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

Rob: It sure seemed a lot of people who had no connections with Penn State made comments about the sex scandal there. Why? Because it needed to happen. The system needed a complete overhaul. SGM is not a case where there are alleged crimes, there are real crimes involved (tried/convicted). This is a situation in which there are hundreds of witnesses. CJ answers to no one, yet many national leaders outside SGM still provide a platform for him, knowing that he has this baggage.

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?

If Penn State was in the Pac-10, I might be somewhat interested in commenting on l’affaire Sandusky. But it isn’t and I have as much interest in commenting on SGM.

[Julie Anne]

Rob: It sure seemed a lot of people who had no connections with Penn State made comments about the sex scandal there. Why? Because it needed to happen. The system needed a complete overhaul. SGM is not a case where there are alleged crimes, there are real crimes involved (tried/convicted). This is a situation in which there are hundreds of witnesses. CJ answers to no one, yet many national leaders outside SGM still provide a platform for him, knowing that he has this baggage.

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.

I don’t know of any Sandusky threads, but I have been scarce around here until lately.

I don’t also remember seeing discussions on the recent abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t think that makes SI members look like frauds, either.

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.

My reaction was to the idea that the relative silence on comments here meant that there was some kind of groupthink complicity in covering up the issue with SGM. Whatever else, I don’t think you can make that charge stick.

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.

[rogercarlson] 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.

We did have a few threads that referenced Sandusky or Penn State; most of them passed without comment or very, very few. The three biggest threads on that subject were:

”Could have been the motto at Penn State … ‘everyone did what was right in his own eyes” - 9 Posts (incl. OP)

”Louis Freeh’s Penn State report released” - 4 total posts (incl. OP)

”Bishops offer Penn State help to prevent abuse” - 4 Posts (incl. OP)

Personally, I don’t think that SharperIron should have run PSU as a story here (because the national media did that, and it’s not really germane to a Fundamentalist-based discussion board), but whatever. In the seven (?) years I’ve been on SharperIron, I am fairly sure that the Phelps threads are the only threads on SharperIron touching on sexual abuse that got the level of interest that they did, and that’s more because of the many users’ ties to Phelps or Phelps affiliated ministries (Concord, Colonial Hills, FBFI, BJU, etc) than it is about anything else.

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.

I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that. I know that myself and at least one other member have said almost the same thing in the same words. It seems to me that most people here agree with that and are frustrated at the level of resistance that our orgs seem to have in regards to acknowledging any mistake they have made.

[Greg Linscott]

My reaction was to the idea that the relative silence on comments here meant that there was some kind of groupthink complicity in covering up the issue with SGM. Whatever else, I don’t think you can make that charge stick.

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.

[Larry]
Perhaps the “logic of this silence” is found in your question, “What does it take before one says to another brother, “You ought to step aside …”“Since none of the people you think need to be told “You ought to step aside,” participate or read here, why would someone say it here. If the purpose of speaking were to tell them to step aside, this is not the place to do it.
So why would we say it here? Who knows. Perhaps venting. Perhaps posturing. Perhaps the love of hearing our own voice. Perhaps to make sure no one thinks we are one of “them” … who knows. But it wouldn’t accomplish the purpose you are claiming to be concerned about. With the HAC and other situations, people who participate here and read here were people with real influence and they were connected in some way to that situation.

Venting
Posturing
Love of hearing our own voice
Make sure no one thinks we are one of “them”

Notice the technique, to frame all speculated possibilities as lacking virtue or, at best, self-interested. As well, observe what is absent as suggested motive for approaching gross negligence in a public minister:

Care for the weak
Love for the truth
A Desire for integrity

Whenever someone can vilify or suggest malignant motives without any effort to regard possible good or high motives, it removes from their life the need to respond to the issue, itself. This is called a logical fallacy and this particular kind is labeled an ad hominem, so now we have logical fallacy #1.

[Larry] There’s a PDF of several hundred pages, I believe. There are blogs threads with hundreds of comments in various places. SI is not a place connected with SGM so whatever is said here would be repeating what has been said elsewhere. I imagine most of the people here have lives and what not, and probably aren’t compelled to chime in on something they know little about to which they have no connection.

Here we have logical fallacy #2, commonly termed a red herring. Because SI is not connected to SGM or because it has been said elsewhere (without proof of course, just an assertion but don’t let that get in the way) and because most of the people have “lives” and it is imagined as well they, themselves, have no connection to the matter, they must not be compelled to chime in, never minding the fact that this assumes without demonstration many things but worst implies that if you are commenting:

You don’t have a life
If you are commenting and that your comments are hardly justified seeing you are not connected enough and finally
That if it has been said elsewhere (still an assumption) intimating under an assumption that it is wasting time.

None of these have anything to do with the issue and only acts to insult to those discussing the issue. But for the one making such suggestions, they are convenient “escape pods” to take one away from dealing with the issue. So if you do not wish to discuss the issue, how about not coming here and attempting to castigate those who do.

[Larry]
However, more importantly, it is unfortunate when silence is considered complicity, approval, apathy, or fear. The cynicism of Alex and Barry is all too common, though it’s hard to know by what method of divination they determined the reasons why people aren’t speaking. Of course, I suspect that neither actually know what they are talking about. They are guessing, and probably badly guessing at that, at least with respect to SI. I doubt members at SI are huddling in the corner waiting for Al to speak up. It most cases, charity would call for a more careful response. Unfortunately, we have come to expect neither charity nor carefulness in some responses.
I will only say that if someone is waiting on Al Mohler or anyone else to say something, they are wrong. But if someone accuses others of waiting on Al Mohler or anyone else to say something, they need evidence or they need not to speak. Simply put, if you don’t know why someone else doesn’t say something, then don’t pretend to know.
Silence should not be considered approval or apathy.

Silence, while not defacto approval or apathy, can easily be. And where a man has promoted and embraced a public minister who is errant both in doctrine and practice by way of hundreds of witnesses the Scriptures are rather crystal clear, such a man is to be marked until the appropriate corrections are made clear.

But as to the personal reference and suggestion that I am cynical, of course this is the third use of a logical fallacy, similar to the first one and that is an ad hominem where the person and not the argument is attack. It couldn’t be due to a healthy concern for the facts, no it must be cynicism.
Additionally, the suggestion is made that I or someone else has “determined” why people are not speaking when no such determination has been made. That is logical fallacy #3, a straw man.

As far as guessing, no I haven’t made any guesses and right now you are the one guessing as to my motive an apparently unable to read plainly what I have and have no said regarding the matter or SI, thus guess with that as well.
But those with concerns for integrity in public ministers and ministries and realize SI and other websites are places of public voicing and responding to issues which read the ears of brothers and sisters, both strong and weak but do understand something is rotten in Denmark, let me reiterate what the article at the The Internet Monk about what the Wartbug Watch has observed with modifications of my own (the link that this discussion is about and its content?, yeah, that stuff):

Tim Challies made these claims:

I recall meeting Mahaney only one time and for no more than two or three minutes. To my knowledge we have never corresponded by email or any other media

As well, this one:

For this reason I have deliberately avoided learning too much. I have had to question my motives, especially since I have repeatedly been on the receiving end of scathing criticism for not using my platform to speak out against Mahaney. I have chosen to read the news stories, to understand the basic facts, but conscience compels me to stop there. To do more may not be spiritually beneficial, it may not reflect good time management, and it may not be loving toward those who are involved.

Of course one can only stand in utter amazement that an alleged Minister would say, “I have deliberately avoided learning too much” regarding the scandal of a near Evangelical kin considering he shepherds vulnerable sheep who may come across this public minister and must know how to respond.

Cynicism you say? Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt (though you are wrong, I don’t care about your need to label, I am concerned for the truth) and pretend I am cynical, let’s see what I could be cynical about:

Remember, Tim Challies writes about Mahaney a very hands-off association. Right? He only recalls meeting him “one time” and has no interest in learning too much, he wants to avoid that. Weird huh? This is even weirder though. Tim Challies is a co-founder of Cruciform Press. And guess who else is a co-founder, Keven Meath. Who is Kevin Meath, right he is as Cruciform Press informs us:

Kevin has more than 25 years professional experience as an editor, including eleven years as chief editor for Sovereign Grace Ministries. He has worked on more than 40 book projects for the Christian market, and has edited for C.J. Mahaney, … Sovereign Grace Ministries…and others

At the Wartburg Watch in a post titled, Tim Challies / Cruciform Press in our ‘Cross’ Hairs, these points were observed and a final comment was posted by the author:

Getting back to Tim Challies, he established himself by riding the coattails of high profile Calvinistas like Mahaney. Now that he’s his own man and ‘business’ partner of SGM’s former editor, he just doesn’t want to know that much about the SGM mess

For those interested in further reading, The Gospel Coalition, Tim Challies, and Cruciform Press – Backscratching at its Finest!

Concerning Al Mohler, the Wartburg Watch also featured a chronology of Mahaney’s rise in the SBC which correlated with SGM’s giving under Mahaney’s reign and Al Mohler’s guardianship in the SBC, $$$ THE MAHANEY MONEY MACHINE $$$.

Finally, as to pointing fingers, this is important though, as a red herring some will intimate it is unloving and self-righteous. The Bible teaches otherwise. It teaches us in Romans 16:17:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

When so much investment has been made with Mahaney and SGM with alleged Ministers in such a public way, particularly Mohler whose fundamental beliefs conflicted with SGM’s apostolic doctrine long before this mess but somehow, as SGM’s giving rose Mahaney’s prominence rose in the SBC and Mohler related organizations, could it make someone cynical? It might but even then, if they are, it does not undo what is grossly problematic. But again, this is not cynicism but a growing body of Biblically contradictory claims and behavior by leaders, prominent leaders, in not only my view but the view of many.

There has been quite an investment by Neo-Calvinist persons and organizations such as Mohler and Challies in both an SGM association and directly with CJ Mahaney. The smell is getting worse and people are not ignorant. But as the smoke rises and we are being told, “no, no there is no fire, nothing to see, if you have an opinion obviously you don’t have a life and surely you can’t know what you are talking about”. But worry not, we who are concerned all don’t know what we are talking about or poorly motivated and the Titanic will not be sunk. lol