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

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.

I agree with David that the recommended web site was more of a diatribe than a summary. But there is no doubt that the allegations are very troubling. If they are proven true, it would confirm 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 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.

Alex, most (all?) of us are only replying because you seem intent on making this into a major problem at SG and proving that CJ Mahaney is some kind of evil reprobate. You’re the one that linked to the Scribd documents, the screed over at Coffee Trader, and the one that keeps stirring the pot here on this thread. To be honest, your past posting history - clearly visible for anyone who cares to look - indicates that you do have an agenda when it comes to CJ Mahaney or Reformed doctrine.

If you don’t want this thread to revolve around you, then maybe you ought to stop stirring the pot. Don’t complain, though, when you make yourself the most visible person in the thread and then get called on it by other members.

[Jay C.] Alex, most (all?) of us are only replying because you seem intent on making this into a major problem at SG and proving that CJ Mahaney is some kind of evil reprobate. You’re the one that linked to the Scribd documents, the screed over at Coffee Trader, and the one that keeps stirring the pot here on this thread. To be honest, your past posting history - clearly visible for anyone who cares to look - indicates that you do have an agenda when it comes to CJ Mahaney or Reformed doctrine.

[Jay C.] If you don’t want this thread to revolve around you, then maybe you ought to stop stirring the pot. Don’t complain, though, when you make yourself the most visible person in the thread and then get called on it by other members.

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 didn’t think I’d ever say this, but, at least in several ways, I agree with Alex. Many people have known about repeated allegations of spiritual abuse in SGM for years. I have, and I’ve made no special effort to collect them. I’ve also known about some of the bizarre and invasive shepherding practices practiced by them. Covenant Life Church is not far from where I grew up. I have found these to be serious enough issues to steer clear of the movement.

Susan, if it is in fact the case that this leave of absence follows on the heels of particularly damaging documents coming to light, that at least detracts from the credit we can give Mahaney for his “repentance.” This is just standard operating procedure for when you can’t deny you’ve done wrong any longer. People respond amazingly well to apologies, and if you give them a little bit of time, they’ll get over it. Then you can pick back up where you left off. Abusers do this all the time. Now, it is possible that his actions are entirely genuine. In general, I’m all for believing the best. When it concerns powerful people in church leadership who have abused others, “bring forth fruits meet for repentance” is the more appropriate stance. Since Mahaney has himself admitted that his sins were serious enough to merit a leave of absence, and that they were against people under his spiritual authority, I suggest the latter course of action. The Scripture itself says that teachers receive a harsher judgment. I do sympathize with your desire not to stone repentant people, and I acknowledge that stoning has been the default approach of fundamentalist leaders. I just think that your message is more one for church leaders to their congregants. Fundamentalist congregants have the opposite track record; they defend their erring leaders to the point of absurdity.

Shaynus, I sympathize as well with your “Good man, bad system” approach, but I find it unsatisfying in this case. If we were speaking of an abusive shepherding group leader, there would be more merit. He could say that he himself was shepherded that way, and that he was merely following the training he had received. If he realized the error of his ways, apologized, and repented, we would still condemn his actions, but we would also try to relocate him to a more biblical environment with better examples. However, CJ Mahaney is not a follower in a bad system, nor is he a lower-level leader taking orders from superiors he trusts. He is the leader. He created the bad system. He perpetuated the bad system. The bad system is a reflection on him.

As to Alex, I agree that this thread is not about him, and to the extent that it becomes about him or any other contributor, it declines in value. He is the only one to provide material for consideration. If some find it poor or unreliable, that’s their judgment. Even if Alex’s agenda were “making this into a major problem at SG and proving that CJ Mahaney is some kind of evil reprobate,” so what? That isn’t against the rules of the board, and it’s not a position that should be censored. “Stirring the pot” is what this site is for. By way of comparison, we have had several posts recently asserting that Calvin was responsible for unitarianism and that Zwingli was a murderer not filled with the Spirit of Christ. Should they be censored?

By the way, “focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic” is prohibited by the comment policy.

[Charlie] Susan, if it is in fact the case that this leave of absence follows on the heels of particularly damaging documents coming to light, that at least detracts from the credit we can give Mahaney for his “repentance.” This is just standard operating procedure for when you can’t deny you’ve done wrong any longer. People respond amazingly well to apologies, and if you give them a little bit of time, they’ll get over it. Then you can pick back up where you left off. Abusers do this all the time. Now, it is possible that his actions are entirely genuine. In general, I’m all for believing the best. When it concerns powerful people in church leadership who have abused others, “bring forth fruits meet for repentance” is the more appropriate stance. Since Mahaney has himself admitted that his sins were serious enough to merit a leave of absence, and that they were against people under his spiritual authority, I suggest the latter course of action. The Scripture itself says that teachers receive a harsher judgment. I do sympathize with your desire not to stone repentant people, and I acknowledge that stoning has been the default approach of fundamentalist leaders. I just think that your message is more one for church leaders to their congregants. Fundamentalist congregants have the opposite track record; they defend their erring leaders to the point of absurdity.

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.

[Charlie] By the way, “focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic” is prohibited by the comment policy.

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.

Review my exchanges with Alex, please, before automatically assuming that his claims of ad hominem attacks are correct.

In post # 10, Alex went way off topic to say “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.”

In my first post in this thread (# 14), I disagreed with Alex’s side comment about Piper. No ad hominem attack.

In post # 17, Alex responded, saying that he was considering writing a critique of Desiring God himself, “But in the mean time [sic] you can read these critiques of CH which deal with some fundamenmentally [sic] errant teachings from the book [providing two separate links with two separate titles].”

Not having previously heard anyone describe Piper’s book as “injurious and novel,” I followed the two links to see if there was in fact substantive, biblical criticism of the book from not just one but two sources. Instead, I found that the two critiques actually were one critique posted in two places under two different titles. And, substantively, I found the critique sorely lacking. In my post # 26, I said as much, again without any ad hominem attacks. That was the end of the Piper rabbit trail.

Then Alex, back on topic, posted (# 30) the following: “For those of you who are unable to due to whatever reasons, wade through the 600 pages of documents that were complied by Brent Brent Detwiler who was a long time SMG and can be found linked to at SMGSurvivors, there is an excellent summary at Coffee Trader-News & Views. It provides a very compressed but succinct account, again shocking.”

I’m one of those who, presumably like the majority of readers here, is unable for a variety of reasons to wade through Mr. Detwiler’s 600 pages, and could therefore use “an excellent summary” that “provides a very compressed but succinct account” of the underlying documents. But the post to which Alex linked is plainly not such a summary. Having been burned twice by Alex’s links, I said as much in my post # 31, where I stated my belief that Alex’s posts had an agenda, which affected their credibility. (I do not know what other conclusion can be reached when a post that is clearly a rant is recommended to others as an objective summary of the underlying documents. Others reached the same conclusion — see posts # 32 and # 34 above.)

I did not say that Alex was wrong in his conclusions about Mahaney and SGM. (In fact, I don’t know who is right and I specifically stated that “Mahaney and SGM may or may not be guilty of the charges apparently lodged by Mr. Detwiler.”) I did not call Alex any names.

My point was that agenda-driven posts such as Alex’s don’t shed any light for people like me who become aware of this issue and don’t have any personal knowledge or preconceived ideas about it. Bringing that to Alex’s attention and to the attention of other readers who are likely in the same boat is not an ad hominem attack. Nor does it make the thread “about Alex.” Nor does it constitute “focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic.”

At the blog, http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/ 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.

http://paulspassingthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/geneology-2.jpg] 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.

[Charlie]
Shaynus, I sympathize as well with your “Good man, bad system” approach, but I find it unsatisfying in this case. If we were speaking of an abusive shepherding group leader, there would be more merit. He could say that he himself was shepherded that way, and that he was merely following the training he had received. If he realized the error of his ways, apologized, and repented, we would still condemn his actions, but we would also try to relocate him to a more biblical environment with better examples. However, CJ Mahaney is not a follower in a bad system, nor is he a lower-level leader taking orders from superiors he trusts. He is the leader. He created the bad system. He perpetuated the bad system. The bad system is a reflection on him.

I agree to some extent. He did create the system around him. And it was unhelpful for him I think. I’m just saying that it’s one thing to be evil, and another to be unwise in an area of blindness. Both are bad, but one is worse.

I posted this morning something (#34) that directly called into question Alex’s motives. That is a clear violation of the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] 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?

No


Just kidding.

Thank you for the acknowledgment and it was not considered an offense to me which needed forgiven but for the record, what I believe did not need pardoned, has been pardoned.

Alex

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

Bro. Charlie said=

CJ Mahaney is not a follower in a bad system, nor is he a lower-level leader taking orders from superiors he trusts. He is the leader. He created the bad system. He perpetuated the bad system. The bad system is a reflection on him.

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

The problem here, in part, is that there’s always a cult of personality that builds around truly great teachers. I’ve seen it with Mark Minnick, John MacArthur, John Piper, Josh Harris, CJ Mahaney and many others. It’s contingent on the teacher to knock that down, but it’s not as easily done as said, even if the teacher is willing to punch holes in that kind of devotion.

CJ is a very, very charismatic teacher (in terms of personality, not in reference to doctrine) - it has come through on the few messages that I’ve heard him give. So I’m sure that some of these SGM survivors are people who bought into it hook, line, and sinker and later realized that he couldn’t walk on water after all. I also think that some of the survivors are simply people who are jealous for some reason or another. What really matters, though, are the legitimate complaints, and I hope Mahaney and the others involved are able to use this time apart to find and fix the problems in SGM’s structure or personnel.

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.