"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.

Perhaps this the result of his bad theology. This is a man who believes he is an Apostle (upper case A) who has Apostolic authority in the lives of his followers.

[BryanBice] 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.

[Donn R Arms] Perhaps this the result of his bad theology. This is a man who believes he is an Apostle (upper case A) who has Apostolic authority in the lives of his followers.

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.”

[BryanBice]

…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.”

What disconcerts me is that they are so stinking judgmental. :~

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.

SGM (formerly PDI/People of Destiny International) is basically a neo-Purtian, neo-Charistmatic, and neo-Calvinistic/Reformed sect/organization whose history provides a backdrop to why “we” (since Mahaney makes this public then “we” is appropriate here) find so many problems and objections concerning its leadership and operations. As well, Mahaney’s complete lack of formal theological matriculation, no doubt, has contributed to his rise and maintenance as a novice with the Scriptures.

But these are all, really, his concern and the concern of those who are gullible enough to choose to yield themselves to such leadership and teachings. But what is striking is the emphatic allegiance by Dever and the like within the Reformed community to SGM and Mahaney over the past decade. Did they not do their due diligence or is this simply another case of so-called Conservative Evangelicals in the Reformed sect sycophantically revolving around Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinist (ARC) theology and not the Scriptures so that they ignore their very own teachings on the qualifications required for leadership that when a rising group or personality comes along that has had their own ARC epiphany, they welcome them with opened arms without requiring them to scrub themselves of their many errors before being embraced and promoted within their ranks?

Now one might respond with, “But CJ Mahaney is being called out, isn’t that enough that they are dealing with him”? Well that doesn’t undo their lack of due diligence and having their eyes closed (and if they didn’t have their eyes closed then either ignoring what was evident or worse, calling into question their judgment) before they ever embraced Mahaney and this group. But of course with the words “sovereign grace” in one’s title, what’s to be concerned with, right?

A little bit of research would shine a light on the many erring teachings of Mahaney. I know some of you want to retort, “but he teaches orthodoxy”, right? To that I respond, “Evangelical orthodoxy is not an acceptable guise for the embodiment of error”. Jack Hyles was orthodox. In fact, I tell you what I see with these groups, more of the same but under another name and the very same kinds of objections when anyone levels a concern about leadership abuses and doctrinal departures.

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 agree, Dever is far from gullible and he, particularly, is not those to whom I was referring. In fact Dever’s association concerns me much more seeing that it is deliberate (the concern is not with respect to Dever’s freedom to choose associations but its influence as a notable figure in Evangelicalism and what it models to those less informed).

And I am sure Mark Dever has his set of priorities, as do I and others and this is why many object. And as I alluded to, there is an observable pattern in the Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinistic circles to ignore fundamental errors or injurious and novel teachings (e.g.,Piper’s Christian Hedonism) by certain personalities/Teachers in those circles for the preservation of the family verses the integrity of sound doctrine, hermeneutics and practice. Fortunately, now, one of Dever’s priorities is to address, apparently, some ongoing egregious behavior and modeling by Mahaney that has, unfortunately, fallen on deaf ears with respect to Mahaney and those around him for some time.

I really do not care about someone’s past whether it be drugs, religion and so on, as it relates to their theology or practical living and how such is modeled(if someone is going to quote me please make sure you include this qualifier). Let me refer to Martin Luther. I love many aspects of Luther’s theology but in the end he is wrong on some things precisely because of his Roman Catholic past. For example, he imported into his theology a reduced Catholicism, but Catholicism nonetheless, on the sacraments.

While his past might explain his views it does not afford me or anyone the license to “cut him some slack”. He is wrong and the Lutheran church remains wrong on this doctrine. The same principle applies to CJ Mahaney and all of us.

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?

Wayne,

To briefly summarize the issues and Apostles thing: I would say he’s probably dealing the types of pride we all face. However, that’s exacerbated by the structure of SGM (at least until recently). It has been a very top down organization. From what I understand, “The Apostles” (by that they mean the very top few people in national leadership) could override pastors and congregations on just about any issue. From what I have heard, this is now changing, but I can’t find much more information on that.

Here’s an org chart that explains.

http://sgmrefuge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/sgm-org-chart1.jpg

So I think the structure made it so that Mahaney wasn’t as accountable as many ministry leaders, while having way more power than most. Really, who of us wouldn’t feel the weight of that and not react badly at times.

I hope you enjoy the Humility book. It’s great. My church did a small group study through it. In it, CJ has the humility to say he isn’t humble.

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

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ 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.

Alex Guggenheim: “injurious and novel teachings (e.g.,Piper’s Christian Hedonism)”? Have you read the book, or are you just reacting to the term Christian Hedonism? I’ve read the book (and taught it as a multi-week series in an adult Sunday School class at an independent, fundamental Baptist church). It’s neither injurious nor novel, but is instead the exact opposite — very beneficial and as old as scripture itself.

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.