this post.

Questions unanswered by the press release:
1. How has the leader of Sovereign Grace been less than gracious?
2. Why does repentance take a year to accomplish?
3. Why does it take an outside pannel of people they don't usually get along with to help them become more gracious?
4. Why does he expect to have the right to come back to the same position?
5. Why make a big production of this? He should just go to the ones he has offended, ask forgiveness, offer restitution and announce to those who know about it that it is gone.

Color me cynical.

I'm not so sure the things he's mentioned as sin problems are a result of his bad theology. Maybe, but more likely they're the result of his sin nature. What I find disconcerting in fundamentalism (and the reason I find CJ's statement refreshing) is the preponderance of fundamentalist "men of God" who act like they have apostolic authority (without owning the title with a capital "A"), but one dare not suggest they might be guilty of "pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, [or] hypocrisy."

CJ Mahaney is a great communicator and teacher of the Bible. I've heard him speak a few times, and his speaking gifts are evident. However I don't think his ecclesiology was developed enough to catch up with his huge personality. Here's a video of some impersonation of CJ at his church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ZOfeeTwVc

When I saw this video, I thought, you know that's funny because it's true. But then you have a feeling that something about the exchange shows that the culture of the church is just too concentrated on one man. This would bury even the strongest Christian in pride.

He would be the first to say he struggles with humility. Here's a relevant sermon by CJ on this subject that may be edifying.

http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/2007/03/deflating-the-puffed-up-...

Unfortunately, the SGM system concentrated too much power in "the Apostles" over churches. I hope they'll change their ecclesiology after this event. I don't think anyone would be able handle the cocktail of power and acclaim his church gave to him.

This is a relatively young movement that is seeing a course correction, and this will be healthy for them. Pray for them to be more healthy instead of casting stones.

Alex,

Dever isn't gullible. He just knows how to rank issues in order of importance. I'm sure he's been frank with CJ over their 20 year friendship on his concerns with the parts of doctrine they disagree on. He's spoken at Capitol Hill regularly, but on things CJ is strong in.

Also of note, CJ was deep into drugs before his conversion (in the same neighborhood of Capitol Hill). I'm sure that's effected some of his personality, so I think we can cut him some slack and be understanding with him and rejoice in how far God's grace has brought him.

Shayne

I am not very familiar with Mahaney, though I am currently reading his book on humility (not because of the controversy, just a happy coincidnence. It's quite good, by the way). What I have appreciated about the Sovereign Grace folks is their emphasis on the Gospel as relates to sanctification and holiness. The book Mahaney edited on Worldliness takes on a subject frighteningly ignored by most Evangelicals, while at the same time stands well above so much that Fundamentalism has to offer, especially regarding the believer and culture. They have also made significant efforts to raise the level of doctrinal content in contemporary Christian worship music, and that deserves credit as well. That's all I know.

Still, I am perplexed by the nature of these problems, and think it would be beneficial to know if these issues regarding Mahaney are simply his own short-comings, or something more deeply rooted in how they structure their church/movement, or something in their theology.

Shayne offered some brief thoughts on structure that led me to want to know more. (What sort of "Apostles" do they have?) Does anyone know more about the nature of these problems that would be genuinely helpful to consider?

A source that might be of interest concerning the excesses and charges of abuse by SGM/Mahaney can be found at:

SGMSURVIVORS

Now I know that disaffected people exist everywhere but this site isn't alone and certainly dismissing them all as malcontents is just deliberate blindness. There are links there to other like sites but the site alone has a library of documented issues.

As to the "system" being at fault and not CJ Mahaney, well Mahaney is the one of its architects and its long time head so let's not blame "the system" or provide the "any one of us could have done this" excuse. Besides it is far more than pride issues that are at the crux of this controversy.

Consider the person who suddenly becomes very ill and it comes to light that he has ingested poison. Now not all people who ingest poison become ill. And not all illnesses are due to ingesting poison. But in these cases, it is prudent to strongly consider the possibility that there is some link between the poison and the illness - especially if the symptoms of the illness are consistent with one who has been poisoned - and provide medical treatment accordingly.

So, if this seems so sensible when it comes to medicine, why are we so reticent when it comes to theology? After all, it isn't our word, based on our human authority, that bad theology leads to bad practice. Instead, the Bible itself says so. Yes, lots of people with sound theology exhibit bad practice. It is equally true that lots of incidents of nausea and vomiting aren't caused by ingesting poison. If we are going to for all intents and purposes deny the link between bad theology and bad practice, then why bother with insisting on correct theology, so long as the doctrinal errors don't rise to the level of heresy/apostasy (i.e. denying the Holy Trinity or asserting salvation by works)?

And yes, the "new Calvinist" movement is disturbingly tolerant those exhibiting serious problems with their doctrines and practice within their ranks. However, in fairness, by doing so they are no little different from contemporary evangelicals in general.

No, it isn't as old as Scripture itself, it is about 25 years old. Now, the thread is not about Piper and I certainly am not going to get into a protracted debate about the what I am others believer are novel and injurious elements of Piper's teaching but I have considered doing a protracted series on many of the alarming statements and erring views of Piper along with his damaged hermeneutic at my own blog that is contained in his Christian Hedonism. However, it remains to be seen if time will be allotted for such an endeavor. My hope is this makes it clear as an answer to your inquiry as to whether or not I have read the book (in other words one cannot do a series on a book without ever having read it so need I state the obvious?).

But in the mean time you can read these critiques of CH which deal with some fundamenmentally errant teachings from the book:

A Critical Examination of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism"

Reasonable Christian: A Critique of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" by Manuel Kuhs

Finally, while you may respond to this post, beyond this momentary sidebar, the OP is my interest and for further discussion if you wish to create a thread devoted to discussing the issue of Piper's Christian Hedonism, I will happily participate.

Grace and courage? Essentially CJ Mahaney's hand is being forced after years of unresponsiveness. I am sure the people whom he was essentially threatening with a form of blackmail didn't benefit from his book on humility as much as the rest of those that "didn't know what was going on". Feel free to read the documents at the Survivors website which has a link to them. They are shocking.

Remember, this isn't about anything CJ Mahaney may have said, whether by accident or deliberately, that was true or any of his actions that were either incidentally or by design to be good, but the numerous things he said and did that belie and betray his own words and teachings and his position(s) and were grievous offenses against many.

Here is an excerpt from an article on this that is worth reading at The Warburg Watch:

BTW for those of you interested in the Dever/Mohler/Mahaney connection and his odd ascension to partnership with these men at T4G via Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, here is another interesting article from the Wartburg Watch The Mahaney Money Machine (the article does include some conjecture which should be taken just as that but does systematically document the rise of the Dever/Mohler/Mahaney relationship and T4G conferencing together as Mahaney's increased his contributions to SBTS).

Finally, for those of you who have the time and courage to read the documents a reflection at Bene Diction Blogs On says a great deal about what is in them and what to expect:

I slogged through much of the first document (it was a book!) on the wiki leaks. Not because I delight in scandal, but I can honestly say I knew almost nothing of Sovereign Grace Ministries and CJ Mahaney. Only knowing that he has written some books, and that he seemed to lean toward charismatic practice. My comments have nothing to do with CJ Mahaney because I had a hard time following the language employed in the documents accusing him of such things. And the accusations seemed primarily about internal issues such as pride, lording, etc. Something that would be the situation for everyone. But there were a few things that really disturbed me and has even shaken my confidence in something that I did not even know was connected to CJ Mahaney--Sovereign Grace Music (which I enjoy the lyrics much).

• The lingo employed in the wikkileaks documents. It seemed that the SGM organization was filled with its own specific language and vocabulary. It kind of reminds me of mormonism (not doctrinally, but in having their own way of saying things). Red flags pop up to me when a group all talks the same way. Maybe I am overly suspicious but they constantly talked about caring for one another, but they obviously had a specific action in mind, not just the general principle of being thoughtful. It seemed like the "care" for one another was another way of saying watching each other for the smallest of manifestations of sin.

My opinion as one who had no opinion but was intrigued because I have been blessed by various offshoots of Sovereign Grace Ministries (and I feel rather embarrassed that I never really realized there was even a connection between CJM and Sovereign Grace and Bob Kauflin before), was that the structure and organization is a dangerous feeder of pride and ego. When anyone is placed within an "untouchable" state their is bound to develop "cultish" tendencies within any group. My opinion, the best thing for SG churches is to hold to their reformed beliefs, become independent, and just stick with the Word instead of insisting upon being charismatics. Of course, my opinion is my opinion and anything but authoritative. I came away thanking God for a local church where I can minister the Word and the men of the church are truly my brothers and will keep me accountable. I don't have a governing board to keep me accountable I have a flock of sheep (really they are God's) who will not tolerate nonsense, dictatorship, and anything but the Word of God explained and expounded.

My two cents for what the pennies are worth.

And leakers tend to be selective in what they leak. So one thing can sound far worse without the context of another.

No one has suggested that but the situation and the seriousness of the protracted offenses and refusal to acknowledge them and deal with them by Mahaney is marginalized, dare I say even more abuse heaped on those who have been abused, when we refer to his finally coming to some terms with what he has done as courage.

Perhaps but it has no bearing on how the situation by Mahaney should be viewed and fortunately I am not an IFB so any assumptions I may be prejudice on their behalf (not by you but by other readers) can be laid to rest.

No one is chastising Mahaney for his current limited acknowledgment of his gross offenses. However, and again, it is merely more abuse to act as if he, Mahaney, is doing something out of great personal sacrifice or integrity to make a generic admission of his shame, again his hand was forced.

We must have a thorough knowledge of these things as a Teacher at large and as we discover their highly aggravated level, then we, too, have a biblical right to voice our concerns for someone who has both personally and by men whose judgment should now be called into question, been elevated as an acceptable model and teacher for Evangelical Christians.

If these charges are true, and it appears Mahaney is, at least in part, admitting to them, then a "temporary leave of absence" is far from in order but a much longer one that is on the same scale of a Pastor or Teacher at large being caught in adultery, theft and so on.

The literature fully documents spiritual tyranny of the worst kind. I find it hard knowing all of what went on and the plethora of pastoral/apostolic abuses to find a cause for admiring Mahaney. But then he wrote a couple of books that people liked and were "edified by" so, hey what's the big deal, right?

Please correct me if I am wrong, Alex, but didn't you urge caution and express concern about the views and allegations found on the IFB survivors page? But you take at face value those on the SGM survivors page?

No, no "elevation" here. I'm simply encouraged that some kind of step towards repentance seems to be taking place and wait to see the outcome without making predetermined judgments.

Alex: As someone who is relatively unfamiliar with C.J. Mahaney or SGM, and as someone who does not have time to go through 600 pages of documents, whether founded or unfounded, I would have welcomed an actual summary of Mr. Detwiler's documents. Unfortunately, the post at Coffee Trader that you recommend is not such a summary. It is a diatribe. Mahaney and SGM may or may not be guilty of the charges apparently lodged by Mr. Detwiler. But rants such as the the one at Coffee Trader lack credibility because they are so agenda-driven. The same is true of posts describing such rants as "an excellent summary" or a "compressed but succinct account" of the underlying documents.

This thread is not about me and it is not going to be made about me. This is just the kind of tactic one finds CJ Mahaney using responding to others when confronted about his spiritual tyranny and forms of ecclesiastical despotism. If you don’t want to discuss the topic, if you do not like the thoughts in the links shared, fine but I, personally, am not the topic so that will not be discussed.

As to agendas, mine is exactly what I have read not only in the documents but have observed in Mahaney’s teaching over the years which is publicly available and and which one can read about from a multitude of resources as well.

But speaking of agendas, so you say you haven’t read the 600 pages and are relatively unfamiliar with CJ Mahaney and SGM yet believe you are qualified to render an opinion about the summary? That is what is called, an agenda, my friend. Amusing but sad. I am not sure what you were taught in your legal training but I hope it wasn’t this as a method of discovery.

I read the documents the moment they were available so I believe I do have enough information to at least render an opinion on them and any summary about them. While the sarcasm might not be to the liking of some, the body of information about the facts contained in the documents, the timeline and the significant points, are all there without embellishment to the facts (again accompanied by a commentary but then this is what the article is, a summary with a commentary and by the time one gets to the end of the 600 pages and then reads the summary, I believe they would not only appreciate the sarcasm but agree the writer actually went quite light).

As to this whle long-term abuse by CJ proving that there “is no church or theological system that is above the temptation to abuse authority, whether it be Roman Catholicism, Conservative Evangelicalism, or Fundamentalism”, this is what is called the obvious. In other words the obvious need not proven and that is not what this is about. Seeking to segue into generic discussions only obfuscates what is really at stake and at issue, here. Long-terms specific offenses by a specific man in a system of which he was the architect and in which many people were abused, spiritually, and out of which he rose to claim prominence among the esteemed of Reformed circles, successfully duping both those leaders and hundreds of thousands as to the legitimacy of his ministry and his system of “counting sins” now coming back to force his hand, force his “temporary self-removal” and force many, many valid questions about it and related issues.

1. What is does prove is that many people are unwilling, themselves, to do their due diligence and some, even turn a deaf ear to a long, long trail of spiritual abused bodies who have spoken out, long ago. Do you think these groups just shot up a week before? Do you think it is one large conspiracy or that they are all lying, embellishing and so on and CJ Mahaney and his account is the only true one? Well, these people have existed for quite some time and now CJ conveniently became contrite right after learning about the going public of the documents demonstrating his offenses. I’m sorry but there is a bit more to discover and learn about CJ Mahaney’s sudden bout of humility and contrition, and of all things, sitting around applauding that he is now, as one person said, double knot humble, is simply ludicrous in light of these events. IMO.

2. What it does prove is that while CJ Mahaney is happy to specifically name what he did not do, adultery and so on, he only is willing to generically admit to his disciples both in SGM and at large, what it is of which he is guilty. But, for the benefit of the doubt, though rightly suspicious, I will wait until the end of the matter to see if CJ Mahaney eventually admits, specifically, to the offenses. Some might wonder why he needs to make a public naming of his offenses. Well, if his ministry was limited to his local church or even his sect, he wouldn’t, he would only need answer to them. But he accepted the role as Teacher at large in the body of Christ when he publicly published his books and engaged in conference speaking. And with that role comes the obligation to his students to explain his erring and offensive actions, practices and doctrines to these students. We’ll see.

3. What it does prove is that Mark Dever, Al Mohler, John Piper, Lingon Duncan, and unfortunately John MacArthur as well and a host of others failed, miserably, in their due diligence in researching and vetting Mahaney before allowing his entrance to their group and subsequent rapid elevation.

Frankly when someone who came from a group called “People of Destiny” and believes he is an Apostle and is embraced and promoted by these men, they deserve the questions about their judgment and they, too, need to answer for either their ignorance or whatever it was that went into their by-passing what would otherwise be doctrinal and practical standards which would have disqualified CJ Mahaney from ever being given the platform he was given.

You must understand, their sanction, their commission, brought an even broader scope of injury by CJ Mahaney. So the questions and inquiry need to be pursued. My hope is that these men (one or two notwithstanding) who are normally perspicacious in their practices, will learn a long, hard lesson in their failing to be the gatekeepers they are charged to be and inviting a long-term spiritual abuser into their midst, mostly due to what appears to be gaining such an entrance because of his guise of Calvinism/Reformed theology.

I have yet to complain about being visible but I am sure you would like me to disappear so only those things you wish to hear were being post, as well nor has anyone made CJ Mahaney out to be an evil reprobate particularly me, your high drama speak poorly of your interest in being objective, to say the least. I am quite happy to be visible and leading the discussion, but let's stay on topic and I am not the topic. In fact I have not initiated any discussion about about myself, only responded to those issuing ad hominem attacks. So please stop and stay on topic. Thank you.

This has nothing to do with Reformed doctrine itself, again, that has not been approached but its ancillary presence is relevant to how CJ made his entrance into the Neo-Calvinist/Reformed oligarchy and the considerations of the failings of other men who commissioned and promoted him within their organization.

So again, when you have whatever you require in your mind and soul to talk about the issue and the implications, have at it, in the mean time I am not the bad guy nor am I the topic. In fact take a cue from Susan, the moderator, she demonstrates quite well how to disagree and rebut without ad hominem content.

As far as posting things or continuing to provide comments and links, that is called "commenting". But if it makes you feel better to call it stirring the pot, well that is your choice.

However, I am is rather nonplussed when you make the statement that "I" want to make this a major issue. Let me guess, it is a minor one? Are you kidding? Years of abuse and a meteoric rise through an unvetted process in the high ranks of the Neo-Calvinist/Reformed movement with the blessing and promotion of MacArthur, Mohler, Dever et al. and this is not a major issue? Well, to some it is and again, I am interested in those who wish to talk about the topic, not attempts to bully and intimidate others into silence.

If you do not have about the topic or content of posts, then don't. But I am not the topic. However, others may come along that do wish to talk about it, whether pro or con, without ad hominem distractions. Thank you.

I agree that sometimes timing detracts from our perception of sincerity, but let's balance it with a Biblical example such as David, who did not repent of his actions until Nathan said "Thou art the man". Let's also ask ourselves if every leader in Scripture who failed in some way was 'outed' in a public manner. I think that sometimes it is necessary, especially if faulty teaching has contributed to the misconduct and the ability of the offender to escape notice or confrontation. But not always.

I said in an earlier post, "I think what we must do when someone repents is accept it at face value until there is evidence to indicate some kind of deceit or manipulation." I have no problem with folks being circumspect about Mr. Mahaney's actions.

Worth repeating. Let's deal with the information we have, and feel free to question its veracity, but put away the crystal ball. They do make handy-dandy paperweights, ya'll.

At the blog, Paul's Passing Thoughts, I discovered what might be of interest to some of you which is a Genealogy Flow Chart of relationships which involves peripheral considerations to the topic at large.

In order to get a clearer picture I have contacted the blog owner and, of course, author of the chart with the request for a verbal articulation and justification for the relationships. He has graciously agreed to work on the project (the request was for a succinct summary so as to not rudely request a large task). As soon as I receive it I will provide that information.

Flow Chart of Relationships Including T4G, TGC, SGM, SBC, Gospel Sanctification, Westminster Seminary (Horton, Keller, Jack Miller and Sonship Theology), Christian Hedonism (Piper) and more. Again, alone it is just a flow chart but I have requested some articulation to demonstrate its validity by the author and hope to receive it in the near future.

I posted this morning something (#34) that directly called into question Alex's motives. That is a clear violation of the comment policy (C. 1 and C. 3), and I was wrong, so I'd like to apologize to Alex for actually making him the issue instead of the CJ Mahaney situation. Alex - will you forgive me for doing that?

Now we can get back on topic. Hint, hint.

Bro. Charlie said=

I've only read a couple of his books based on very high recommendations from others, and my general feeling was that they were good as far as the subject matter went, but I got no inkling of any larger picture. Obviously, there is one, and I think it would be helpful, considering in what high regard Mr. Mahaney is held, that more information about how his 'system' could have caused or perpetuated his misconduct be brought forward and examined.

For instance, how accurate is this chart (that Shaynus posted a link to earlier)?

In his sermon yesterday morning to Covenant Life Church, Joshua Harris conceded that they have problems with their leadership structure. He did not go into specifics about what needed to be changed or how they would do that, but he did admit it was "faulty" and that they intend to do something about it.

I understand the being baffled, somewhat, and possibly the commissioning by the TGC/T4G Teachers/Leaders makes it more so because having embraced Mahaney into their ranks assumes a due diligence on the part of those placing faith in their judgment.

But again, somewhat. With respect to Mahaney there is much to critique regarding his publications and sermons which I do not believe are of the substantial quality we are led to believe. Again, with the blessings and blurbs of esteemed men aiding in the lauch of a book, it may be we have read them with prejudice. But...this is not the time for such critiques so I will not go further.

What I am really responding to is the observation of the wholesale contradiction in Mahaney's general concessions, that things must be done the bible way and the use of biblical language, verses his practice. IMO this simply is much more widespread than we know, though in varying degrees. If we pulled back the covers to many ministries, as we have had done with with SGM, we would find much more to the contrary than what is said from their lips and published in their books. And I am not speaking about good but imperfect ministries, but ministries, many of them, which are, unbeknownst to many, quite politically and humanistically operated. As you even acknowledge, Mahaney's rise and lack of vetting with the TGC/T4G is concerning. And as I linked to, there is documentation in which his increased giving to SBTS paralleled his rise in the group. Not good at all.

To teach people one way and practice another is done all the time, inside the church and outside the church. Now the big question to me is why? Why do men do it and why are they enabled?

My only answer is that they do not take seriously what they are saying but they know what they are saying is what must be said in order to gain whatever it is they wish to gain. One cannot publish a book on Humility while in the midst of writing it and then publishing it and receiving and accepting recognition for it yet be living quite to the contrary of its tenets without seriously concluding that what the person is writing about isn't a subject he takes personally seriously, rather it has to be for some other reason(s).

Outside of Evangelical Christianity, Al Gore stands as a prime example to which we can compare ourselves. He preaches conservation and global warming but lives as if none of it is true. And when a man does that both his message and his ministry are morally without any authority and should not be used as a source for discipleship because in his work and his words will be hidden, inevitably, those very seeds of self-deception.

I agree we need to carefully consider sources. That's why I took a lot of time to read many posts. Some were people you might find mad at any church where they felt snubbed, or didn't like being confronted about their sin. Some were not believers so they grew up unsaved and don't get Christianity at all. But there were many, too many, who clearly articulated the problems I outlined above. They were not bitter. They were crushed. They manifest the same feelings and wounds you find in many who come from oppressive church envoronments where conformity reigns, questioning leaders is out of line, gray areas are made central, different standards exist for leaders and their families, etc. The phrase "sin-sniffing' appears over and over again.

Many of the "survivors" affirmed good things about SGM and the people there. In fact, the person who launched the "Survivors" site said they had not been mistreated at SGM, but noticed the many odd features that were so unlike Bible churches they had known and simply left. But I think it's very significant that Joshua Harris himself recommended that his people read the posts of the wounded. Harris also said the problems at SGM are worse than what we know already. That's why I say pray.

As for Mahaney. His behavior revealed in his own e-mails through the leaked documents is certainly below any acceptable standard of leadership. It's also enlightening to see where Mahaney came from. His background is from a heavy "shepherding" group where the leaders control every aspect of your life. He built a church polity that falls so easily in that direction that one can see how much of that thinking remains.

Yes, consider the sources carefully, but don't dismiss genuinely wounded people either.

I’ve never been a fan of these folks, nor have I read any of C.J.M.’s books or listened to a single sermon by him. I only know what people have said, which has been mixed good (humility, expository preaching) and bad (charismaticism). But this entire discussion has me thinking of the various people who have left angry from ministries I’ve been involved in or with over the years. Here’s a snapshot of the various types, though some may actually exhibit symptoms from several types:

1). The bitter. Classic statement: “I’ve been keeping a little notebook of all my concerns. Let’s start with, oh, July of 1986.”
2). Those who left the church/organization because they have a problem with any authority but their own. These prima donnas must always have their own way.
3). Those who left the church/organization as they have left every previous ministry, not understanding why they cannot find a good church/organization. They fail to understand that the problem is with them. Classis statement: “After 6 Bible-believing churches, you’d think I’d have found one where the pastor wasn’t a problem.”
4). Those who left the church/organization with an erroneous understanding of what was wrong, attributing to persons problems that actually lay with structure or procedures. In other words, their concerns were valid, but they were presented as personal attacks on leaders rather than concerns that there were insufficient protections against problems or the perception of them. The presentation offended folks, and they left. The underlying structural or procedural problems may never have been addressed.
5). Those who left the church/organization because they despaired of anyone paying attention to their concerns.
6). Those who left the church/organization because the leadership circled the wagons and protected one another rather than seriously contemplating the idea that they might be mistaken. Classic statement by Senior Pastor: “I have to back my leaders, right or wrong, because disloyalty is a terrible failure.”

And you all could fill in many more in between these categories. I suspect that if any of these folks were from SGM’s organization and were into posting on bulletin boards, every one of them would have horror stories. Those from groups 1 – 4 would be completely wrong in their analysis. But some of them might tell horror stories that sounded like they were a 5 or a 6.

What am I saying? Simply this. At some point, C.J.M. said “I think I might be guilty.” In his mind, he recognized that somebody had valid concerns; he realized somebody he thought was a 1, 2, 3, or 4, was actually a 5 or a 6. He saw they weren’t all disgruntled. He needs time to analyze this. It will take some time to sort out the valid accusations from the invalid ones.

So long as he is not being forced into this by some threat, there is hope for real change in a positive direction. Meanwhile, we should be VERY careful about reading too much into ALL the stories. Some of them are probably a little off-kilter.

If you follow the links from GADietrich's posts, you'll see that Al Mohler and others have weighed in, and that CJ Mahaney spoke to one of the churches on Sunday night. Here's a snippet.

While I think 99.9% of us would look at a hundred and thirty page document of personal shortcomings with a very jaded eye (if we bothered to look at it at all), it seems like CJ took the time to weigh the concerns carefully and realized that he had been wrong. His candid and open confession of his sin(s) is incredibly refreshing - not because I'm looking to muckrake, but because he's handling this (AFAIK) the right way, which is a refreshing change from stonewalling the critics as is so typical in IFB circles.

Say whatever you want about his doctrine, but I am very impressed so far with the way this has been handled by all parties.

Dan, I'm praying for you, brother. Thank you for sharing. I am glad you are able to help. I think you have the most to say to us here based on actual experience.

Jay, I think Mahaney's apology sounds great, too. The wounded have apparently heard that kind of thing before on many occasions. They don't seem at all trustful of Mahaney. More seem hopeful about Harris, as am I, though some distrust him as well. I obviously don't know enough to say whether they are trustworthy and sincere, but Mahaney's sins are BIG. I would say disqualifyingly big. Above reproach has to mean something. He already is expecting to back before any investigation has started.

As a person who is only slightly familiar with Mahaney, and something of an admire of Joshua Harris, because he has been personally kind to me, I am curious to hear from people who really like Mahaney as a writer and conference speaker: Did you know he calls himself an apostle? I had

. Do you think his books would sell as much if he identified himself as one to the rest of the Reformed community? Are there any other people you would give room to call themselves apostles?

Personally, I get very nervous when guys call themselves Bishop, but don't belong to a truly episcopal church. But an apostle?

No, I'd never heard that term used by Mahaney or Harris or anyone else who referred to them. If Mahaney truly does styles himself as an Apostle, then that's a huge red flag to me, because I agree with the earlier poster who said that Apostles had to be eyewitnesses of Christ...and I don't think CJM is quite that old.

I think that most of the people who buy his stuff have never heard about the "Apostleship" either. If they do, then I think it would affect his sales.

If you go to the First Presbyterian website, there's a neat little icon of an envelope next to Ligon Duncan's name. That can be clicked on and messages can be sent directly to him. http://www.fpcjackson.org/staff/staff_directory.htm

Also, after Dr. Mohler's defense of Mr. Mahaney, Brent Detwiler (the guy who wrote the 600-page document) said

That quote can be found at the following site: http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2011/07/12/mohler-backs-mahaney-d...

Dan,

You've built up a lot of trust here over the years, so your post has great credibility. I was hoping that this was being exagerated. I am distressed to hear what you say. I will pray for you and those you are trying to help. And I will now be praying even more for these folks at SGM, that this will open their eyes to where they are out of balance.

Mike D

Yes. This characterizes the majority of pastors I've met/known/sat under in the IFBx/Hammond crowd. And a few big names in mainstream Fundamentalism as well.

is far too big a leap.

@ Mike Durning, I appreciate your ministry experience post in #51. As I'm reading through small portions of the internet documents available, it helps me filter through some of the things I'm reading from both sides. I'm ashamed to admit it, but as a layperson, I've run the gamut of some of those feelings people experience when they're (I'm sinfully) displeased with leadership or the scant times I've personally been sinned against, intentional or not, by leadership. Having you succinctly lay out, from a leadership position, your experience helps to put things into a perspective from a third party individual that is not so close to "home." Helpful!

Can I just say as messed up as this sounds, I think it can, not always be a good thing when I'm sinned against by leadership as long as it's not some of the patterned abuse or neglect charges a few of these people have claimed in their SGM experience? Leaders are human, it's ludicrous to think they won't sin in some way or another--maybe even over a period of time. But leaders sinning personally in my life--whether it's in a conversation or shepherding or decision-making means they're actually involved in my life and not just some figurehead... like the Queen or Bono. The upside is they're working through their own challenges, being chastened by a loving Father for their own issues and on and on... I think the Bible calls some of that growing and maturing. God has permitted my own sin to sharpen the people around me, including leadership, all the while firmly disciplining me as well. He's just that big, loving... and creative. It's hard to think about if grace and forgiveness had not been extended to me.

Leaders may not say things perfectly, they may not do things perfectly, but if they are loving, caring, protective shepherds personal to me and my family, and their own local church, we will see and experience their sin and messiness as they continue to grow in the Lord. We, as laypeople, should be not astonished when it comes (might some of that be born out of a possible idolizing?), but humbly reflect and vigilantly pray for them. (sidebar: IMO, leadership sins and mistakes may appear larger than they appear in the rear view life mirror.) The Bible has some very clear instructions when this happens that can result in some very nice character and endurance training for me such as fortifying trust in a sovereign Lord, denying one's own needs/wants for the sake of unity, submission, preferences and double honor (double honor is specific to leadership,) stretching and extending grace, love, and fervency for one another, building the virtue of patience as people are long suffering and forbearing with one another. Again, before I leave this thought, I hope I'm just giving another side of the topic and not sounding like I'm advocating anyone must endure longtime abuse or heinous crimes against their person, family, or children. The Bible has some clear guidelines about how parents are to protect their families and children. I'm just trying to give another face of the topic from a layperson's view.

Honestly, I'm surprised at how little Scripture references there are on either side of the debates while traipsing through the material on the internet. With some of the things I've read, I've seen "this is my experience" and "this is how it made me feel" or "this was the result" but very little (not none) with the words "since the Bible commands this, I did this", etc. Maybe I'm just naive or ignorant about what's really out there. I'm definitely ignorant and naive about what it's really like from a leader's perspective. I know there are some amazing leaders on the SI forum. I'd love to be corrected on either subject if I am mistaken. I'd also like it if someone could direct me to a/some good, strong biblical case(s) made from either side of the SGM arguments. Has anyone come across some good (reputable?) conversations/debates from blogs/articles where Scripture was the reigning authority in what they ended up doing, feeling, saying on either side?

FWIW, I would have to agree that it's a little too early to decide disqualification status.

Blessings,

Kim

I think we ought to contrast that above quote with what CJ said:

He also said:

Finally, that 'short sabbatical season' described by Virginia is actually a full year away from SGM. That's hardly 'short'.

Having read many of the websites about this issue in the past few days and having a vested interest in CJ and SGM because they do have a rather wide influence upon God's people he has allowed me to lead (many of our young people especially have been influenced by Josh Harris and CJ Mahaney's books). I am concerned about some things other than whether or not CJ Mahaney should step down, how long, etc, etc. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to ask a question that might be a little off base from the original article. As I began diving into SGM land, I discovered what I believe to be far too common among many ministries be they fundamentalists or evangelicals. And this issue has been around for a long time. Is there a difference between "accountability" and "sin-sniffing"? That is actually what bothered me the most about the documents written by Detwiler. I read about how they were concerned that CJ was not receiving their "criticisms" with humility. Ok, so that is not a good thing. But the tone of the documents made it seem like the purpose of accountability within the "apostolic" leadership was to find each other's weaknesses and expose it. Granted for the purpose of "bettering" one another Spiritually, but still it smacks totally of a misunderstanding of Matthew 7. So I have been wrestling with this. Where is the balance in helpful, encouraging accountability and "sin-sniffing"? Where is the line? Is confrontation (as we typically understand it) even Biblical? My wrestling with these things is because I went to a Fundamental college where this same kind of thing was encouraged. Maybe not explicitly, but implicitly, we were to confess to one another and if we didn't then we should give one another "24 hours to turn themselves in." Where is the grace of letting the Spirit of God work in me and my brother and trusting God to change him rather than taking it upon myself to change everyone? These are genuine questions, they are not loaded. How does restoration and confrontation relate? Are their limits upon that which we should/must confront one with? We have been starting "care groups" in our church, but I have become concerned that these groups don't become a witch hunt to root out one each others sins and weaknesses. Is it okay for me to know a brother has a pride problem and to pray for him, love him, have a Bible study with him? or must I confront him, demand a certain level of confession, and then inflict punitive consequences? If anyone would like to interact in these things, I am open.

You're welcome. Our Lord is kind to save.

My question would be, "How could we not expect this to happen given the most popular church polities in America?"

at Plant and Build.