Search This Site

 

 

Connect

 Subscribe by Email

Tuesday
Jan172012

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.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend