Try This Twelve Step Program on for Size!

Memo to the SGM Board: 

I’ve come up with a great idea!  Surely inspired by the Holy Spirit.  I am going to do my own three panel investigation of C.J.  Certainly you’ll support this endeavor since you believe so strongly in the Golden Rule – at least for him.  “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

Here’s how my twelve step program will work.  Try it on for size. 

1. Three people will serve on each panel.
2. I will pick those people.
3. Jim from SGM Refuge will be on one panel.
4. Kris and Guy from SGM Survivors will be on the other two panels.
5. Six additional people will fill out the panels that are known opponents of C.J. or at least have concerns for him.
6. I’ll call 18 witnesses against C.J. but won’t tell him who they are.  These witnesses need not have any integrity and can be proven liars.
7. Their testimony will be solicited behind closed doors and I won’t let C.J. know what they say against him or give him opportunity to cross examine them.
8. I won’t allow C.J. to pick any witnesses who can testify on his behalf and I will limit his participation to one of the three hearings.
9. I’ll restrict the hearings to very narrow questions but inform C.J. when he arrives at is hearing that he can share anything to make sure he is unprepared.
10. This panel won’t include in their reports anything C.J. says or evidence he presents but people will never know because I won’t allow him to record the session.
11. I’ll have a trial lawyer validate this process so people think it is legitimate.
12. When the reports come out I’ll send C.J. this Scripture.  Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” 

##

Lastly, I want to express my agreement with the following email that was sent to you this morning. It is used with permission.  Try Jeremiah 9:4-9 on for size.  You’ll discover a perfect fit.  God will continue to punish SGM and avenge himself.  People, pastors and churches will leave and stop giving money to the ministry.  A split will ensue.  Those with discernment, integrity and courage will leave.  Idolators will stay.

From: Nat W. Clerk
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:11 PM
To: C.J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Craig Cabinass; Mickey Connolly; Rick Gamache; Pete Greasley; JohnLoftness; Mark Prater; Jeff Purswell; Aron Osborne; Steve Shank; Bob Kauflin; Joshua Harris 
Cc: Bryce Thomas; Brent Detwiler; kris@sgmsurvivors.com; guy@sgmsurvivors.com; jim@sgmrefuge.com
Subject: An announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney

The words disappointing, disheartening, and discouraging can only begin to describe the feelings that many people have, regarding these announcements:

SGM Plant & Build Blog: An announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney

C.J.M.’s View From the Cheap Seats: A note to those in Sovereign Grace Ministries

So, I leave you with this passage from Jeremiah to contemplate:

Jeremiah 9:4-9 [ESV]

[4] Let everyone beware of his neighbor, and put no trust in any brother, for every brother is a deceiver, and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer.  [5] Everyone deceives his neighbor, and no one speaks the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies; they weary themselves committing iniquity. [6] Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, declares the LORD. [7] Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: “Behold, I will refine them and test them, for what else can I do, because of my people? [8] Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully;with his mouth each speaks peace to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him.  [9] Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?”

It [punishment] has only begun.

Report on Brent Detwiler’s Dismissal from Grace Community Church

All three panel reports along with C.J. and the SGM Board's responses are viewable at http://www.scribd.com/doc/79373928/Panel-Reports-and-Board-s-Response or on the SGM website.  

If you haven't heard, C.J. is back as President of Sovereign Grace Ministries and I’ve been thrown under the Sovereign Grace bus - again.  This time with all my "allegations."  No surprise.  Every time I crawl out they back up and run over me again.  This time they will leave me in the dust and hope I die on the side of the road.  They are moving on.  If you're not with them, get off the bus.     

Here is what I posted three months ago about the strategy the SGM Board would employ in the months to come.  All eight points have been fulfilled.  That doesn’t make me a prophet.  It just means I know my audience and their predictable sins. 

C.J. Mahaney Convinced He Is Above Reproach & Fit to be President of SGM!  SGM Board Rejects Impartial, Just and Thorough Adjudication Process!  
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:di48 PM
Brent Detwiler

…In another major development, C.J. and the SGM Board forced upon me an “Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure” that was partial, unjust and contrary to every promise and commitment they made to me over the past year.  I had to reject it.  They also refused to consider my counter proposal for an impartial and just evaluation of C.J. and SGM.  The corruption in SGM has reached new heights.  I expect the SGM Board will emphasize my rejection of their proposal and not mention (or barely mention) their rejection of my proposal.

I anticipate a strong reaction against me from SGM much like their July 13 blog post, “Sovereign Grace Ministries Board of Directors announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney.”  They will continue to disparage my documents but they will not provide open, honest and accountable answers.  They will continue to distort the truth.  They will spin, manipulate, and deceive.  It breaks my heart.  Things have only gotten worse.  The moral decline continues.  Integrity has been tossed to the wind.  C.J., Dave, and the SGM Board are unwilling to repent and acknowledge serious wrong doing on a wide scale basis…. In a nutshell, the SGM Board is committed to control the flow of all information.    

Here is their basic strategy. 

1. Defend and reinstate C.J. as President.
2. Acknowledge little or no wrong doing to the public. 
3. Withhold indicting information or incriminating evidence from the SGM pastors and public. 
4. Refuse to answer hard questions that hold them accountable. 
5. Misrepresent the past two years. 
6. Disparage credible people and vital evidence as gossip and slander.
7. Put forth a positive image of SGM.
8. Cut their losses, put things behind them, and move on.

##

This afternoon I wrote the three men who conducted my panel hearing in December.  This is an initial installment.  It captures my thoughts and sentiments tonight.  More to follow. 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:14 PM
To: :Ron Boomsma; Warren Boettcher; Mark Prater
Subject: A Great Injustice

Mark, Warren and Ron,

You have written a totally one sided report!  It contains none of the concerns I voiced or any of the evidence I presented orally or in writing.  The report is a total whitewash!  I could not be more disappointed.  What you include, exclude, and conclude in the report is extraordinarily biased.  It is the work of partial insiders, not the work of impartial outsiders.  You demonstrate no integrity by presenting all the facts fairly. 

The entire report is favorable to SGM.  No one sinned against me in my assessment and dismissal from ministry.  No one needs to ask forgiveness.  No wrong was done.  No restitution is needed.  I am singularly guilty.  No one else.  But of course, your report doesn’t deal with any of the horrendous realities I brought to your attention.  It doesn’t begin to address the atrocities cited in “The Untold Story.”  Betrayal, conspiracy, deceit, hatred, false testimony, cover-up, and injustice are all condoned by you!      

Of course, this is exactly what the SGM Board had in mind when they came up with the three panel approach.  They hatched that plan on their own.  Ambassadors of Reconciliation was not involved in conceiving such a machination.  No, AoR put forward a plan that allowed me four days of testimony (nor four hours), the presentation of witnesses against C.J., the presentation of witnesses on my behalf, the cross examination of C.J. and other agents of SGM, and a selection process for panelists that was “blind” and included all the sr. pastors. 

The SGM Board shut down this kind of adjudication hearing and came up with the three panel approach.  That allowed them to control everything.  As a result they got away with the following.     

• Put a biased Board Member on each panel. 
• Hand-picked mostly pro C.J./SGM panelists. 
• Kept sr. pastors with concerns for C.J./SGM off the panels.
• Concealed the process for choosing the panelists.
• Designed narrow questions for each panel that do not begin to address my allegations. 
• Limited my participation to only one of the three panels. 
• Refused to provide me the list of unfavorable witnesses.
• Did not allow me to put forward favorable witnesses. 
• Limited me to three hours. 
• Did not inform me in advance that I could address issues beyond the assigned question which meant I was terribly unprepared.   
• Forbid me from hearing or knowing about the evidence presented against me behind closed doors.
• Allowed no cross examination of witnesses by me.
• Had Bryce Thomas forbid me from recording the hearing in order to prevent an unjust report like this one.
• Had Bryce instruct you not to include the whole of my testimony in your written report.

You followed in their footsteps in the following ways.

• Provided me no information regarding the evidence presented against me so I could defend against it.
• Did not include in the report my main point regarding C.J. influence on Dave, Bob and Gene.
• Excluded in the report all my evidence against Dave, Bob, Gene, Ray, Eric, et. al.
• Exonerated everyone related to my evaluation and dismissal from ministry. 
• Included subject matter favorable to C.J./SGM and unfavorable to me that was not discussed or related to the question assigned by the SGM Board.
• Concluded I was proud and unentreatable in relation to Gene, Eric and Ray but never mentioned the subject or discussed the matter with me.   
• Did not include in the report the evidence I presented regarding systemic problems with the Board including lying, deceit, hypocrisy, cover-up, sinful judging, and much more.

All of this hurts!  But none of it is a surprise!  I've come to expect such deceitful treatment.  Here’s what I said three months ago.  It is followed by Jenn Grover’s comments.  You should also read my blog post, “Sovereign Grace Panels Are of Little Worth In Determining C.J.’s Fitness for Ministry” from November 28 at BrentDetwiler.com.  It has all come true! 

All Is Loss!
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM
Brent Detwiler

The three panels Dave puts forth will be mini-kangaroo courts by definition.  I won’t have any idea what people are saying.  I can’t cross examine their statements.  I can’t challenge what they say.  As a result, the panels won’t be able to discern the lies, deceit, and “faulty” memory of those who testify against me like Bob Kauflin, Gene Emerson and Eric Kircher. This brings back really bad nightmares!  They’ve learned nothing about due process. 

If SGM was interested in truth they would allow every statement to be contested by me.  That is why the adjudication hearing was so important.  Every statement to panelists must be cross examined and must be backed up by primary source documents.  Not memory.  Memory often kills the truth.  People can say anything if memory is their guide.  This won’t happen now and I’ve never done so.  I’ve always sighted documents or quotes that were recorded or written down verbatim.  Not SGM.  They have never refuted me with documents.  Never corrected me with evidence.

If Dave Harvey and the SGM Board are really interested in the truth they would allow for an open trial.  Let it be recorded.  Let it be videoed.  Let it be streamed live on the internet.  But this will never happen.  They are obsessed with controlling the message and the process.

Why the 3 Panel Approach is a Sham 
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 9:40 PM
Jenn Grover

1. The board didn’t want to do it [any kind of hearing], they are only doing it because they were pressured. They felt it was unnecessary.
2. Instead of a cohesive picture, three panels are going to split the issues and weigh them separate.  Like with any disease, things don’t look so bad if you fragment them but piece the whole thing together and you see the severity of the problems. Fragmentation has been part of the board’s strategy. When I submitted many questions, Mark Prater came to answer them directly (Sept. 21.)  I requested that it not just be me, that others have a chance to ask their questions, too.  That request was ignored.  I petitioned that answers to my questions be posted online somewhere so others could benefit from hearing the answers.  That was denied.  I did not and do not feel it was fair to only address my questions.
3. Panels have been shrunk to 3 members - 1 board member and 2 senior pastors.  If SGM believes that senior pastors are “first among equals” why the need for only senior pastors?  Why the need for a board member, they already want to reinstate CJ without adjudication, so they are clearly biased.  Do they not trust the pastors?
4. There is no detail explaining how the panels will be chosen.
5. The panels make recommendations; the board is not bound to them.  AoR chastised the board for being only accountable to themselves.  This set-up is a repeat of that problem.
6. It seems absurd to even bother with evaluating the circumstances of Brent’s removal without presenting his side.  Talk about a kangaroo court.

I am convinced the only way to evaluate these charges is to do it openly in front of all SGM pastors like the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and throughout church history. Appeal to your pastors to appeal to the board, AoR, Ken Sande and others to press the SGM board for this.

##

The SGM Board has not changed one wit!  They are clue less about justice.  They continue to forbid due process, suppress evidence and come up with schemes to oppress and violate people.  They lie, deceive, manipulate and spin to achieve their desired ends.  You are now part of the grand cover-up.  What is happening is a mirror image of the Kangaroo Court I experienced in June/July 2009.  Its happening all over.  That’s to be expected when evaluators are biased, witnesses are shielded behind the veil of secrecy and lie with impunity, no defense is permitted by the accused, and cross examination is ruled out.  There are no controls.  There is no accountability.  There have been no polity changes!  And there have certainly been no heart changes!!!  I find your report a great injustice. 

Another Illustration of Dave Harvey’s Deceit

Is anyone addressing Dave Harvey’s deceit?  C.J.’s deceit?  Mickey’s deceit?  The SGM Board’s deceit?  I don’t know but I sure hope so!  If not, Sovereign Grace Ministries will continue to meet with God’s opposition.      

This must be priority number one for Ambassadors of Reconciliation, Peacemakers, the CLC pastors, the SGM pastors, the SGM administrative staff, and the nine men who served on the three panels back in December.  Dave needs to be held accountable for his blatant and repeated lying, deceit, manipulation and spin.  His actions can’t be ignored.  Those who really care about the future of SGM will address him head on and call for a thorough investigation.

I am concerned for the SGM Board with respect to many issues.  For example, their heavy handed leadership, self-appointment as Board Members (i.e., picked by C.J. and Dave), secretive control of the present process, hypocrisy, excessive devotion to C.J. and absence of accountability beyond themselves.  But my greatest concern is for the fundamental lack of integrity they have demonstrated time and again.  Especially, under Dave’s interim leadership.  Anyone who allows him to continue in this role shows himself to be a fool.

I told Warren B., Ron B., Mark P., and Bryce T. at my panel hearing that we should not be talking about, “Did C.J. Mahaney wrongly influence the dismissal of Brent Detwiler from his church in Mooresville, NC?”  I said we should be talking about C.J.’s lying, deceit and hypocrisy.  Dave’s too.

I’ve repeatedly asked for an evaluation of Dave over the last 2½ years.  I was promised the opportunity to present evidence against Dave and others.  Instead, Dave killed the adjudication hearing during which this was supposed to happen.  Here is what I told him and the SGM Board on October 5.

“You totally misrepresent the facts.  I don’t know if that is due to deceit, or incompetence, or a combination of the two; but it is most certainly the case.  This is a predictable pattern for you.  It has happened time and time again over the last two years.  You make claims, assertions, or charges but you never provide any evidence to back them up.  You constantly distort the truth.  As a part of the evaluation promised me, I want to present a large body of material regarding you to a fair and impartial group of evaluators.  You must be assessed.  Your fitness for ministry must be reviewed.  There is a mountain of evidence that must be evaluated because I have found you extremely manipulative and repeatedly deceitful.”

I recently wrote two posts illustrating examples of deceit.  See “The Five Resolutions” (January 13) and “Trust – the One Thing that Changes Everything” (January 15).  Here is an additional example, I recently wrote up for Dave, the SGM Board, the CLC pastors and others. 

From: Brent Detwiler 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:00 AM
To: Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Andrew Mahr; Bob Kauflin; Gary Ricucci; Tommy Hill; Tony Reinke
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas; Warren Boettcher; Ron Boomsma; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: Another Example of Lying & Deceit

Dave,

Here is another example of your lying and deceit carried out with the full support of the new Board in order to prevent an adjudication hearing.  You posted this on the SGM blog on October 28, 2011.

“But first, a word on the latest with Brent.  Two weeks after declining our offer, Brent wrote us to say that he changed his mind and wanted to participate.  Unfortunately, he also said that he considers the [adjudication] process “unjust” and “bogus,” the logical implication being that even if he participated, he would also consider any unfavorable results for him unjust and bogus.” 

First, I never used the word “bogus” to described the adjudication process you put forward.  I used the word “bogus” in other contexts but never in relation to the adjudication process or “any unfavorable results.”  This is another example of manipulation.  You ripped my use of “bogus” completely out of context and then used it to make a deceitful argument for slamming the door on a hearing.  Your lack of integrity astounds me. 

Second, I did say the adjudication process you imposed upon me was “unjust” because it violated every promise you made to me over a 12 month period and it did not include objective, outside evaluators which you and the new Board said were absolutely “vital” to a just proceeding.  You and the SGM Board broke your word.  Furthermore, you exaggerate or spin my use of the word “unjust.”  I never said an unjust process would necessarily result in “unfavorable results.”  Your “logical implication” was an embellishment.

Bottom line, you made up a bogus (fake, false, pretended) use of the word “bogus” in order to make a bogus argument for shutting down the adjudication hearing.  You did the same by your unjust use of the word “unjust” in order to make an unjust argument for killing a hearing of evidence.  You conjured up these excuses.  There were no good and honest reasons for preventing a hearing of my charges against C.J. and others.

See “C.J. Mahaney Convinced He Is above Reproach and Fit to be President of Sovereign Grace Ministries!  SGM Board Rejects Impartial, Just and Thorough Arbitration Process!” from October 11, 2011 at BrentDetwiler.com for the facts.

Dave, you cannot be trusted.  You will say and do almost anything in order to sinfully manage the image of Sovereign Grace Ministries. 

##

This is not an insignificant illustration!  Dave corruptly used two words, “unjust” and “bogus,” to justify before all of SGM his sole reason for shutting down the adjudication hearing that was set up to evaluate him, C.J. and all of SGM.  He never provided any quotes to support his argument.  He never provided any contexts to verify his usage.  No, he just  made up the use of “bogus” and he applied a manipulative meaning to “unjust.”  He intentionally misled all of SGM by misrepresenting me.   

This was an outrage.  People should be holy angry.  I hope folks throughout the churches of SGM increasingly see how untrustworthy Dave, C.J., Steve, Mickey, and others are.  These illustrations are not made up.  They need to insist on their replacement and ask their pastors to do the same!  

Post Script - January 16, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Thomas Hardy
Facebook
January 26 2012

Brent, might want to check your facts on this stuff before you post it.  In an October post you did, in fact, call the adjudication process “bogus.”

Quote: “C.J.’s actions have been reactive and due to external pressures.  Never proactive. Dave’s description of C.J.’s initiative is unfounded.  The real C.J. has confessed very little, left his church, repudiated his pastors, blamed Joshua Harris, refused to walk in the light, lined up support from Christian celebrities, blocked a real evaluation by signing the bogus Adjudication Agreement, is headed to a SGM church other than CLC, and may soon come back as President from which he can continue draw a big salary, write books, get royalties, hit the speaking tour, collect honoraria, tell the world how he has been mistreated and be adored in the Reformed world.” 

From: Brent Detwiler 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:33 PM
To: Thomas Hardy
Subject: Response to Correction

I don’t know how I missed this since a I did an extensive word search of my documents before posting.  To be honest, I vaguely remembered using the word “bogus” to describe the adjudication procedure but when I didn’t find any evidence I proceeded with my blog post.  I work hard to check my facts.  It is vital to my credibility.  I am glad you pointed our my error.   

I’ve written approximately 500,000 words over the last two years.  This is now my third mistake.  The other two were minor.  This is more serious.  Whenever I make a mistake I am open and honest about it.   Thank you for the correction.  I will add a postscript to “Another Illustration of Dave Harvey’s Deceit” and ask his forgiveness for my false accusation.  He did not make up my use of the word “bogus” with respect to the Adjudication Procedure.  I was wrong and came to an unrighteous conclusion.    

I also want to clarify the extent of my wrong.  In context, I used “bogus” as  a synonym for “unjust” but only in relation to the Adjudication Procedure forced upon me – not the potential results.  That is, the procedure was unjust and bogus in relation to the 12 months of promises it totally contradicted.  It was a bogus and unjust imposition of terms.  It did not comply with previous commitments.  Here are my two usages of the word. 

“That commitment was broken when the SGM Board put forward their bogus arbitration agreement on October 1.” (“The Mona Lisa of Spin by Dave Harvey,” p. 2)

“The real C.J. has confessed very little, left his church, repudiated his pastors, blamed Joshua Harris, refused to walk in the light, lined up support from Christian celebrities, blocked a real evaluation by signing the bogus Adjudication Agreement, is headed to a SGM church other than CLC, and may soon come back as President from which he can continue draw a big salary, write books, get royalties, hit the speaking tour, collect honoraria, tell the world how he has been mistreated and be adored in the Reformed world.” (The Mona Lisa of Spin by Dave Harvey,” footnote 57, p. 13)

 Here is what Dave said about my use of the words, “unjust” and “bogus.” 

“But first, a word on the latest with Brent.  Two weeks after declining our offer, Brent wrote us to say that he changed his mind and wanted to participate.  Unfortunately, he also said that he considers the [adjudication] process “unjust” and “bogus,” the logical implication being that even if he participated, he would also consider any unfavorable results for him unjust and bogus.”  (Dave Harvey, October 28, 2012)

I never said, or implied, by the use of these words that the Adjudication Process would produce unjust and bogus results that were unfavorable to me.  That was not my meaning.  I said the procedure was unjust and bogus in relation to all the commitments made to me.  Dave took these words out of context and deceitfully gave them a meaning I never intended and then used them as an excuse to shut down the hearing proposed by AoR. 

Moreover, it doesn’t matter if I thought any unfavorable results would be unjust and bogus which was not the case.  Do the adjudication hearing anyway!  This was a lame excuse.  Here’s the thing and I just learned about this yesterday.  At the time, Dave and the SGM Board were already working on the three panel approach with narrow questions and terms all favorable to C.J.  They used “unjust” and “bogus” to reject the AoR proposal and create their own proposal which was far, far worse.  There was no comparison between the two approaches.  Furthermore, I felt even more strongly that the three panel approach was unjust and bogus.  That certainly did not prevent the SGM Board from proceeding!  They did a bait and switch.  Just more manipulation and dishonesty.  My charge of fraud and deceit stands. 

Res Ipsa

Res Ipsa comes from the Latin, res ipsa loquitur, which mean “the thing speaks for itself.”  It’s a legal term and the name by which a lawyer who was friend posts on SGM Survivors.  Her real name is Kim.  I’ve always liked her and respected her.  She was my secretary back in the early 90’s before she pursued her law degree.  She left the church in 2002.  I was not involved in the circumstances regarding her decision.  I do remember being heartbroken.  

Last August, I asked Kim if she could meet and help answer some legal questions.  She graciously set aside time before work and her advice was helpful.  Kim and I have always gotten along.  I was unaware of her grievances until I read about them on the internet three weeks ago.  Honestly, I was hurt by the blindside and troubled by the content given our past friendship. 

I post our interaction as a sequel to my post on Tuesday entitled “For What It’s Worth (FWIW).”  Here is my concern in general.  Any reader of any blog can be misled by anonymous commenters who may lack integrity, be motivated by offense, fail to attempt private reconciliation, and make accusations without providing proof.  As a result the reader often comes to wrong conclusions.   

Here is what Kim wrote about me three weeks ago on SGM Survivors.

Res Ipsa - December 31st, 2011 at 1:16 pm

"Brent has a new post up that allegedly addresses his own sins.  You can decide for yourself whether he actually does that but I’m far from convinced.  It’s simply a grouping of e-mails where he vaguely acknowledges things he was involved in.  You know, the same kind of vague attitude that he accuses CJ of exhibiting.

"When Brent asks us to come to him if he has sinned against us, it’s the very antithesis of “First go and be reconciled to them” from Matthew 5.  Brent, I’m pretty sure you either read here or have a means to know what is posted here.  When you and I got together about 4 months ago (so that I could help you with something), I spent nearly an hour and a half listening to you describe your situation.  At the very conclusion of the meeting, you said, “If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.”  I honestly pitied you so deeply at that moment that I couldn’t respond.  I don’t pity you because you sinned, but I pity your inability to make others a priority.

"Please hear me loud and clear, Brent.  You did sin against me and you sinned against every member of CrossWay Church, but I don’t need to detail those sins.  You know who those people are (surely you have lists and old membership directories!) and you know how to reach them but instead you emphasize on your blog that only 8 to 10 have contacted you.  If you honestly think that means that only 8 to 10 were hurt, you’re deceived.

"Last thing.  Since our meeting, I have e-mailed you twice when you wrote things that were completely inaccurate.  You never responded.  I invited you to two meetings with former CrossWay members.  You showed interest and then backed out hours before each meeting.  If you’re serious about reconciling and serious about taking responsibility, let’s see more action and fewer words."

##

These comments by Kim “incited” (i.e., moved to action, stirred up) several others who made condemning comments having believed her account to be true.  For example, here is what “Stunned” had to say and then Kim’s response to her.

Stunned - January 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am

"Res Ipsa, I can’t get your story out of my head!  “When you and I got together about 4 months ago (so that I could help you with something), I spent nearly an hour and a half listening to you describe your situation.  At the very conclusion of the meeting, you said, “’If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.’  I honestly pitied you so deeply at that moment that I couldn’t respond. I don’t pity you because you sinned, but I pity your inability to make others a priority.”

"Seriously, the best thing that could happen to Brent right now (and Brent, I do say this as your sister who does not know you from a hole in the ground but genuinely wants what is good for you, cause you ARE my brother)… the best thing for him is if the very next person who sees him either slaps him as hard as they can or if they have a good right hook, balls up their fist and punches him.  Then have them say (in either a tone of concern or disinterest), “If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.” Then walk away.

"I am afraid that that might be the only way Brent even STARTS to get what he has done to countless people.  Brent, I am begging you, Brother, repent!  Truly, utterly, repent.  Do the hard work of searching out people (using your handy records).  You can do it!  And you will be utterly amazed at how life transforming it is."

##

Res Ipsa - January 1st, 2012 at 11:30 pm

"While I appreciate that some of you agree with what I wrote, I’m really not comfortable with the references to hitting or kicking Brent.  I know they’re tongue-in-cheek but I’d really appreciate it if you all would just pray that good comes of this situation and that I would handle it in a way that honors God.  Thanks."

##

Stunned - January 2nd, 2012 at 12:36 am

"Res Ipsa, there was nothing at all tongue in cheek about what I said.  Nor did I say about what I believe is genuinely in the best interest of Brent on your behalf, nor out of any anger toward Brent. 

"I genuinely feel that sometimes people need word pictures to understand what they are doing.  Jesus turned over tables, whipped things/people and said he came to bring a sword.  There is a time for everything and a season for everything.  There are all sorts of things said in scripture about negative physical happenstances honoring God.

"If Brent can just BEGIN to understand that what he did was a million times worse than simply getting slapped or punches, then he may start to be able to truly repent.

"I appreciate that you’re not comfortable with what I said, but I spent a lot of time praying about it and asking advice before I posted.  And it wasn’t said in any anger or any desire to defend or reflect you in the least."

##

The minute I heard about Kim’s posting, I wrote her and asked to talk with her. 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 5:12 PM
To: Kim
Subject: Phone Number

Jenny just showed me your post on Survivors.  I was not aware you thought I’d sinned against you.  When I asked at Panera’s your response seemed to indicate you had no concerns.  What’s your number?  I’d like to talk.

##

She responded in part by saying “I believe that you and CrossWay’s other leaders sinned against the church.  I do not feel like you have sinned against me in any direct manner – you haven’t treated me badly or wronged me on an individual level…. In my opinion, you and the other leaders at CrossWay developed and promoted an atmosphere of control, legalism and fear.” 

After receiving her email, I followed up on the December 31^st blog post with questions about some of her comments.  Here is the email history.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 4:20 PM
To: Kim
Subject: Resend

You said, “Since our meeting, I have e-mailed you twice when you wrote things that were completely inaccurate.  You never responded.”  I’m glad to provide a response but I don’t know what this is in reference to.  Could you resend the two emails?

##

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Kim
Subject: RE: Resend

I have no record of ever receiving any emails from you regarding things I wrote that “were completely inaccurate.”  Am I somehow mistaken? 

##

From: Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:50 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Resend

Brent, they were messages sent through your blog.  I didn’t keep a copy of the first one but I did keep a copy of the second, which I think was sent in October.  I have that copy on my computer at home so when I get home tonight, I’ll forward it to you.

In essence, you had posted a copy of correspondence between you and (I think) Dave Harvey.  In that correspondence, you said that someone had said you had met with an attorney.  You denied it and said the accusation was “absurd.”  (Again, I’m doing this from memory so I might not be exactly accurate.)  My e-mail to you said I was surprised that you called it absurd since you and I had met just a few weeks earlier to discuss this very situation. 

##

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday 03, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Kim
Subject: RE: Resend

We met on August 30.  I wrote you in part on August 31, ““In asking for the information, it was not my intent to threaten SGM with a lawsuit.  Only, if I decided to include this information in correspondence, to underscore the basis for such actions which I have forfeited.”  I didn’t come into our meeting with the intent of suing and I didn’t leave with the intent of suing.

Nine weeks later (not a few) on October 30, Dave Harvey wrote, “You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries.”  I responded on the same day with “I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation.”  This is an altogether truthful statement.  I was not in contact with any attorney on October 30 and it was an absurd accusation that I desired to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and PM.  I never did such a thing.  What I wrote was not “completely inaccurate” as you claimed on Survivors.  Just the opposite.

I closed comments on my blog on August 23.  Anything you tried to post would have been refused.  I don’t know what happened to your correspondence but I never received them.  I would certainly have responded so it is not true that I “never responded.”  Truth is I never received them. 

If you remember the first one please let me know.  I am glad to provide you an answer.  Back to you later with more.

##

It is never fun to be maligned on Survivors or Refuge or by folks like Tim Challies or Al Mohler.  What Kim said pained me but I did not want to respond to her in public.  Instead, I addressed her misrepresentations in private.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:33 AM
To: Kim
Subject: Feedback

Kim,

Here are some thoughts for your consideration regarding your December 31 posting on Survivors.    

“When Brent asks us to come to him if he has sinned against us, it’s the very antithesis of “First go and be reconciled to them” from Matthew 5.”  This is not a fair statement Kim.  I’ve always gone to anyone I believe I sinned against.  In asking people to contact me, I am not neglecting this responsibility.  I am simply acknowledging that I may have sinned against someone but I am unaware of the offense and therefore I invited people to approach me. 

“Brent, I’m pretty sure you either read here or have a means to know what is posted here.”  I don’t read Refuge or Survivors.  Occasionally Jenny scans them.  Luckily she caught your comments.  Please communicate with me via email. 

“When you and I got together about 4 months ago (so that I could help you with something), I spent nearly an hour and a half listening to you describe your situation.  At the very conclusion of the meeting, you said, “If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.”  I honestly pitied you so deeply at that moment that I couldn’t respond.  I don’t pity you because you sinned, but I pity your inability to make others a priority.”  This is a total misrepresentation of what I said.  Jenny had a very important doctor’s appointment and she needed the car.  I had to leave.  I would have liked to stay longer.  I said so.  I would have gladly continued our discussion but I simply could not.  We did not gather to talk about ways I might have sinned against you.  But as I was leaving I wanted you to know I was happy to have another conversation regarding the same.  You responded in the negative and said it was not necessary.  If you had expressed an interest I would have followed up.  It is wrong to say “I pity your inability to make others a priority.”  I made a sincere offer to make you a priority. Your quote of me is not accurate but worse it is entirely misrepresentative of my attitude and actions at the time.

“Please hear me loud and clear, Brent. You did sin against me and you sinned against every member of CrossWay Church, but I don’t need to detail those sins.”  In context everyone would assume I sinned against you in a direct manner and treated you badly in some grievous ways and then backed out from meeting with you to be reconciled.  I’m glad that is not the case per your follow up clarification, First and foremost, my post on Survivors was never intended to be about any way that you have sinned against me as a result of any personal interaction we have had.  I appreciate that you are concerned about that but it was not my point at all.” 

“If you honestly think that means that only 8 to 10 were hurt, you’re deceived.”  I don’t.  That is why I said in that same blog post, “I assume there are more folks and I am happy to hear from them.” 

“Last thing. Since our meeting, I have e-mailed you twice when you wrote things that were completely inaccurate.  You never responded.”  This implies I am trying to avoid accountability for things I’ve said that are “completely inaccurate.”  I’ve never done that.  Here is my previous response. 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Kim
Subject: RE: Resend

We met on August 30.  I wrote you in part on August 31, ““In asking for the information, it was not my intent to threaten SGM with a lawsuit.  Only, if I decided to include this information in correspondence, to underscore the basis for such actions which I have forfeited.”  I didn’t come into our meeting with the intent of suing and I didn’t leave with the intent of suing.

Nine weeks later (not a few) on October 30, Dave Harvey wrote, “You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries.”  I responded on the same day with “I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation.”  This is an altogether truthful statement.  I was not in contact with any attorney on Oct 30 and it was an absurd accusation that I desired to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and PM.  I never did such thing.  What I wrote was not “completely inaccurate” as you claimed on Survivors.  Just the opposite.

I closed comments on my blog on August 23.  Anything you tried to post would have been refused.  I don’t know what happened to your correspondence but I never received them.  I would certainly have responded so it is not true that I “never responded.”  Truth is I never received them. 

If you remember the first one please let me know.  I am glad to provide you an answer.  Back to you later with more.

“I invited you to two meetings with former CrossWay members. You showed interest and then backed out hours before each meeting. If you’re serious about reconciling and serious about taking responsibility, let’s see more action and fewer words.”  This gives the impression that these meetings were about reconciliation and I “backed out” in order to avoid you and others.  This is so wrong.  In your first invitation you said the meeting was casual, informal, and had no agenda.  I assumed the same of the second.  I didn’t back out of anything.  The first time, Jonathan and Katie [my son and his wife] dropped in unexpectedly from Augusta.  The second time I was sick.  

Kim, I have never treated you in this fashion.  I’ve not incited people against you.  I’ve not been malicious.  I’ve always appreciated and respected you and I am grateful for all the ways you helped build CrossWay.  I have carefully read your letter regarding your assessment of CrossWay.  We have our differences.  Let me know if you want to meet to discuss them and the issues above.  I genuinely thank God for you.

Sincerely,

Brent

##

I provided Kim “thoughts for [her] consideration.”  She wrote back expressing appreciation but no sorrow for any of her online comments.  I figured she needed more time to think about my input.  I didn’t feel the need to press her further. 

From: Kim
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 3:50 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Feedback

Brent, thanks for your response.  I appreciate the time that it took to prepare it and the gentleness with which you have responded.

##

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:06 AM
To: Kim
Subject: RE: Feedback

You’re welcome Kim.

##

It seems Kim thought I was being dishonest about several things.  For instance, not answering her two emails and telling Dave Harvey I was not in contact with a lawyer.  She followed up and I responded with more information.

From: Kim
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:05 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Contact through blog

Brent, below you will find a screen shot of my AOL in-box that shows that I wrote to you (and received your automated responses) through your blog on September 24 and October 12.  Below that screen shot is another screen shot that shows an example of the actual responses I received – they were identical, of course, since they were generated by your system.  Finally, at the very end of this e-mail is a copy of what I wrote on October 12.  I did not keep my e-mail from September 24. 

My Automated Response - September 24, 2011

“I appreciate you taking the time to write.  I read everything but I might not be able to respond due the sheer volume of mail I receive.  I hope to incorporate your questions or comments into my posts so thanks for helping me out.”

Kim’s Email – October 12, 2011

“Brent, your latest post included these sentences: “I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation.”

While it’s technically true that we are not currently in contact, we were in contact about this very situation.  Did you forget about our conversation at Panera?  We didn’t get together that morning to catch up.  We got together because you contacted me and asked me to meet you.  You wanted to know your legal rights and you wanted my advice.  Therefore, it’s hard for me to see how Harvey’s accusation is absurd.

Also, I haven’t received your response to my last e-mail, also sent through your blog.  Are you getting my e-mails?

Kim

##

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:50 AM
To: Kim
Subject: RE: Contact through blog

Here is the context.  A person by the name of [deleted] asked me to forward an email from her to Ted Kober (below).  That is all I did.  I did not comment on her email.  I did not endorse her email.  I did not reference her email later.

Somehow Dave concluded “You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries…”  That was completely absurd.  I did not inform anyone of any such thing at any time in any manner.  Dave’s comments were crazy and had nothing to do with me.  They were solely about her email to Ted and had nothing to do with our meeting nine weeks earlier. 

I know you wrote me through the blog but for whatever reason I did not see the emails.  I’m not sure why.  I used the “automatic response” you received on Sept 24 before I closed the blog for comments on August 23.  I’m not sure why it was still working.  I never saw the Oct 12 email either.  If I had it would have been easy to correct your misunderstanding.   

Cheers

Brent

##

From: [Deleted]
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 10:31 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Contacting AOR as a consumer advocate as I intend to write directly to the lawyers involved with AOR and PM

Dear Brent,

Can you do me a favor and forward this e-mail?  I’d like to tell Ted Kober that in my capacity as a consumer advocate I’m afraid that people are being harmed by AOR and Peace Makers as neither organization follows the protocols of well-known conflict resolution institutes and also appear to be misrepresenting how they approach legal issues regarding confidentiality, conflicts-of-interest, and some other important things.  This is an especially big problem for the lawyers involved with AOR and PM who are expected to uphold the law and act with great integrity.

As such I will be trying to contact the board members and staff members at AOR and PM who identify themselves as practicing attorneys with my concerns via certified snail mail.  If I am unable to communicate with them directly or they ignore my correspondence I will contact the state bars of which they are members and ask them if these attorneys are acting with integrity.

My concerns have nothing to with SGM.  I actively advocate against many forms of arbitration due to the fact that it denies people important aspects of due process such as discovery and cross-examination.

##

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 10:57 AM
To: [Deleted]; Ted Kober
Cc:  Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Ken Sande; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: RE: contacting AOR as a consumer advocate as I intend to write directly to the lawyers involved with AOR and PM

Hello Ted,

I’ve been asked to forward this notification to you from [deleted].

Would you also furnish me the names and email addresses of all Board Members for Ambassadors of Reconciliation.  People want to write them and share their observations or concerns [regarding the Group Reconciliation Process].

Thank you

Brent

##

From: Dave Harvey
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:45 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert 
Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

…Bryce sent you this proposal on October 3 and asked you to respond regarding your willingness to participate by today, October 10.  During the past week you have sent us emails attacking our credibility and the credibility of our plan.  You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries… 

##

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert 
Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

…I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation…

##

It had been nine weeks since I met with Kim.  After all of this, she continued to make misrepresentative comments on Survivors this past Saturday. 

Res Ipsa - January 14th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

"For the past 2 weeks I’ve been exchanging e-mails with Brent in a conversation that started with my 12/31/11 post here.  He learned of that post and sent me an e-mail to request my phone number.  I provided my number by e-mail but also detailed my thoughts about how Brent had sinned against CrossWay Church and, since I was a member, against me.  I was not claiming that he sinned against me in any direct, personal way but rather that his leadership of the church harmed people.

"A few days later he sent me a line-by-line analysis of my 12/31/11 blog post and how I was inaccurate or misrepresented him.  In fact, there’s even an implication (that I really hope I misunderstood) that I was inciting people against him.

"Since his e-mail also said, 'I’ve always gone to anyone I believe I sinned against', I’m left with the understanding that he must not think he sinned against me or the other members of CrossWay.

"I think I need to change my screenname to Don Quixote."

##

Two observations.  First, whereas Kim said before, “Brent, thanks for your [January 5] response.  I appreciate the time that it took to prepare it and the gentleness with which you have responded.”  Now she said “A few days later he sent me a line-by-line analysis of my 12/31/11 blog post and how I was inaccurate or misrepresented him.  In fact, there’s even an implication (that I really hope I misunderstood) that I was inciting people against him.”  Kim dismisses all of my concerns as “inaccurate or misrepresentative.”  She also implies I did something wrong in providing her “a line-by-line analysis.”  Instead of rejecting all my concerns, I wish she had included them and provided a contrite response to them.

Second, she implies I am not willing to meet with her.  “Since his e-mail also said, ‘I’ve always gone to anyone I believe I sinned against,’ I’m left with the understanding that he must not think he sinned against me or the other members of CrossWay.”  I don’t believe I’ve sinned against Kim in the ways she has outlined but that doesn’t mean I am correct or won’t change my mind.  What she fails to make clear is that I’m the one who has always taken the initiative with her to talk or meet.  She typically responds by posting against me on the blogs. 

For example, I asked to talk to her by phone on January 1.  Instead, she responded with an email.  At the end of that email she said “Feel free to call or to e-mail, whichever you believe is better.”  I responded via email thinking that was her preference.  That should not be used against me to say I won’t “first go and be reconciled” to her. 

Furthermore, when I provided Kim feedback on January 5, I ended my correspondence this way.  “Kim, I have never treated you in this fashion.  I’ve not incited people against you.  I’ve not been malicious.  I’ve always appreciated and respected you and I am grateful for all the ways you helped build CrossWay.  I have carefully read your letter regarding your assessment of CrossWay.  We have our differences.  Let me know if you want to meet to discuss them and the issues above.  I genuinely thank God for you.”

She never got back to me.  She wasn’t interested in meeting.  Posting on Survivors was her answer.

##

As I’ve said before:

“There are approximately 100,000 hits each month by people who read my blog posts.  If I lie, distort the facts, or make something up, there are plenty of people who can expose my deception.  That is not the case with some anonymous writers who provide little or no evidence but make sweeping statements of condemnation with impunity.  Or they twist the truth or manufacture a story line that is bogus.  They answer to no one.  They want accountability for SGM but not for themselves.  They confront abusive practices in SGM but commit the same sins on line.  I would not want them as my pastors.” (“For What It’s Worth (FWIW)” at BrentDetwiler.com for January 17, 2012)

Kim, I no longer trust you like I once did but I am happy to meet provided I can also raise your sins against me.  Though I care not, you have “incited” people against me by your misrepresentations which continue despite my invitation to meet and hear your concerns.  I hope it ends.  Please let me by phone or email if you’d like to meet.   

Post Script – “Definitely Still SGM!”

FWIW posted the following on Wednesday.  It is an excerpt.  I’ve including it because it made me laugh.

“Brent wrote at the end of his rant: ‘Definitely still SGM!  But for some reason, I haven’t been getting my six figure paycheck.  And didn’t one Board Member command his church to treat me like a tax gatherer.  I wonder if the IRS has any openings so I can pay my bills?  Yes, I stink and all of SGM stinks!  And what about all your comments above?  What do they smell like – roses?’  Brent admits he is still SGM.  That was my point...”

I should have added "lol" or an animated emoticon after “Definitely still SGM!”  I was being facetious not serious.  Ask C.J. or Dave. 

For What It's Worth (FWIW)

I’ve decided to address two individuals (one later) that post on Survivors and Refuge while there’s a pause in the action as we wait to hear from the SGM Board.  This is a first.  I’ve not done this before.  I hope it is instructive.  I believe there are many down sides when people are free to write anything they want with absolutely no accountability because their identities are concealed.  As a result their stories cannot be checked out and verified. 

There are approximately 100,000 hits each month by people who read my blog posts.  If I lie, distort the facts, or make something up, there are plenty of people who can expose my deception.  That is not the case with some anonymous writers who provide little or no evidence but make sweeping statements of condemnation with impunity.  Or they twist the truth or manufacture a story line that is bogus.  They answer to no one.  They want accountability for SGM but not for themselves.  They confront abusive practices in SGM but commit the same sins on line.  I would not want them as my pastors. 

I’ve been in full time ministry for 33 years.  During the course of that time, I’ve had to correct, reprove, rebuked and discipline people for homosexuality, lesbianism, adultery, child neglect, theft, spiritual abuse, physical abuse, accessing illegal pornography in the workplace, lying, divorce, genuine slander, false doctrine and more.  I’ve made some enemies.  A few went to jail.  Any faithful shepherd will in our culture. 

Any of these people can assess the blogs and say anything they want about me without consequence.  Though they would never do so, imagine what C.J. and Mickey might say about me, or I about them, on an anonymous blog.  I could make up all kinds of things up about them.  I could slaughter them with lies.  I don’t make this point in an attempt to label all critics unrighteous enemies but it certainly happens and in various degrees from moderate to severe.  Here is one recent case in point.      

My comments are in italic letters with blue ink.

FWIW says:

January 4, 2012 at 11:14 am

SGM3in15,

On his Facebook page on Nov 28th Brent posted “We Are Taking Brent Detwiler’s Allegations Seriously!” It has 4 comments. On Nov 23, Brent posted “A Few Bible Thoughts about Online Confessions.” It has 8 comments. On Nov 13 he posted “CrossWay Pastors Proceed with “Marking” as Divisive Despite Appeals for Adjudication.”  It has 5 comments.

Someone posted something very nice on Brent’s wall on Nov 15th.  It is still there and has not been removed.  I have seen many “negative” comments removed while the nice ones remain.

This is simply not true.  Those who read my Facebook page know I periodically simplify the presentation by deleting extraneous entries and comments.  Even my own.  I did so the other week.  I’ve not deleted “negative” comments while letting the “nice ones remain.”  In reality, I’ve told people on several occasions I am removing comments (pro and con) in order to simplify or clean up the appearance of the page.  A lot of people read my Facebook entries rather than my blog posts.  That’s been my motivation for removing comments.  The example cited from Nov 15 is simply not true. 

##

FWIW says:

January 13, 2012 at 11:14 am

Brent Detwiler just posted “The Five Resolutions” on his blog and FB page.  While I am very much opposed to SGM and the board, I also see that Brent was trying to run the show on how things should get resolved.  He had his list of what He wanted done and how he wanted it done, and there was not much bending room given.

I set two conditions before I’d meet with C.J.  They were both necessary for the reasons I’ve given elsewhere.  I wasn’t “trying to run the show.” I was trying to hold SGM accountable by requiring them to be open and honest.     

Brent puts out documents, then gives his commentary, and then turns off all comments so no one can respond.  So all we end up with really, is his view and his last word.  No one is given a chance to respond or explain.  Brent posts what he wants us to see, and only gives his explanation.  In his courtroom, only he is allowed to speak and present evidence.  The other side is silenced (except for what he decides to post with his interpretation only).

My Facebook page has never been turned off for comments.  Bad information.  I turned off comments on BrentDetwiler.com on August 23, 2011.  I gave it my best shot but then closed the blog for comments.  Why?  God holds me accountable for what I allow to be posted.  If it is hateful, I have to give account.  If it is slanderous, I am partly responsible for the dissemination.  Too many posts troubled my conscience.  Second, I didn’t have the time to monitor the comments, help people deal with one another, correct sinful attitudes or provide additional information in order for people to have a complete picture on any particular issue.  

What Brent is doing is totally unbiblical and unfair.  As much as I like blasting the obvious abuses of SGM, this is just way out of line.  Brent wants everything in writing, and then when he gets it, he posts it for all to see and then slams everything they say.  Now he wants some more and is upset that they will not put it in writing!  WHAT DOES HE EXPECT?  He has already shown what he is going to do with these personal e-mails.  He is going to post them and then give his commentary only.  Brent’s side and no other.

That’s quite a stretch to say having a blog with no comments is “totally unbiblical and unfair.”  Furthermore, I am typically responding to things others have said or written (e.g., “C.J.’s State of His Heart Message,” “The Five Resolutions”) and I’ve always invited their further response.  My reasons for wanting things in writing are obvious.  It is much harder to manipulate, distort, and spin the printed word when presented in context.  I’ve only posted “personal emails” when  attempts to address sin issues in private have been repeatedly rebuffed, ignored, or covered-up.  In my blog, I present “my side” but I am happy to hear your side.  Write me anytime at my email address.  One other note, I wish you didn’t “like blasting the obvious abuses of SGM.”  Believe me, I don’t like doing it. 

Even if Brent is right with his initial grievances, the way he is now handling it totally unfair to all involved.  His posts now are all about him.  Where is all the discussion about the people that he ran his truck over?

Do you think your approach is fair?  That is making unsubstantiated and anonymous comments?  Please remember, I’ve asked for an open adjudication hearing.  I’ve always included anything that C.J., Dave, Steve, etc. have written in their own defense or in their prosecution of me.  I am glad to hear from you.  Shed your anonymity, walk in the light, and let me know if my truck ran you over like your truck is running me over.

Mr. Detwiler once again is abusing his position and using his knowledge to crucify those in his way. Please go read today’s post on his blog and please correct me if I have misjudged him, or if you see it differently.

I’m not crucifying those in my way.  I am holding people accountable with a redemptive desire for reform.  I think you are guilty of the very charges you make.  You seem to enjoy crucifying people from your hidden hideout. 

##

FWIW says:

January 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm

Hi Michael,

It would be very difficult to go from Brent’s blog to here or Survivors to dig through comments relating to any specific Brent postings.  All of his comments are in one place.  Very few will come over here and be able to find individual response to Brent’s posts.  We are discussing a very wide variety of issues here and Survivors.  There is way too much to search through.

Brent does not even have open replies on his FB page.  So that is not an option either.  Brent had open comments on his blog when the docs were first posted, and then he turned the comments off when he was challenged on some issues.  I was one of the challengers.

Completely untrue.  My FB page has always allowed for open replies.  I’ve only refused access (and deleted former postings) to one or two people.  The comments on FB have been much more civil.  People can’t write without revealing their true identity.  That’s brings a much needed accountability for all of us.  Turning off the comments on my blog had nothing to do with the being “challenged on some issues.” 

I would love to interact with Brent about what he is posting, but he has shut the door. Brent does not like opposition. I know this for a fact from firsthand interactions with him.  He is very strong willed and opinionated.  He is not a humble man and does not respond with meekness or gentleness when pressed on an issue.  I have my own batch of emails from Brent.  I have not posted them, and I doubt I ever will.

I’ve not shut the door.  You can write me an email and please send your “own batch of emails.”  What are your facts?  Present them.  I’d really like to see what they were about and provide you a response.  I’ll certainly ask your forgiveness if I’ve sinned against you.  

Brent likes things HIS way.  In his courtroom, he is the prosecutor, judge, and jury.  He likes putting on the show and running the show.  The only comments he ever has allowed on his FB page are from his supporters and yes men.  Everything else is removed or blocked.  Again, I know this from firsthand experience.

I’ve presented my perspective with conviction but always asked to be corrected for any errors of any kind.  I hate “putting on the show and running the show.”  That is a terrible characterization of my motives.  I’ve simply tried to be faithful to God’s calling.  I’d much rather be living a quiet and peaceful life far away from the daily battles I now fight.

As I read these comments it is apparent you have appointed yourself as prosecutor, judge and jury in my case.  What you say about only allowing “supporters and yes men” to make comments on FB is pure slander.  It is absolutely contrary to the facts.  There is only one person (and maybe one of his followers) I’ve banned from posting on FB and that is an individual who is preaching a false gospel.  He doesn’t believe Jesus was a propitiation (i.e., wrath removing sacrifice) for our sins (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).  I will not allow him to assess my account in order to lead people astray.  That person may be FWIW.  The very person I am now addressing!   

I am not taking up for C J, SGM, the board, or anyone else.  But I have seen no change in Brent’s sin of pride, his attitudes, doctrines, etc.  He still seems power hungry and all about Brent.  I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong and give me a good report on Brent’s new heart.  So far, no one has.

If I’m correct, this person is hostile because I’ve taken a stand against his heretical view of the atonement.   

##

FWIW says:

January 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm

Let me ask a question: If Brent was still in SGM, would we have ever seen those documents and e-mails?  Would he be making all of this fuss on his blog if he was still in leadership there?  Why did he wait until he was booted out, to reveal these issues?  The blackmailing of Larry T took place over 15 years ago.  Why did he stand by and let that happen, maybe even participate, or help cover it up?

I guess FWIW has not read the documents.  If he did he’d know I’ve been “making all of this fuss” for a long time.  I’ve been formally addressing issues with C.J. since December 2000 and with SGM since 2004.  I left SGM in August 2009.  After 18 months of private appeals, I went public in July 2011.  I never hoped to go public even after I left.  I waited and worked for 1½ years.  It wasn’t about trying to keep my job.  It was about biblical ethics and giving C.J., et al., every opportunity to walk in the light.   I was wrong in giving support to the blackmail and I have clearly acknowledged this to the public and the Tomczaks. (see “What About My Own Sins” on Dec 31, 2011 on my blog)

Has Brent repented of his role in the hideous abuses that SGM has perpetrated on their unsuspecting victims?  He tells people to contact him IF he has offended them.  So his sins are kept private.  None of his abuses get revealed and discussed on his blog, do they?

If by “hideous abuses” he means opposing a false gospel then I am guilty.  It is wrong to use this kind of language without providing proof.  And when “proof” is provided, I must have the freedom to defend against it if untrue.  That is true for everyone.  All my charges against SGM are substantiated with evidence.  I’ve asked that all my charges be challenged if considered lacking.  For instance, it is wrong to accuse Dave Harvey of lying if I don’t appeal in private first, ask for a defense, ask for involvement by others, only post in public when ignored, and then provide real evidence fairly presented.  The same is true of Mickey.  I contacted Joe or the CrossWay pastors a total of six times before posting.  I asked to talk about the situation in private.  They refused and never answered me in print regarding any of the charges.

Yes, I am very grateful that C J and company have been exposed.  But Brent seems very reluctant to discuss HIS role as an SGM tyrant and bully.  His revelations against SGM do not now make him a good guy.  He should have done this years’ ago when he was still in leadership.

There are good things about SGM and you can’t lump everyone together as equally guilty of the bad things.  Who is the “tyrant and bully” in this piece?  It is not how I’ve conducted myself in ministry. 

It reminds me a little of a jailhouse snitch who says, ”Yeah, I was there, but I did not do the shooting.” It takes the heat and attention off of them and maybe they get a lighter sentence in return for their information.  Brent was just an innocent bystander, right?  Or maybe he just got involved with the wrong crowd.  Poor Brent.

I am seeking to take responsibility for my role.  Initiating with people.  Inviting people.  Commenting on my sins.  How about you?  Will you take responsibility for your abusive attitude and fallacious remarks in these comments?  Sometimes people who point out SGM abuses do so in an abusive fashion and never see the hypocrisy.      

##

FWIW says:

January 15, 2012 at 10:04 am

I also agree that it is a separate issue, but it is an issue none the less. This is the pot calling the kettle black.  (No racism intended by me whatsoever with using that saying). Is the kettle black, yes it is.  Is the pot black, yes it is.  Is the bigger focus on SGM as a whole – of course it is.  Should we keep our focus on the big picture – of course we should.

I am black.  SGM is black.  What color are you?         

I never intended to shift the focus off of SGM.  In my mind, Brent IS SGM – still!  He is a big part of this big picture.  He helped make this big ugly picture.  I hold him as responsible for the abuses that happened just as much as I do the rest of the leadership there.  They ALL stink – including Brent.  That was all I was trying to say.  Just because he is now helping to expose that stink, does not automatically make him smell like a rose.

Definitely still SGM!  But for some reason, I haven’t been getting my six figure paycheck.  And didn’t one Board Member command his church to treat me like a tax gatherer.  I wonder if the IRS has any openings so I can pay my bills?  Yes, I stink and all of SGM stinks!  And what about all your comments above?  What do they smell like – roses?    

Sorry for the interruption – now back to regular programming.

When FWIW reveals his true identity to me and the blogs, I’ll probably have more to say.  Until then I don’t plan to write anymore responses even though I anticipate his misrepresentation of me and the facts will continue.  Most likely with a greater vengeance.  I just hope what I’ve written helps people to be more discerning (and suspicious) of comments like those above from FWIW.