By Jenny Grover
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm
- The board didn't want to do it, they are only doing it [the 3 panels] because they were pressured. They felt it was unnecessary.
- 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.
- 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?
- There is no detail explaining how the panels will be chosen.
- 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.
- 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 n 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.