When someone harms another person or his property, paying an indemnity or damages for losses suffered is a deeply rooted aspect of biblical and civil justice. For example, “But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord!...if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount’” (Luke 19:8). Or, “If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution” (Ex 22:14).
The last section in the Sovereign Grace Bylaws deals with the subject of indemnification or the conditions under which a Board of Director, officer or agent is immune from or liable for damages due another person.
“Section 11.1 Immunity for Serving in Capacity as Board Member. A member of the Board of Directors shall be immune from liability [to damages] by reason of his being or having been a director of the Corporation if he shall perform his duties as a director in good faith, in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the Corporation, and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.”
This section seeks protection against a Board of Director provided he has performed his duties in good faith, in the best [e.g. lawful] interests of SGM, and with care.
“Section 11.2 Immunity for Service as Officer or Other Non-Board Member. No officer or other person who renders service to or for the Corporation, in a capacity other than as a member of the Board of Directors, shall be liable, and no cause of action may be brought, for damages resulting from the exercise of judgment or discretion in connection with the duties or responsibilities of such officer, or, in the case of other persons, for damages resulting from an act or omission in rendering such services, unless the act or omission involved willful or wanton, conduct.”
This section seeks protection for officers or other agents who are not Board Members but provide services for Sovereign Grace Ministries (e.g. Bob Kauflin or Gene Emerson in the past). They are not liable for their decisions, acts or omissions unless they involve willful (known wrong doing) or wanton (deliberate) misconduct.
“Section 11.4 Indemnification against Third Party Lawsuits and Other Proceedings. …The Corporation may indemnify [protect against lawsuits] any Director who is made a party to any proceeding by reason of service in that capacity unless it is established that the act or omission of the Director was committed in bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty, or unless the Director actually received an improper personal benefit in money, property, or services, or in the case of any criminal proceeding, the Director had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful.”
This is an extremely important paragraph because it is one of the reasons Dave Harvey and the interim Board rigged the “Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure” last October (see SGM Board Rejects Impartial, Just and Thorough Adjudication Process!) and then stopped the proceeding altogether (see Get Out of Jail Free Card for C.J. – No Adjudication Hearing). They were scared to death of a lawsuit for acting in “bad faith,“ not acting in the “best interests” of SGM with “care,“ “willful or wanton, conduct,” “active and deliberate dishonesty,” and “unlawful” acts or omissions like denying me due process. President Obama stays awake at night worrying about nuclear terrorism. Tommy Hill stays awake at night worrying about lawsuits.
This fear of a lawsuit produced a willingness by the interim Board to break a year’s worth of promises regarding the use independent evaluators, conceive an adjudication plan that was partial to C.J., force that plan upon me without warning or discussion, refuse to consider my counterproposal, refuse to conduct an adjudication hearing when I changed my mind, and wickedly devise The Three Panel Review in secret which was far more corrupt than the original Adjudication Procedure. C.J., Dave, Tommy, and Chip Grange did not want a judgment or finding of “active or deliberate dishonesty.” It would have made SGM liable for damages. They knew it then and circumvented the possibility.
That’s why The Three Panel Review in December 2011 dealt with three carefully crafted questions designed by the interim Board and lawyers that were extremely limited in scope. The questions were designed to vindicate C.J. and protect him, others and SGM from a lawsuit.
If I had the opportunity to make my case before a Church Court it would be very easy to prove that C.J., Dave, the interim Board and others acted in bad faith and were actively and deliberately dishonest. There are hundreds of examples. The threshold of proof required for damages is much lower per the bylaws above (e.g. prove dishonesty). The burden of proof required for damages in a Civil Court is much higher. That is one of the reasons why the new Board of Directors rejected my request to convene a Church Court. See My Appeal to the SGM Pastors for a Church Court in Order to Avoid a Civil Court. They knew C.J. and others would be found guilty. Damages would be forthcoming.
Right up until I sent out The Documents on July 6, 2011, C.J. considered them extremely helpful. Immediately after I sent them out to the SGM Pastors, he and the interim Board considered them damnable. But that is beside the point. Here is what C.J. said about their worth and value.
From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:35 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: [Much Benefit]
Brent, let me conclude by thanking you for sending me these documents.[1] I am deriving much benefit from reading them and reviewing them with others. As I read them by God’s grace I am perceiving more of my sin, more clearly.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:09 AM
To: C.J. Mahaney
Subject: Overlooking Statements
Thanks for your note C.J. and willingness to review my documents with others…I’m glad to hear you’re finding the documents of some benefit. Grace to you as you continue to seek the Lord…
From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Wednesday, Novmber 03, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: FW: Overlooking Statements
Brent,
Thanks for your gracious response. I’m not finding the documents to be of some benefit, I’m finding them to be of significant benefit.
From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Confidential
Brent,
I was reluctant to send this but decided to do so. I am not trying to impress you or convince you about what I am perceiving in my heart. But since I began to reengage with your documents[2] a couple of days ago and with the help of others I have already perceived a couple of areas of sin I didn’t clearly perceive previously. It’s discouraging how slow and dull and blind I can be. My pride/self-righteousness are no doubt the root cause. Pathetic really.
Just wanted to inform you of the small incremental stuff that seems to be happening. My hope is that it continues.
Thanks for your patience and care my friend. Please keep praying for me.
With my gratefulness,
C.J.
##
A friend wrote me the following note.
From: [Friend]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:17 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: [Big Thanks]
Real quick comment. C.J. missed another opportunity to be magnanimous in his Commitments section [in Response to AoR Report from C.J. Mahaney and SGM Board of Directors]. He could have looked really humble if he had, despite his disagreements with the blogs and you, to at least acknowledge that if it weren’t for you these “deficiencies” would have not been addressed in a serious way. SGM owes you a big thanks.
Well, I like money more than thanks (just joking) so I’ve decided to forego a lawsuit and send C.J. an invoice for services rendered. I could charge the Ted Kober rate of $150.00 per hour for 2½ years of work but I’ve decided to use another method.
The “Report to the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries” by Ted and Ed Keinath cost approximately $400,000. It is comprised of 18,966 words. That comes to $21.09 per word. I’ve written 555,718 words that have brought “much benefit” and “significant benefit.” So I figure what I’ve written is at least as valuable as what Ted and Ed wrote. At $21.09 per word my invoice will be in the amount of 11.7 million. If C.J. doesn’t pay, I’ll sue the pants off of him.
Of course, I’m kidding. I have seriously thought about making my case in a Civil Court. When I first began writing in 2010, C.J. was unwilling to acknowledge any faults in his life or in SGM. Whatever changes have transpired for the good have come at a great price. Please excuse my inclusion of this honest communication to the friend above who said C.J. owed me a “big thanks.”
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:08 PM
To: [Friend]
Subject: Re: [Big Thanks]
And all it took was the destruction of my livelihood, the ruination of our financial lives, the loss of all reputation, the anguish of betrayal, the cutting off of friends, the impoverishment of health, the banning from all SGM churches and excommunication from the Charlotte church I founded and built.
The Holy Spirit warned me these kinds of things were coming on August 20, 2004 after confronting CJ. They came with the call. I am not regretful but it has required great suffering. I am not resentful. I did it because I love C.J. and SGM. It is all part of following Christ. I count it a joy. You are one of the few to understand. Thanks my friend.
##
I wrote My Appeal to the SGM Pastors for a Church Court in Order to Avoid a Civil Court. I was serious about both options. I received counsel from three different lawyers. These two emails provide a good synopsis of their input.
From: [Lawyer]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 10:18 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: Lawsuit
I do know some extraordinarily good lawyers including a DC lawyer who I have worked with for 27 years in litigation and a local friend who is my go to on significant litigation. The problem is legal fees can be breathtaking. It would be very unlikely someone would work on a contingency. Can you give me an idea of the theory of the case?
From: [Lawyer]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:29 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: Lawsuit
If you would like I would be happy to [talk] about the legal approach. I do have some caution based on a limited knowledge: few people are happy to have to take the legal path although I know if you don’t do something you may not have other remedy.
Cost of course is an overwhelming factor: as mentioned earlier it is highly unlikely someone would take a case of this sort on a contingency and the fees would run into the 10s of thousands almost immediately with a six figure cost being a real possibility if not probability, especially dealing with top flight lawyers.
Finally, the law doesn’t really track harms based on injustice and there are many things in which the law doesn’t offer remedy. In particular churches and religious organizations are given broad play in many areas to manage their own affairs and employee matters and may even have limited privilege in libel and slander.
I’m not saying rule things out before considering them but we should talk if you want.
##
A few comments based upon the counsel above. First, lawyers typically take a case on contingency when it is clearly winnable and settlements amounts are large. Second, it is harder to prove tortuous interference with contract; negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress; defamation (which includes both libel and slander) and wrongful termination when dealing with churches due to the separation of Church and State. Churches are “given broad play in many areas” and may have “limited privilege in libel and slander.”
These crimes are far easier to prove in a court of law when they involve corporate America. Before ever going to court, 1,500 pages of documentation like my own would get the attention of any Human Resource Department, Internal Affairs Department, or The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. Top flight lawyers would be interested in taking on my case if I were a Board of Director and the Chief Operating Officer for a Fortune 500 Company.
On the other hand, the old, interim and new Board of Directors for Sovereign Grace Ministries are accountable to no one! They don’t even have a grievance policy. They have been able to lie, deceive, abuse with impunity and ignore the past. Third, the expenses involved in pursuing a lawsuit would be “overwhelming” and “breathtaking.” That makes such a pursuit an impossibility.
I fear for Sovereign Grace Ministries! I desire the best for Sovereign Grace Ministries! They will continue in their evil ways unless they are held accountable and suffer consequences for their actions. That is why I looked into the possibility of a lawsuit. I hoped to help them like any other law breaker. Letting them off the hook with no radical reform in sight is destructive to their individual and collective well-being. It is unloving!
But ultimately, discipline is in the hands of God the Father and he has sovereignly thwarted the many enablers that surround C.J. and SGM. That will continue. Our Lord Jesus does not need a lawsuit from me to work his will. God of his own determining has resisted Sovereign Grace Ministries because we live in a moral universe of his making and keeping. He is not mocked.
Therefore, it is not hard to accept that Lord doesn’t want me investing my energies in a two year legal proceeding. He must have other things in mind. In the meantime, I’ll send C.J. my invoice for 11.7 million and await payment in full.
[1] Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine and A Final Appeal.
[2] Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine, A Final Appeal, and Concluding Remarks.
]]>The new Leadership Team has also been installed for SGM. It has been reduced from 11 men to just 4 men (i.e., C.J. - president, Dave Harvey – church planting and care, Jeff Purswell – Pastors College, Tommy Hill – SGM staff and finances). This allows for a centralization of power. SGM now has a four tiered hierarchy in place although the third tier of apostles[1] (e.g., Gamache, Greasley, Osborne, Prater, Shank) has not yet been named. Here’s what it looks like.
Board of Directors (9 men) --> Leadership Team (4 men) --> Apostles (yet to be named) --> Local Elders
Daniel Baker, an elder in Apex in NC, alluded to this four layer possibility. He knew there would be at least three layers of government. One more has been added.
“Once we include this discussion we are ready to lay the framework for a revitalized Sovereign Grace Ministries. Such a denomination would have (at least) three layers of government. The first is the governing body of apostles and elders (the board). The second is the apostles that serve this body and the churches. The third is the local elders in their churches within the denomination.” (Daniel Baker, “A Defense of and Model for Apostolic Government,” p. 49)
The day C.J. returned as the temporary President, he posted “A note to those in Sovereign Grace Ministries” in which he highlighted his two top priorities. Getting a new Board of Directors into position and helping to identify and install his presidential successor. That was on January 25, 2012. C.J. hoped these two primary goals could be accomplished within a few months.” That was his plan. It’s been four months. We have a new Board as of March 19 but we still have the old President.
Four times C.J. pointed out the temporary nature of his role because a new president is needed “who has gifts better suited to serve Sovereign Grace in this next season.”
“Over the last six months I’ve spent many hours reflecting upon Sovereign Grace, our history together, and our purpose and mission. I’ve also taken time to think and pray about my calling and how I might best serve Sovereign Grace in this new season before us. I have sought counsel from friends and leaders within SGM and in the broader evangelical church…. In light of all of this, here is how I think I can best serve you in the days ahead: as I step back into the role as president, I will do so only temporarily. I think it would be wise for SGM to have a new president who has gifts better suited to serve Sovereign Grace in this next season…. So my return will be temporary and with a few important intentions. Let me briefly explain what they are. First, I want to give immediate attention to helping the interim board transfer governance to their successors…. Second, once the new board is formed I want to assist them however I can in identifying and installing my successor as president, although that decision will be for the board to make. There are a few other matters I want to address in my remaining time as president, all of which is subject to the priorities that the board establishes for me. But I hope these primary goals can be accomplished within the next few months.
“After supporting the board through these important transitions, I hope to return to what I believe is my primary calling from God – pastoral ministry and the pulpit. This plays a significant role in why my return as president is temporary…. Let me explain. I think preaching and pastoral ministry are where grace is most evident in my life and where my leadership is most effectively expressed. Others seem to agree…. Over the past six months I have seen more clearly than ever the wisdom of their [many faithful friends] counsel…. And I can proceed into this future confidently when our new board and president are in place. So that is what I am returning to do and why my return as president will be temporary.” (C.J. Mahaney, “A Note to Those in Sovereign Grace Ministries,” January 25, 2012)
So what’s the moral of the story? After four months of searching, C.J. has determined he is still the best suited to lead Sovereign Grace as the President. Remember, he also co-chairs the powerful Polity Committee with Phil Sasser. C.J.’s solidly in control. He’s running the show. What happened to his aspirations for preaching and pastoring? Well, others will do the pastoring (and administrating) and he has 40 years of messages he can use in the new church plant plus host of other men who can preach.
This is characteristic of C.J.’s leadership. He can bounce off one wall and slam up against another wall. One day, he says no way I’m suited to be President. Next day, I’m the best choice. His impulsiveness in decision making is often rooted in self-pity, one minute, and self-confidence, the next minute. He can quickly change from “I’d be a terrible President” to “I’d be a great President.”
This presents a minor problem for Chairman Loftness and friends. How do they explain C.J.’s permanency? No big deal. SGM is adept at spin. First, “temporary” will be redefined as “foreseeable future.” Second, C.J.’s self-assessment will be commended as an expression of humility. Third, the Board will disagree C.J.’s conclusion that he should not lead SGM. They will commend his giftings as sufficient and his experience as vital. Fourth, after making a brief public announcement the Board won’t talk about the matter any further. Many people in SGM won’t care what C.J. said back in January. Fifth the Board will promise to help C.J. as President so he can “return to what I [C.J.] believe is my primary calling from God – pastoral ministry and the pulpit.”
C.J. is not stepping aside for a successor. Maybe in two years or ten years but not anytime soon.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
[1] Mark Dever just came out with the designation, “apostolic pastors.” Maybe SGM will use his novel terminology. See http://www.9marks.org/journal/wanted-apostolic-pastors.
Post Script – May 22, 2012
On April 14, 2012, John Loftness, the Chairman of the Board for SGM, said C.J. will serve as President “for the immediate future.” It’s been over 5 weeks so far. In the parlance of SGM, you can translate the words “immediate” and “temporary” as “permanent.”
“The leadership team will provide leadership to the ministry, propose future plans and a budget for Board review, and implement these plans. For the immediate future, C.J. Mahaney will serve as President, Dave Harvey will lead church planting and church care, Jeff Purswell will serve as Dean of the Pastors College, and Tommy Hill as Director of Finance and Administration.” (John Loftness, “Update from the Sovereign Grace Board,” April 14, 2012)
]]>If C.J. goes with the Bible (pro-apostles), 30 plus churches leave because they don’t trust C.J. and his apostolic team and they don’t believe many of the men on his team are gifted as apostles. For example, someone like Jared Mellinger is neither trusted or recognized as an apostle. No one with any sense is going to give him (or Mark Prater or Steve Shank or Mickey Connolly or Dave Harvey) governing authority over them.
C.J. came back as President on January 25, 2012. His new apostolic team has still not been revealed. Why is this? Because of the above. If C.J. appoints himself senior apostle and Dave, Mickey, Mark and Jared as his fellow apostles, churches will run for the nearest emergency exit. There are also men on the old apostolic team (a.k.a. Leadership Team) who no longer want to be on the new apostolic team. They’ve had enough.
Dissenting pastors who are calling for radical reform are understandably afraid of a centralized SGM. They are working for a loose affiliation of churches. Not a tightly defined group of churches overseen by apostles. If C.J. plays the apostle card there will be an exodus. These pastors are not about to submit to the authority of SGM. They want SGM to function as a facilitator not a governor. I fully understand. The pastors also want a say regarding who serves on the SGM Board of Directors and Leadership Team so they are not self-appointed and some form of accountability to the pastors so Board of Directors and Leadership Team are not self-determined.
If you’ve study Trinitarian theology you are familiar with these terms: ontological Trinity, economic Trinity and immanent Trinity. These are ways of describing the being, functions and relationships within the Godhead. Well, there is a new polity trinity in SGM comprised of the father (Phil Sasser), son (in law, Daniel Baker) and spirit (Nathan Sasser, referring to his human spirit). The father is co-chair with C.J. on the Polity Committee. The son (in law) wrote “A Defense of a Model of Apostolic Government.” The free spirit (Nathan of course) wrote “SGM Polity, the Cessation of the Apostolate, and the Authority Question in our Local Churches.” This triumvirate of polity are working together and putting forth their best arguments for the present day ministry of apostles in SGM. I applaud them.
Nathan recently wrote the following. I agree.
“Historically, the Sovereign Grace churches have affirmed the continuation of the office of apostle. We thought of the leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries as apostles. This justified the existence and activities of SGM. Like the apostles in the NT, SGM’s leaders were financially supported by the local churches that they served, they directed church planting, and they had authority to ordain, install, and remove elders in local churches. Their teaching ministry guided the churches…. In 2010, SGM began to teach the cessation of apostles; on this new view, no one after the first generation of the Christian church has occupied the office of apostle…. The rejection of the continuation of the apostolic office raises critical questions of authority and accountability in the local churches. Historically, apostolic representatives of SGM bore the responsibility for censuring and even removing errant pastors (cf. 1 Tim. 5:19-21). If the office of apostle has ceased, then the representatives of SGM no longer have any basis for exercising authority in the local churches…. So SGM cannot continue to relate to the local churches in the same way as it did before the rejection of the apostolic office. SGM presently has no basis for exercising any authority in local churches.” (Nathan Sasser, Our Back Pages, April 30, 2012)
Nathan makes many good points and he is correct when he references Jeff Purswell’s teaching on “the cessation of apostles” at the Pre-Conference Gathering in 2010 before Together for the Gospel. Who is C.J. going to believe now? The continuationists, Phil, Daniel and Nathan or the cessationist, Jeff? You can’t have it both ways. There is no middle ground biblically, logically or pragmatically.
C.J. has extolled Jeff as the consummate theologian ever since he came to SGM in 1998 but C.J.’s theological loyalties on the issue of governance have transferred to Phil, Daniel and Nathan. Jeff was wrong on apostles and it has brought SGM to the brink. He argued away SGM’s biblical reason for existence.
There are no semi-technical apostles in the New Testament as Jeff asserts. No such category exists because there aren’t different types or kinds of apostles in the NT. The Twelve were not one type, Paul another type, and James, Silas, Titus, Timothy, Barnabas, Apollos yet another type. Some apostles were more distinguished than others but this doesn’t mean they were separated into different classes of apostles. For instance there weren’t different categories of apostles at the Jerusalem Council in descending order of legitimacy (compare Acts 14:14 regarding Paul and Barnabas with Acts 15:2 regarding Peter and James, et al.). Peter being one type, Paul another type, James a third type, and Barnabas a fourth type. They were simply apostles.
With Sovereign Grace Ministries on the verge of becoming a para-church organization, C.J. has reasserted the need for apostles (see Sovereign Grace’s Charismatic Decline and Ever Changing View of Apostles) but it is too late. It doesn’t matter if the continuationists win the battle for the Bible because few pastors trust anyone in SGM to function as an apostle and for a thousand good reasons. The triumvirate are correct on apostles but wildly incorrect in their favorable assessment of C.J., Dave and others.
My blog post entitled Cotton Candy from March 12 is an important read on the subject of polity. One realizes Jeff’s position on apostles is in direct opposition to the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws. These documents need to be dismantled or upheld depending on your view of apostles. In that post, I responded to the confusing letter sent to all the SGM Pastors on February 27 from Interim Board (C.J., Dave Harvey, Aron Osborne, Craig Cabaniss, Mickey Connolly, John Loftness, Pete Greasley, Rick Gamache, Mark Prater, Jeff Purswell, Steve Shank). That letter contradicts everything C.J., Dave and Jeff have taught the pastors since 2004. Here are two excerpts with my comments in blue lettering.
“Before we [the interim Board] get to the specifics of this step, we want to clarify a few preliminary points. As we’ve stated at the [2011 Pastors] conference and in our various polity meetings, we continue to affirm and celebrate our existence together as a family of churches. Although this letter speaks in terms of “the Board,” that is simply a functional term for the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries and not an abandonment of biblical principle. Based upon the precedent of the New Testament, SGM is an expression of extra-local ministry that is connected to local churches, emerging out of local churches, endorsed by local churches, and working with local churches, with the goal of planting churches and serving those churches as they grow toward maturity. As such (and as will be noted further below), participants in the new Board will comprise both men serving extra-locally as well as elders of churches partnering with SGM.
“Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Something needs to be clarified before saying any more. The SGM Board is reasserting its commitment to apostolic ministry and its authority over the churches. Of course, they don’t use the word “apostle” but that is just spin. Their meaning is clear. Like they say, “Board” is the functional term but “apostle” is the biblical term. As I’ve pointed out in the past, SGM is reduced to the status of a para-church ministry with no biblical justification unless they believe in “the precedent of the New Testament.” That is, “extra-local ministry.” Believe me, they are not talking about traveling evangelists or itinerate prophets. They mean apostles but are afraid to be honest. They want to have their cake and eat it too. But such a subtle distinction, if exposed, will not go over well in Reformed circles. C.J. is the chief apostle again. So if you don’t believe in apostles, it is time to get out of your SGM church.
“Sovereign Grace Ministries is a “family of churches” and the Board is “the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries.” The math is clear. The “biblical principle” of apostolic ministry is not being abandoned. It is being enforced and it must be “endorsed by local churches.” Take notice, Presbyterianism is out. Episcopalianism is in. Maybe SGM will join the conservative movement in the Anglican Church. Archbishop Mahaney has a nice sound to it. Expect him to plant a church in Canterbury, England. J And oh by the way, notice how churches are partnering with Sovereign Grace, not Sovereign Grace with churches.
“Thus, we will maintain our historical commitment to the pervasive biblical pattern of gifted men leading the church in its mission—planting churches, nurturing churches, and uniting churches in a common mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:39-40; 18:27-28; 1 Cor. 16:10-12; Phil. 2:19-30; Col. 1:7-8, 4:12; Titus 1:5; et al). The inclusion of church elders on the board will also honor the biblical precedent of local elders partnering with extra-local workers in leadership and mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:6).
“Eph 4:8,11 “This is why it says: ‘When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men’…. It was he who gave some to be apostles.” I appreciate the honesty (yes, honesty – it’s been a long time) conveyed in this paragraph. “Gifted men,” that is apostolic men, will lead the churches of SGM in planting, nurturing, and uniting. Note the Scriptures referenced in support of apostolic ministry as practiced in the New Testament. Planting includes setting priorities, identifying leaders, choosing sites and allocating resources. Nurturing includes building, equipping and directing churches. Uniting means setting the terms and conditions for “unity” in theology, practice and mission.” (Brent Detwiler, “Cotton Candy,” March 12, 2012)
These assertions by C.J. and the interim Board represent a complete reversal of polity and are diametrically opposed to all he, Dave, Steve and Jeff have taught the last 8 years. They deceptively make it sound as though they have always taught that “’the Board,’…is simply a functional term for the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries.” In fact, they have taught just the opposite. They have repeatedly said the Board of Directors and Leadership Team have absolutely no authority over the pastors or the churches.
I am a proponent of apostles and prophets because I believe they are as biblical (and necessary) as evangelists, pastors and teachers. I believe the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11 is critical for the proper equipping of the saints throughout the church age. That’s why I put the following in the Sovereign Grace Statement of Faith.
“The ascended Christ has given gift ministries to the church (including apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) for the equipping of Christ’s body that it might mature and grow. Through the gift ministries all members of the Church are to be nurtured and equipped for the work of ministry.” (SGM Statement of Faith)
I’ve defended this position for years. Here is a history of my attempts along with the reactions of C.J, Dave and Steve. These three men can’t argue for apostolic oversight of the churches now unless they repudiate everything they have said and taught the last 13 years. My first written records go back to 1999.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT – While I have a high view of apostles and prophets, I do not have a high view of SGM. No one on the interim Board or Leadership Team is qualified to serve in apostolic ministry due to a lack of character (i.e., how they have the events of the past 10 months) or gifting or both.
##
February 6, 1999
Dear C.J., Dave, Steve and Bo,
This “paper” on the nature and extent of apostolic ministry is limited in scope and incomplete in many respects. Nevertheless, I hope it helps our discussion of the subject in a small way.
I chose to confine my study to the 13 epistles of Paul. I am working with a several presuppositions in mind. One, Paul’s apostolic wisdom is unique and normative as recorded in canonical Scripture. Two, our apostolic authority is largely derived from a proper interpretation and application of Scripture (not any on-going revelation given by the Holy Spirit). Three, the essential role of the apostle has not changed (he is a preacher of the gospel, a church planter and a church builder). Four, the Pauline model is relevant for us today. Five, we should model our apostolic ministry after Paul.
While our apostolic ministry should reflect Paul’s apostolic ministry there are some very important distinctions that set Paul apart from us or anyone else.[1] For instance, he was a writer of Scripture (13 epistles), experienced an appearance of the risen Lord (1 Cor 9, 15), was directly commissioned by the Lord (Acts 9, 22, 26), had a unique understanding of the Gospel (Gal 1), uniquely suffered for Christ (2 Cor 11:21-27), was given a unique sphere of influence (the Gentile mission), had a unique understanding of God’s purpose for the church (Eph 3:1-6), and experienced Christ’s power in unique and amazing ways.
Simply put, the Pauline corpus, reveals the nature and extent of Paul’s involvement in any given church. Therefore the epistles should be studied carefully. In particular, I would encourage you to study the material on Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy. They all deal with Paul’s ongoing involvement with the church in Ephesus. As such they provide the greatest amount of material and therefore the most insight for us. Studying Paul’s long term involvement with the Corinthians would also be beneficial but my treatment is incomplete.
Keep in mind the church in Ephesus was planted by Paul during his 1st apostolic journey (c. A.D. 52). Paul relocated there for 2 years and 3 months during his 2nd apostolic journey (c. A.D. 53-55). He met with the elders during his 3rd apostolic journey (c. A.D. 57). He wrote the epistle to the Ephesians during his 1st Roman imprisonment (c. A.D. 60-61). He visited the church again during his 4th apostolic journey (c. A.D. 63). He wrote 1 Timothy (also intended for the church) during his 4th apostolic journey (c. A.D. 63-65). He wrote 2 Timothy (also intended for the church) during his 2nd Roman imprisonment (A.D. 66-67).
The above doesn’t take into consideration the involvement of other apostolic ministry like Priscilla (with his wife Aquila - Acts 18:19), Apollos (Acts 18:24; 19:1), Timothy (Acts 19:22; 1 Tim 1:3), Erastus (Acts 19:22), Gaius (Acts 19:29), Aristarchus (Acts 19:29) Onesiphorous (2 Tim 1:16-18), Tychicus (2 Tim 4:12), John the apostle, etc.
Conclusion: Paul, with the help of others, remained very involved with the church in Ephesus over its 17 year history. He freely addressed any and all issues of concern. His writings clearly convey the expectation that the local elders are subject to him and to Timothy his delegate. There is no appreciable lessening of apostolic involvement in the church in Ephesus throughout its history.
##
July 13, 2003
C.J., Dave and Steve,
I have attached a paper entitled, “Biblical Principles of Polity – A Statement of Concerns.”[2] In this critique, I address issues we have discussed many times. It is not my hope that anything will be changed[3] in the upcoming Perspectives booklet on polity as a result of this paper. I am simply writing for the sake of clarity and for the sake of conscience.[4] This paper is a feeble attempt at presenting my thoughts and concerns.
As you know, I believe that some aspects of this polity statement could have significant negative repercussions for the movement in the future.[5] Due to time limitations I do not enumerate upon these. In essence, however, I don’t think this polity statement sufficiently portrays apostolic ministry as presented in the New Testament. It seems to me a very reductionistic presentation (cf. the attached outline entitled, “The Roles & Responsibilities of an Apostle”)
From my perspective, the paper[6] is more a reaction to how apostolic ministry should not be done (i.e., self-serving, authoritarian, domineering, etc.) than it is a positive statement about the importance and significance of apostolic ministry. If applied we have very little responsibility and therefore should have very little involvement in the churches. They [the churches] are essentially autonomous.[7] Except in extreme cases, we should not take any initiative in seeking to serve them. The extent of our involvement is determined by the local elders as are the issues we may address (cf. the attached outline entitled, “Propositions on Apostolic Ministry”).
Of course, my understanding may be badly flawed and my concerns unfounded.[8] I also affirm that there are many good points in the paper with which I would agree whole-heartedly.
I also realize that the quotes I use are selective and can be viewed or applied differently than I do.[9]
Thanks for the bearing with me once again.
Biblical Principles of Polity[10] - A Statement of Concerns
Brent Detwiler
July 13, 2003
Serving Is Set Against Leading
Quote: “Discussions around present-day apostolic ministry should not begin with authority but with responsibility. Authentic apostolic ministry does not begin with the apostle’s rights over churches but with an apostle’s calling to serve churches.” (Dave Harvey, Biblical Principles of Polity, p. 18)
Quote: “Paul may be able to talk about his apostolic authority, but apostolic models today are better served by emphasizing the responsibly to serve that attends their calling.” (Dave, BPP, p. 19)
Quote: “We do not think of apostolic ministry as synonymous with authority nor do I think that is how Scripture portrays apostolic ministry. Apostolic ministry in a word is not about authority it is about serving…. If you don’t hear this and you don’t feel this, then I have failed, we just want to serve.” (C.J. Mahaney, message at SGM Leadership Conference in 2003)
Positional Authority Is Presented Negatively
Quote: “When an apostle acts ‘apostolically,’ his motivation must spring first not from a positional authority to act, but from a God-given responsibility to serve and a passion to provide care.” (Dave, BPP, pp. 18-19)
Apostolic Authority Is Relational
Quote: “’Apostolic authority is relational authority. In other words, it is limited to those churches who recognize it.’” (Dave, BPP, p. 20)
Submission Is Cast as Subservience
Quote: “The motivation for the elders then becomes the recognition of the blessing that flows as a result of being related to apostolic authority rather than subservience to that authority.” (Dave, BPP, p. 22)
No Biblical Grounds for Use of Fatherhood Metaphor[11]
Quote: “The NT occasionally references metaphors to describe apostolic ministry. While no one metaphor is sufficient to fully control or define the apostolic role, it may serve this process and our churches to consider whether some metaphors could be more readily employed to clarify our care. In dealing with the nature of an apostle’s relationship with a local church over time, one metaphor seems particularly helpful: fatherhood. “ (Dave, BPP, p. 19)
Elders Have Ultimate Responsibility
Quote: “Do apostles hold ultimate responsibility for the local church? Well truthfully, it doesn’t appear that this is a question which Scripture anticipates and answers. However if ultimate means unchanging, then the answer is ’no’. But if ultimate means a diminishing responsibility which is never fully relinquished, then the answer is ’yes’.” (Dave, BPP, p. 20)
Elders Have Final and Ultimate Authority
Apostles Can Only Deal with Heresy or Immoral Leaders
Quote: “If we dare apply the fatherhood metaphor introduced above, then we might say that apostles enjoy primary responsibility ONLY for a formative season in the local church. After this, the practical responsibility transfers gradually to the elders. Indeed the apostolic team will always retain sufficient responsibility to deal with heresy or immoral leaders. But within a maturing church, the base of responsibility must eventually transition from the apostles to the elders.” (Dave, BPP, p. 20)
Quote: “But any remaining [apostolic] authority as a church grows and matures would be restricted to the discipline of heresy or an immoral leader. I think there is appropriate on-going apostolic authority where it is recognized, where there is a relationship, where there is trust, where there is history for the discipline of heresy if present or an immoral leader but as a church grows the authority is resident in the local eldership.” (C.J. Mahaney, message at SGM Leadership Conference in 2003)
“Mature” Sovereign Grace Churches Are Essentially Autonomous
Quote: “We might say that apostles enjoy primary responsibility ONLY for a formative season in the local church. After this, the practical responsibility transfers gradually to the elders.” (Dave, BPP, p. 20)
Quote: “However, if a mature eldership elects to withdraw their support and remove a seasoned church for reasons other than heresy or immorality, the apostolic team should relinquish their trust in a God honoring manner and grant them the freedom to do so.” (Dave, BPP, p. 20)
Who Determines Whether a Church or Eldership is Mature
Quote: “The ‘diminishing’ of a father’s responsibility is typically symmetrical to the maturity of the child.” (Dave, BPP, p. 20)
We Have Less Authority in Churches We Adopt
Quote: “Does the apostolic authority differ for churches desiring adoption within Sovereign Grace Ministries?” (Dave, BPP, p. 19)
We Have Little in Common with Paul
Quote: “There is much more about Paul that we cannot relate to, that we do not associate with our understanding of apostolic ministry than there is that we do associate with our understanding of apostolic ministry…. It is distinctly different in a number of very critical ways from Paul and we are fierce in our communication of those distinctions and yet we want to be inspired by his example where appropriate and emulate his example where appropriate.” (C.J., message at SGM Leadership Conference in 2003)
We Should Not Build Churches into the Apostolic Team
Quote: “It is our privilege and passion to build the local church into the pastoral team, not turn the attention or allegiance of the local church away from the pastoral team to the apostolic team.” (C.J., message at SGM Leadership Conference in 2003)
##
I never heard from Dave or C.J. after sending them “Biblical Principles of Polity - A Statement of Concerns” along with other material. I followed up.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2033 10:08 AM
To: Dave Harvey
Subject: Question
In my mid-July email re: your polity paper I attached a bunch of stuff. I was wondering if the most important part got lost in the bundle. Curious, were you able to read the 7 page document, “Biblical Principles of Polity – A Statement of Concerns?“ I understand if you have not had the time or chose not to.
Thanks
Brent
From: Dave Harvey
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:17 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Question
I reviewed it for new thoughts, saw the similarity with the concerns already discussed and determined that we had covered it. It appeared to be a final, but clearer summation of your perspective.[12]
Let me know if there is something in particular you want me to look at...[13]
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Dave Harvey
Subject: RE: Question
I get it – you didn’t read it. Oh well, it was a good try…
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:00 AM
To: C.J. Mahaney
Subject: Confidentail: Polity on Apostles
I guess the Perspectives booklets will be out soon and I was wondering if you ever have a chance to read the critique I sent back in July[14] re: the polity statement on apostles and the local church? Wondering if you found it of any benefit in possibly editing Dave’s paper.[15]
From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:22 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Confidential: Polity on Apostles
I read it. Was there anything new that we hadn’t already discussed?[16] Please let me know if I missed something.[17]
##
At our June 20-22, 2006 apostolic team retreat, we finalized the Membership Agreement which included this line.
“Member churches and Sovereign Grace as independent and autonomously governed entities jointly agree to be responsible for all respective claims, loss, damage, liability, or expenses occasioned or claimed by reason of acts or neglects of their own employees or visitors or of independent contractors.”
I argued against its inclusion. Here are the notes I used to make my points to C.J., Dave and Steve.
“I don’t think I’ll be able to sign the Membership Agreement without violating my conscience because I do not believe churches were governmentally independent and autonomous in relation to apostolic ministry in the New Testament and because I do believe the teaching of Scripture on this subject is still relevant and applicable in our day.
“Maybe C.J. could sign the document for churches in my sphere. If I ever lead a church, maybe the document could be reworded for me. I’d love to exonerate Sovereign Grace of all legal responsibility for any of my actions, etc. Perhaps other language could be found to accomplish the same objective.
“I don’t believe the NT teaches that local church government was independent and autonomous in nature. I believe the elders and churches in the NT looked to apostles for governing input. I believe apostles in the NT thought they had governing responsibilities in relation to the churches. What was true in NT times has relevance in our day for the relationship between a local church/eldership and apostolic ministry.”
All of this was readily dismissed by C.J., Dave and Steve. During our discussion, Dave said he “believes the NT teaches that apostles were involved in the governing of churches” but there is “a lot of discontinuity in authority between Paul and us.” In other words, what was true in the NT is not true today. Churches were not “independent and autonomous” in the NT but they are now because of the great chasm that separates Paul from us.
C.J. took a far more radical view. He disagreed with Dave and said, “Paul considered churches independent and autonomous in relation to himself.” In other words, Paul did not see himself as one in authority over the churches he planted and built. That answer was incomprehensible to me and I politely but firmly challenged C.J. I foresaw the future dissolution of Sovereign Grace Ministries if this phrase (and theology) was included in the Membership Agreement. More importantly, I believed such an approach was clearly at odds with the NT.
##
At our June 18-21, 2007 apostolic team retreat, I was confronted for being proud and unscholarly for maintaining my position on the baptism in the Holy Spirit and certain charismata like prophecy. C.J., Dave, Steve and Larry Malament all conspired behind my back to confront me (see RRF&D, pp. 119-121). This is not an exaggeration. It was a coordinated effort sprung upon me. I’ve written approximate 1,200 pages of material to date but I’ve written very little about 2006-2007 when C.J.’s hostility toward me was acute. There are many other examples.
During the June 2007 retreat, I was confronted for not changing my position on apostolic ministry and for not being “influenced” by Jeff (i.e., agreeing with his positions). C.J. pointed out that I was “the least influenced by Jeff” while “the rest of us are the most influenced by Jeff.” That was true. I did not agree with Jeff’s view on apostles, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, a dispensational view of the book of Acts, speaking in tongues, prophecy, the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom, the discontinuing role of the moral law in the OT, the administration of the Lord’s Supper and the administration of water baptism. These disagreements were purely on biblical grounds. I held nothing against Jeff and appreciated his contributions to our theology in other ways. In these matters, however, I thought he was introducing a theology of doubt, a dispensational hermeneutic and a liturgical approach to the sacraments. It wasn’t personal. It was a matter of what the Scripture taught on these subjects.
In C.J.’s world, however, my positions on these issues were unacceptable and due to my pride and lack of scholarship. Dave and Steve agreed. These biblical convictions of mine regarding apostles were based upon extensive study starting in 1979 when I wrote my graduate thesis on “Eldership in the New Testament.” In that treatise, I talked about the relationship of apostles to elders. Nevertheless, twenty eight years of study were dismissed as unscholarly and my sincerely held beliefs were labeled as pride by C.J., Dave and Steve.
Instead of saying, “Brent, we respect your differences because we know they are based upon a serious study of Scripture,” I had to be labeled and chastised. Dave corrected me for coming to team meetings “armed with assumptions and presumptions intact and locked down” and said I did not have the “disposition of a learner” towards Jeff. Therefore, I was unteachable. There was no room for disagreement.
In particular, C.J., Dave and Steve confronted me on this 2007 retreat for sending them the material above on apostles back in 2003. That action was offensive to them. C.J. pointed out how he “took two years to discuss Dave’s polity paper solely for me” because there “was little the others disagreed with.” He went further and said “resending my position” (i.e., “Biblical Principles of Polity - A Statement of Concerns,” July 13, 2003) revealed my pride. Dave agreed and said “after hearing it for two years I didn’t need to read what you wrote.” Steve said I was “proud, obstinate, and unteachable” for sending the material and for not changing my position on apostles. C.J. wanted to know “What does that say about my view of him, Dave and Steve when asking them to re-read something I’ve presented over and over again.” Finally, C.J. reiterated his view that “Paul considered churches independent and autonomous in relation to himself” and said “this is not a minor conviction for me regarding apostles.”
It is true we discussed the issue of apostles for several years. It also true that C.J. was never willing to sit down and study the outlines I provided him, Dave and Steve. Honestly, we never “searched the Scriptures” together to see “whether these things were so.” I prepared at least a half dozen major outlines based upon careful study that were never closely examined or reviewed as a team.
Please understand, our discussions were always civil. Not argumentative or contentious. It was my position on apostolic ministry, not my attitude, that was offensive. Marvel of marvels, my unscholarly position is now being heralded by the triumvirate of scholarship – Phil Sasser, Daniel Baker and Nathan Sasser. I’m glad for their scholarship on apostles. Daniel’s position on apostles is the one I taught him at the Pastors College in 1999-2000. I recently wrote him regarding his treatise from this past winter. I am quite critical of chapter 7 but the first 6 chapters largely reflect my theology. He is arguing my “proud and unscholarly” position on behalf of C.J. So are Phil and Nathan. The 52 page position paper by Daniel represents the views of the entire eldership in Phil’s church outside of Raleigh, NC. I am glad for this development.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:46 PM
To: Daniel Baker
Cc: Phil Sasser; Nathan Sasser
Subject: Apostles
Hi Daniel,
You state in A Defense of and Model for Apostolic Government, “Precedent has been used to argue for any number of good and evil actions. Thus, the strength of the precedent is critical to assess. Is it an occasional and incidental precedent like Timothy drinking wine for his stomach ailment? (1 Tim. 5:23). Or is it a precedent that seems firmly established in Scripture as normative for the people of God? (E.g., church planting should be the primary means for the expansion of the church).”
Good point but you don’t apply this principle in your application of the Jerusalem Council [i.e., in chapter 7 on “Acts 15 – Apostles, Elders and a Model for SGM”]. That council is the only such occurrence in the NT. [You give] one example and the example does not support the application you make. You can’t build a denomination on Acts 15 and talk about the submission of apostles to a governing board of apostles and elders. That is not what Acts 15 is about. Your historical reconstruction is inaccurate. This statement is not true, “Again we have a strong precedent for apostles serving under the authority of another body of leaders, this one including elders.”
Paul didn’t go up to Jerusalem because he was submitted to them, accountable to them or uncertain about his gospel. He went there to straighten them out if needed, knowing how much trouble they could cause his Gentile churches if they did not agree with him on the gospel. The elders were included because the problems came from the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:1,5,24; Gal 2:4,12) not because they were in authority over Paul and Barnabas.
Paul was not looking to the Jerusalem apostles or elders for doctrinal definition (Gal. 2:2). Paul’s concern for running in vain had to do with the polluting effect of false and errant brethren upon his gospel and the churches of Galatia. He didn’t want their false gospel to undermine his work. Paul was not at all concerned about whether or not his gospel was correct (Gal 1:11-12). Those who “seemed to be important” (Peter, James and John) made “no difference” to Paul (Gal 2:6). The “reputed pillars” agreed with Paul, not Paul with them (Gal 2:9). Paul went to Jerusalem to address the Judaizing element in their midst not because he doubted his gospel or was looking for their approval. He certainly wasn’t submitted to them.
I’m afraid your “Four Conclusions from Acts 15” are all wrong and not found in the text or the historical setting. For example, “Fourth, the governing body should include elders who are not also apostles.” That is baseless. Nowhere in Scripture will you find local elders in authority over extra local apostles. The elders in Jerusalem were included in the discussion because so many of them were confused and in error. They needed to be adjusted by the apostles and especially by Paul but also Barnabas, Peter and James. Paul didn’t need the affirmation of the elders but he desired their affirmation in order to fight off the legalistic Judaizers in their church.
You conclude, “Once we include this discussion [on Acts 15] we are ready to lay the framework for a revitalized Sovereign Grace Ministries. Such a denomination would have (at least) three layers of government.” [Daniel] there are only two “layers” of government in the NT. Apostolic teams working with pastoral teams. Otherwise, the first 6 chapters of your paper are great in many respects. A couple suggestions. More later if time allows.
Don’t forget to use Rev 2:2 in addition to 2 Cor 11:13. It is helpful in arguing the continuist position since Revelation was written ca. 40 years later. You should also stop referring to two types of apostles.
“It seems best to say that we have two types of apostles in the New Testament.” I don’t think this is necessary or correct. An apostle is someone sent and gifted by God to preach the gospel and build churches. 1 Cor. 3:10ff. is most helpful in this regard. He lays a foundation and he builds upon. An apostle is a “skilled master builder” (ESV) or master architect (Gr. architekton). That’s it in a nutshell. That’s why there is only one category of apostles in the NT. Men armed with the kerygma and the ability to plant, nurture, and protect churches.
There are not different kinds or types of apostles. That is not to say all the apostles in the NT were equally distinguished or accomplished or had identical experiences. They had varying degrees of gifting and responsibility. Some had distinguishing or unique experiences (e.g., the twelve were with the Lord and eyewitnesses of the resurrection, some apostles were blessed to write Scripture, Christ appeared to Paul, etc.). These are distinctions but not indicia that are required. Follow my line of argument on 1 Cor 9:1-6 from my 1984 article on “20th Century Apostles” in People of Destiny Magazine.
“Some would maintain, however, that it is also necessary for an apostle to have had a personal appearance of the Lord Jesus similar to that which Paul experienced (Acts 22:6-21). They would primarily base this upon Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:1; “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?” But is Paul actually saying that it was necessary for him to see the Lord in order to qualify as an apostle?
“This verse must be understood in context. Paul is simply stating that regardless of his liberty (“Am I not free?”) he will not stumble his brother (1 Cor. 8:1-13). Neither will he exercise his right to eat and drink (9:4), his right to take along a believing wife (9:5), or his right to refrain from working (9:6) if it would adversely affect the fruitfulness of his ministry.
“Nevertheless, Paul also makes it very clear that his refraining from these things is all the more incredible when one considers his three separate claims to distinction. He is an apostle, he has seen the Lord, and the Corinthian church is his work in the Lord. Paul is simply demonstrating his willingness to set aside his rights and go the extra mile. He is challenging the Corinthians to see that they should be willing to do the same.
“Paul’s statement that he had seen Jesus need not be understood as a qualification for apostolic ministry. Rather, it is one of many distinguishing factors in this great man of God’s life. Likewise, Paul does not list the various resurrection appearances and his own post-ascension experience in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 for the purpose of establishing it as a necessary qualification for apostolic ministry. They are simply given as eyewitness testimonies for the resurrection of Christ (15:4).” (Brent Detwiler, “20th Century Apostles?” People of Destiny Magazine, Jan/Feb 1984)
I don’t believe anyone from the interim Board or leadership team qualify to be apostles but I want your arguments to win out for the next generation.
You should also avoid your many references to the office of the apostle. The NT emphasis is not on the institutional but the charismatic. Acts 1:25, Romans 1:5, 1 Cor 9:2, and Gal 2:9 refer to “apostleship” or if you wish the apostolate (Gr. apostole). But even here it is not the office that is in view. It is more accurate to refer to apostolic ministry (a description) than apostolic office (a position). The emphasis is on function. By way of analogy, if you have a significant teaching gift you will be recognized as a teacher. The gift precedes the designation. So too the gift of prophecy for prophets. That’s why we don’t use these as titles. It is not the Apostle Paul. It is Paul the apostle.
“Office or officers It is no doubt true and it has significance that in the enumerations in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 it is not the institutional, but the qualitative aspect in these charisma that comes to the fore. It is not presbyters, bishops, or deacons who are spoken of there, but the charisma of giving leadership, helping, showing mercy. This points to the fact that even if some of the charisma mentioned here are denotations of specific offices, yet it is not the official-institutional as such, but the material significance of the office that is brought to the forefront.” (Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 444)
“It is in the nature of certain charisma that they have not merely an incidental, but a continual significance, and therefore of themselves might lay claim to continuing and regular recognition (for which reason the charismata, too, are not only denoted as powers, etc., but also as persons; cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:8, 11).” (Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 445)
You should read J.B. Lightfoot’s eminent, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians (London, 1865/ Grand Rapids, 1962), pp. 92-101. He was the first scholar to open the door for on-going apostles.
The gift of exhortation (Rom 12:8) with its wide range of meanings should also be added to teaching and leadership as a necessary gift for an apostle. Study parakaleo and the related word group.
Sometime you should deal with prophets in your quest for NT polity. They too are foundational and on-going. Hendriksen does a good job pointing out that prophets in Eph 2:20 is a reference to NT prophets, not historical prophets from the OT. Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas (Acts 15:27; 32, 40) were such men. Silas is also called an apostle. He fulfilled both roles because of his diverse gifting.
Grace to you!
Brent
##
In April 2009, Dave Harvey wrote me on behalf of C.J. and Steve. They were attempting to remove me from Sovereign Grace Ministries on the basis on my doctrine (see RRF&D, pp. 106-119). In particular for my view on apostles.
“I think the categories we had specifically in mind would include the nature and extent of apostolic and pastoral authority. From past discussions and experiences, it seems that category has been an area where we have disagreed in rather important ways.” (Dave Harvey, April 17, 2009)
I responded in the following fashion.
“We last discussed the subject of apostolic ministry in July, 2003. At the time, I expressed a concern that we were moving away from the kind of apostolic involvement that had built a strong family of churches. My primary focus was not on authority but involvement. On the issue of authority, however, I acknowledged we had differences. I felt the authority of apostles exceeded that of elders.
“I also affirmed, and agreed with all, that the extent of apostolic involvement depended on the maturity level of the eldership and its proper functioning. Furthermore, I whole heartedly agreed that a proper exercise of any authority was based on servanthood, trust and relationship.” (Brent Detwiler, April 21, 2009)
Dave backed off but eight months later C.J. wrote saying, “I know we hold disagreements over doctrine and practice that now separate us from serving together.” I repeatedly asked C.J. to explain his meaning but he was never willing to tell me what doctrine and practice prohibited me from being a part of SGM. I was out with no explanation but no explanation was necessary to be honest. I knew C.J. disagree with my position on apostles. What excluded me from Sovereign Grace Ministries in 2010 is now being embraced by C.J. and his inner circle.
EXREMELY IMPORTANT: All the years C.J., Dave and Steve were arguing for a diluted role for apostles they were acting with overbearing authority in many situations. Their hypocrisy was maddening. For example with Kenny Roberts (Cleveland), Benny Phillips (Fairfax), Keith Jacobs (south Denver), and David Bendinelli (north Denver). In those situations, I was the one speaking up on their behalf as best I could when they were being mistreated by C.J., Dave and Steve. That’s why a diluted view of apostles doesn’t prevent the abuse of people when men act contrary to their stated polity. Polity is important but integrity far more so.
##
In March of this year, Kris from SGM Survivors asked if I could answer some questions for her readers. Here are two regarding apostolic ministry.
From: Kris [SGM Survivors]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:50 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: "Why Good Guys Go Bad"
Question for Brent Detwiler, if it is not too late:
Brent discusses SGM’s “reasserting its commitment to apostolic ministry,” in his Cotton Candy post, concluding with the statement, “So if you don’t believe in apostles, it is time to get out of your SGM church.”
Does this paragraph regard SGM’s disingenuous replacement of the term “apostle,” or does it regard their practice of “apostolic” leadership and authority?
My meaning was, “It’s time to get out of SGM if you don’t believe in apostles” as a matter of biblical conviction. But it is also true that it’s time to get out if you believe SGM apostles abuse their leadership and authority. Moreover, as you point out; the “disingenuous replacement of the term ‘apostle’” is another example of deceit and reason to leave. C.J. needs to come out and say he is the senior apostle. The spiritual leader of his movement.
If towards the practice of apostolic leadership, has Brent’s opinion regarding this type of leadership and position in the church changed over the years since he himself was practicing apostolic leadership and authority in SGM? I am not intending to be critical if his perspective has changed (I would celebrate it), but mostly I am curious as to his thought process. I remember the days when the role of the importance of the “office of apostle” in the church was much proclaimed in PDI.
I still believe in “apostolic leadership and authority” just like I believe in pastoral leadership and authority. Both are biblical. Both can be abused. Every church should have godly apostles and shepherds (i.e., pastors, Gr. poimen) but not false ones or untrustworthy ones. Truth and Christian character are the dividing line.
We started a magazine in September, 1983. For the first two issues, it was called Christian Destiny Magazine. The first issue was titled, “Restoration of the Church: Are You a Pioneer or a Settler?” (Sept/Oct ’83). The second issue, “Evangelism as a Lifestyle” (Nov/Dec ’83).
With the third issue, the name of the magazine changed to People of Destiny Magazine. The topic, “Apostolic Team Ministry” (Jan/Feb ’84). Those were the good old days. The team was comprised of Larry, CJ, Brent, Bill Galbraith, Steve Shank, Che Ahn and Dick Wolohan. Through the years, everyone but Steve left over, or with, concerns for C.J.
I wrote a lead article in that issue entitled, “20th Century Apostles – They’re As Necessary Today As They Were 2,000 Years Ago.” That was 28 years ago and I was 30. I fully believe today what I wrote then. My understanding of Scripture on the subject has not changed. I still believe what Larry T. wrote on page 2, “Apostles and Prophets: Past History or Present Reality?” C.J., Terry Virgo, and Benny Phillips also contributed.
In my article, which was mostly an apologetic for apostles, I said, “Like overseers and elders, an apostle also had to be a man above reproach in his personal life and relationship with others (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). He was a man sent forth from a proven base of ministry where he had been responsible for building the church locally (Acts 11:25-26; 1 Cor 9:1-3).”
Apostolic ministry only works (and can only be trusted) when men are above reproach. This is the problem with Sovereign Grace Ministries today. It is full of compromise at the highest levels. Men cannot be trusted. They are not above reproach. In the old days, we had to be “sent forth from a proven base of ministry.” In C.J.’s case, he left Covenant Life Church in a huff, never consulting with his pastors or asking for their blessing. Furthermore, the Sovereign Grace Board counseled this action by C.J. without talking to CLC pastors. It’s a different day. A sad day.
The fourth issue of People of Destiny Magazine was “Becoming a Prophetic People” (Mar/Apr ’84). As Larry said, “The prophet is not just some electrifying preacher or ‘weird-acting’ opponent of sin; he is a submitted [i.e. working with apostles] and anointer seer who brings necessary revelation [e.g. understanding and discernment] and insight to keep the house of God pure and on the right track.” C.J. does not have any prophets. They’ve all been slaughtered. He does have blogs.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Apostles and prophets don’t equate with abuse. You can believe in them or not believe in them and have abuse. For example, you can be a Southern Baptist Church with a congregational form of church government and still be terrorized by the senior pastor. On the other hand, you can have a high regard for apostles and prophets and not be abusive at all. Consider 1 Cor 12:28, “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” Apostles and prophets are first and second in sequence and importance. This doesn’t mean they have to be self-serving or self-exalting.
Up until I resigned from the SGM Board in November 2007, I oversaw our efforts in the Caribbean and Asia. I also had responsibility for 23 churches in the southeastern United States. I endeavored to follow Paul’s example of apostolic ministry in 1 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
“[9] For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. [10] You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. [11] For you know how, like a father with his children, [12] we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.”
This text provides a wonderful summary of apostolic ministry then and now.
Every church needs men and ministry like Paul’s. Phil Sasser, Daniel Baker, and Nathan Sasser are putting forth good doctrine regarding apostles. The same is not true regarding their aspirations for a denomination. I sent the following to Joshua Harris (Gaithersburg, MD) and Mark Mullery (Fairfax, VA) in March. I want to see apostolic teams and team related churches but not denominations marked by a headquarter.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:09 AM
To: Joshua Harris; Mark Mullery
Subject: Daniel Baker
I just finished a study of Daniel’s paper [A Defense of and Model of Apostolic Government]. His exegesis and application of Acts 15 is incredibly flawed. A classic example of eisegesis. He comes to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions. For instance,
“The massively educated and gifted and insightful Paul saw it as his proper place to take the wisdom of ‘the apostles and the elders’ and to deliver it to his churches as what we could call ‘sound doctrine.’ It certainly affirmed his own sense of doctrine (e.g., Gal. 2) but here we recognize he is not above the decisions reached by a group that includes ‘elder’s’.”
This is nuts. He didn’t have a “sense” of doctrine and certainly not a sense of the gospel which was the topic under discussion. Paul would be laughing his head off at this conclusion.
Here’s how Paul felt about the Jerusalem Council and the leaders (apostles and elders) in Jerusalem.
Gal 2:6-9 (NASU) But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. [7] But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised [8] (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), [9] and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Of course, Daniel doesn’t deal with this text or others. Typical of all bad interpretation. Just use proof texts but not deal with the full teaching of God’s Word. Pass over inconvenient passages. Daniel is pressing a denominational polity upon SGM not found in the Bible. Apostles were not submitted to an outside governing Board. There is no such thing as a “Board of Commissioned Apostles and Elders” in the New Testament. You cannot make such a case using Acts 15. The council served an important purpose at the time but it should not be used as a biblical precedent for building a denomination. This may not help your cause but such misinterpretation must be kept in mind so no one abuses Scripture to justify their arguments.
I’d rather see you require change regarding the governing of SGM based upon ethics rather than any twisting of Scripture. C.J., Dave, et al. are untrustworthy and heavy handed. That’s why changes need to be made. They should have been rebuked and removed. No one was willing so now you have to settle for second best. A denominational structure that restrains their power and holds them accountable.
##
Conclusion
Here’s what C.J. should do in light of Scripture. First, earnestly desire all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Second, come out in bold support of apostles and prophets and renounce his former beliefs. Third resign from the apostolic team because he doesn’t qualify. Fourth, have the men who served on the interim Board/apostolic team resign for the same reason. Fifth, dissolve Sovereign Grace Ministries as a burgeoning denomination. Sixth, encourage pastors to identify apostles and prophets in their respective regions or countries. Seventh, encourage these apostolic teams to relate informally to each other like Paul, Peter, Apollos, Barnabas, etc. Eighth, pray they go into all the world under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as portrayed in the Book of Acts.
Here is what C.J. and Phil wrote all the SGM pastors last month.
“It is our intent that the changes we make [to our polity] be informed by our common history and involves the robust participation of our pastors, with sound doctrine as our ultimate guide…the Board earnestly and sincerely solicits the theologically informed perspectives of every eldership in SGM. (C.J. Mahaney and Phil Sasser, Letter to SGM Pastors re. Polity, April 27, 2012)
I believe Sovereign Grace is required to make the eight changes above if “sound doctrine” and “theologically informed perspectives” are really their “ultimate guide.”
To quote C.J. and Phil again, “Our approach will be…to search the Scriptures for the answers, and to develop a polity that is consistent with Scripture.” (Ibid.)
Sola Scriptura.
[1] C.J., Dave and Jeff incorporated these comments of mine in their later writings and messages in order to distance Sovereign Grace Ministries from Paul’s ministry. That was never my intent.
[2] I was extremely concerned for the unbiblical aspects of what Dave wrote and C.J. and Steve endorsed. It was distressing to see how little the Scriptures were used and how easily they were abused in making critical arguments (e.g. the fatherhood metaphor). I was presented with a moral dilemma. SGM or the Bible.
[3] They were opposed to me and everything contained in the Statement of Concerns. They refused to discuss this final appeal.
[4] I believed C.J., Dave, Steve and Jeff’s evolving position on apostles was in violation of Scripture.
[5] That is, the disintegration of Sovereign Grace Ministries. The exact thing they are facing today.
[6] That is, Dave’s paper on “Biblical Principle of Polity” which was the precursor for “Polity – Serving and Leading the Local Church” that came out in March, 2004.
[7] The word “autonomous” was added to the Membership Agreement in 2006.
[8] I added this sentence knowing I’d be accused of being proud for not aligning myself with C.J., Dave, Steve and Jeff. That is precisely what happened in the aftermath. In 2007 this letter and “A Statement of Concerns” were used against me when C.J. was doing all in his power to label me proud and independent. Today, C.J. is about to embrace the theology I espoused and for which I was condemned.
[9] I didn’t really believe this but I was trying to be as “gracious” as possible. All the men were already upset with me for challenging their unbiblical arguments. Dave never bothered to read the material. He had had enough. This was a last ditch effort. I knew I’d get in trouble for sending “A Statement of Concerns” but was willing to risk it for the sake of Sovereign Grace Ministries and our fidelity to the Bible.
[10] This was the name of the position paper on polity that Dave put together for the apostolic team after years of discussion between us. C.J. and Steve endorsed it. I opposed basic tenets on biblical grounds. As a last ditch effort to edit parts of the publication I wrote “A Statement of Concerns.” It was dismissed out of hand. In this statement, I quote C.J or Dave and then provide a response next to the bullets.
[11] The fatherhood metaphor has been used by SGM as the dominant illustration for explaining its diminishing role in churches but there is absolutely no biblical basis for such a use. The paradigm is unbiblical. It is a 21st Century invention. I labored so hard to make this point to Dave, C.J. and Steve. I was embarrassed for such shoddy exegesis and didn’t want this metaphor defining how we viewed apostolic ministry because it had no basis in the Scripture. I am not exaggerating…this made no difference to C.J., Dave or Steve. They would not consider my biblical critique on this vital point.
[12] That’s true. It was a clearer summary – a better summary. I worked hard to be concise and precise in making this final appeal. All for naught.
[13] I told Dave his fatherhood metaphor was of particular concern because it had no basis in Scripture.
[14] Three months earlier. This was like C.J. He read it but didn’t agree with any of my concerns so he saw no need to acknowledge getting my material until I contacted him. We discussed these issues on and off since 1999 but this was the first time I was able to put together such a clear summary with extensive and supportive outlines.
[15] Nothing was beneficial to C.J. or Dave. No changes were made to “Polity – Serving and Leading the Local Church.” I just checked the SGM website and didn’t see this Perspective Series publication for sale. I believe I’m correct in saying it has been removed because they no longer want to advance a watered down approach to apostolic ministry. The booklet is a major reason why it will be hard for the Board of Directors and Leadership Team to take up a governing role over the churches.
[16] We discussed them in bits and pieces over the years. A thorough and complete review would have been beneficial at this critical juncture in the history of SGM.
[17] In others words, nothing benefitted C.J. and no edits were made to the 51 page booklet.
##
Post Script - Sent to SGM Pastors
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:01 AM
To: All SGM Pastors
Subject: C.J.'s Conundrum Regarding Apostles
This post provides the theological and historical background for our past discussions regarding apostles. Of particular importance is the change in C.J.’s position from 2007 to his apparent position in 2012. I also provide a critique of Daniel Baker’s treatise on “A Defense of and Model for Apostolic Government” and Nathan Sasser’s blog post on “SGM Polity, the Cessation of the Apostolate and the Authority Question in Our Local Churches.”
Lastly, I hope what I’ve written will serve future generations in providing a polity based upon the NT for planting and building churches for the glory of God.
]]>On the other hand, it looks like apostles are making a comeback. The same can’t be said of prophets. I think they are extinct. I haven’t spotted one for years. But hooray for apostles. When you need them, you believe in them. At least that’s the way it works in SGM nowadays. When they are a liability, you hide them. When they are an asset, you disclose them.
Two weeks ago the following letter was sent to all the SGM pastors. This letter is an important read for all members in SGM churches. I hope my commentary in blue letters is helpful to them and their pastors.
##
April 27, 2012
Dear Brothers,
First of all, take note this letter is not written by the SGM Board of Directors. Guess who the authors are? C.J. and Phil Sasser, the co-chairmen of the Polity Committee.
As you were informed last week, the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries has appointed a committee to propose a future governance structure and partnership agreement for our family of churches.
Notice, the pastors were “informed.” This was done via regional conference calls. There was no dialogue. All the pastors were told who the Board of Directors appointed to the Polity Committee. The pastors had no say. The Board acted unilaterally and without allowing any formal process for input or any participation by the SGM pastors in the selection of committee members. This despite the appeal of approximately 30 churches. See The Coming Tsunami.
The Board realizes that its present role is to lead SGM through significant changes in polity.
There won’t be any “significant changes” in polity because all Polity Committee members (with one or two possible exceptions) agree with the pre-2004 “governance structure” and the same is true of the Board of Directors. See Cotton Candy. There will be a restatement of polity as found in the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Membership Agreement. That restatement will be stronger and clearer with some additions but no substantive changes.
The Board is working from some constraints of the existing polity and bylaws with a view to transitioning SGM to a different governmental structure that involves more participation by the pastors of its member churches.
There are absolutely no “constraints” due to existing polity or any bylaw. C.J. and Phil Sasser are misleading the reader. The Board is all powerful per the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. It can do anything it wants. And even if there were “constraints” in the bylaws they could be easily changed.
I’ve pointed this out before but here again is “Section 12: Amendments.”
“The Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws may be amended, altered, or repealed by a majority vote of the members of the Board of Directors in attendance at any regular meeting of the Board.”
The Board can turn SGM into the Roman Catholic Church on one extreme or the Southern Baptist Convention on the other extreme without interference from anyone. They are invincible in this regard. No one can stop them.
C.J. and Phil are saying the Board is “constrained” in how much they can allow the SGM pastors to participate. That is absolutely untrue. This is an incredibly deceptive statement. Literally, the Board of Directors could change the Articles, Bylaws and Membership Agreement overnight and put the SGM pastors in charge of running Sovereign Grace Ministries in place of the Board.
“Transitioning SGM to a different governmental structure” won’t happen. There will be more “participation” by the pastors but that will not result in “a different governmental structure” because the pastors will not be governing in any sense. It will be easier for them to share their opinions and perspectives; but they’ll have absolutely no authority in directing the ministry. I doubt they be allowed to vote on critical issues moving forward.
Our history together in Sovereign Grace has been characterized by much grace, but we have been aware for some time now of the pressing need for further ecclesiological definition.
I think the “changes” in polity will be clarifications in polity. The new documents will make it clear that the pastors and churches are submitted to the authority of the apostolic team (i.e. leadership team) and Board of Directors. It will sound more “participatory” but final authority will remain with SGM.
It is our intent that the changes we make be informed by our common history and involves the robust participation of our pastors, with sound doctrine as our ultimate guide.
As we’re seen already, “robust participation” didn’t include diverse voices on the new Board of Directors or the Polity Committee. Going forward, “robust participation” will have no bearing on the final outcome of “the changes we make” because there will be no substantive changes. There is a lock on polity. The Board will remain self-appointed. The Board will have the final say in all matters. The SGM pastors can give input but they will never be given a vote. The apostolic team will be in authority over the churches. The churches will no longer be “independent and autonomously governed entities.” That line in the Membership Agreement will be rewritten or removed. It also contradicts everything else written in the Articles, Bylaws and Membership Agreement. That phrase has been a source of great confusion and comfort. Some churches in Sovereign Grace have assured their people that the SGM Board of Directors doesn’t have authority over them. That is a false assurance of security.
“Our common history” means apostolic ministry as taught and practiced before 2004 when “Polity: Serving and Leading the Local Church” was released as part of the Perspectives Series. It was written by Dave Harvey and approved by C.J. and Steve Shank. I objected to key elements and told I was proud for doing so. It now appears C.J., Dave, and Steve are going to embrace everything they strongly disagreed with me over from 1999-2003 when under discussion. I’m sure they’ll send me a thank you note, apology and a big fat check. My next post on BrentDetwiler.com will be devoted to this subject.
Here’s the deal. C.J., Dave, and Steve are going to affirm what they repudiated over the last 8 years. There is a massive reversal in the works. When Dave’s polity booklet came out in 2004, it threw the entire movement into confusion. So did C.J.’s comments at the Pastors Conference in 2003. At the same time, Jeff Purswell began to argue for “semi-technical” apostles. Then in 2005, Dave gave his famous message on “Exploring the Gap Between the Big and Little ‘A’ – A Fresh Look at Apostolic Ministry” at the Pastors Conference. In 2006, Dave said he “believes the NT teaches that apostles were involved in the governing of churches” but there is “a lot of discontinuity in authority between Paul and us.” Dave’s point, NT apostles had authority over the churches but we don’t have authority over the churches in SGM. C.J. took an even more radical view. He disagree with Dave and said “Paul considered churches independent and autonomous in relation to himself.” That is, Paul never thought of himself as one in authority over the churches. These are exact quotes.
By 2007 the “a” in apostles became so small you needed 20/10 vision to see in on an eye chart. I challenged this notion but was sorely chastised by C.J., Dave and Steve for being proud because I did not agree with them and Jeff. The “little a” approach compounded the polity problem. As a result, the “governmental structure” became a riddle. No one could figure it out. Since that time the relationship between the leadership team and the churches has been in a constant state of flux and impossible to understand. That is changing. The chaotic mess is coming to an end. Things will be cleared up and that is actually a good thing. The “little a” is going to become a BIG “little a.”
Finally, if C.J. and Phil were committed to “sound doctrine as [their] ultimate guide” there would be no Board of Directors, no SGM super denomination and no dancing around the issue of apostles and prophets. Instead the Polity Committee would return SGM to the simplicity (and effectiveness) of the New Testament. A team of godly apostles and prophets based in local churches would lead the movement. Such a team would develop other teams rather than build an ever expanding religious empire.
The Board has not yet determined whether the new polity proposal will be submitted to a formal vote of the pastors or a less formal process of affirmation.
The Board will never allow for a formal vote because it violates “our common history” and “sound doctrine.” SGM pastors have never voted and it goes against everything C.J. has conveniently come to believe with his new understanding of apostles. It also sets a “bad” precedence. C.J. is always mindful of allowing something in the present he doesn’t want to allow in the future. That is, giving the SGM pastors any kind of leadership role in SGM by way of voting.
On second thought, let me qualify my comments. There is a chance C.J. and the Board will allow a vote provided they are absolutely certain the proposal from the Polity Committee won’t be voted down. That would be a big public relations win. Otherwise the Board would never put forth a proposal of such importance knowing it would be defeated especially when it was formulated by a committee co-chaired by C.J. and Phil.
We realize that this is a significant question, and so we will be intently pursuing the option that will best serve the resolution of our polity process.
This is a subtle hint that C.J., Phil and the Polity Committee might recommend a vote on their polity proposal. They want resolution more than anything. If they have the votes, they could allow the majority of pastors to silence the minority of pastors. In so doing, the Committee and Board won’t look like “authoritarian” bad guys. In other words, they will use a democratic means to accomplish a non-democratic ends. The majority will duly authorize a stronger, not weaker, role for the SGM Board and apostolic team (i.e. Leadership Team). All ambiguity about who is in charge will be resolved.
In any case, the Board earnestly and sincerely solicits the theologically informed perspectives of every eldership in SGM. The Board has commissioned this Polity Committee to lead us through this process and to make a proposal to the SGM Board of Directors and ultimately to all of the pastors. Below we have outlined the Polity Committee’s makeup, mandate, and method.
The Board wants “theologically informed perspectives.” If they are serious then a team of apostles and prophets will lead SGM as team related churches not a denomination. That aside, those pastors who want radical reforms regarding governance are in trouble on this point. The Board of Directors and Polity Committee win the polity debate hands down if you’re using a Bible. Arguing for a pastor led movement is like arguing for a congregationally lead church. Neither are found in Scripture.
The essence of SGM polity as found in the Articles, Bylaws and Membership Agreement is correct. Polity is not the fundamental problem. It never has been and I’ve been clear on that point. Corruption is the problem and because it is such a big problem I understand why many pastors are calling for radical reforms. See Trust – The One Thing that Changes Everything.
Nevertheless, the answer is not found in a democratized SGM (which will never happen). The answer is found in obedience to Scripture. Because dissenting pastors in SGM made polity their major concern, instead of ethics, they will experience a resounding defeat in the coming year.
As a result, dissenting pastors will leave SGM over polity differences but they should have left when the required qualifications for ministry in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 were not applied to C.J., Dave and others. They should have left when the interim Board refused to obey and follow 1 Timothy 5:19-25 with C.J. They should have left SGM as a matter of conscience over ethics violations that number in the hundreds.
It is not the lack of polity, but the lack of obedience, that is far and away the major cause of problems in SGM. Sola Scriptura is a grand theological axiom but meaningless unless applied in real life situations. No one has been submitted to Scripture. The process that has unfolded over the last 8 months has been corrupt. That is why you leave a movement and you make that clear. Several months ago, I sent the following thoughts based upon the Declaration of Independence to the Covenant Life pastors and Mark Mullery. Rest assured C.J. They don’t interact with me in any capacity. I doubt they even read what I send them.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:17 AM
To: 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; Mark Mullery
Subject: Declaration of Independence
I’ve attached the Declaration of Independence. You can’t but admire the signatories for their courage and their wisdom. They gave the 13 states compelling reasons for separation. As a result, people understood the issues and were willing to die for the cause. It was no act of rebellion. There were just reasons for throwing off the tyranny of King George III. I hope you will do the same when it comes time to leave SGM.
Thanks
Brent
C.J., Dave, and the interim Board should all be publicly rebuked in writing but no one is willing to affix their signatures to a declaration of independence from SGM. I believe in apostles and prophets but I don’t believe these men should be leading anything when they lie, deceive, manipulate, live hypocritically, treat one other with favoritism, promote their own interests, subjugate people with threats and false charges, and won’t even tell you how much they are paid and compensated,
The Polity Committee:
The bylaws of SGM state that any committee appointed by the Board of Directors must have two members from the Board.
That is totally untrue. No Board Members are required to serve on the Polity Committee per the Bylaws. This appears to be another deceptive statement by C.J. and Phil. Is anyone holding them accountable? Hello Board. Under “Section 4: Directors” regarding committees we reading the following:
“Section 4.5 Committees. The Board of Directors may appoint two or more persons from among its own number to serve as special and standing committees, such as the Board may determine are necessary, which shall have such powers and duties as shall from time-to-time be prescribed by the Board. Individuals who are not on the Board may also be allowed to serve on such committees.”
There is a world of difference between “must” (C.J. and Phil) and “may” (the Bylaws). The Bylaws do NOT state that all committees appointed by the Board MUST have two Board Members.
Section 4:5 means the Board can set up a special (short term) or standing (long term) committee comprised solely of Board Members but in such cases there must be at least two Board Members on those committees. This prevents a committee of one. This section does not require two Board Members to sit on ALL committees.
I am afraid this distortion of Section 4:5 by C.J. and Phil is a way to rig the Polity Committee and come off as though it is a legal necessity and not an act of bias or possible deceit. They should be challenged on this point. If only an error, it is a big one. So here’s a diversity challenge for the Board. Replace Phil Sasser and Paul Buckley with Joshua Harris and Mark Mullery.
We have added to that three other pastors and two members of the Leadership Team.
Matthew Wassink and Jared Mellinger are terrible choices if you are looking for any diversity. But of course, that is the last thing C.J. and Phil want on their super-committee. These two men are staunch supporters of all things “C.J.” including polity. See the addendum on Matthew and What Does My Website Have in Common with Pornography? Ask Jared Mellinger!
I trust Bruce Chick the most and I think he has the courage to speak up if he disagrees with other committee members but I don’t know that he has any significant disagreements on polity. C.J. and Phil wanted the addition of these “three pastors” to give the appearance of diversity but that is a bunch of hooey.
The two members of the Leadership Team are C.J. and Jeff Purswell. That rounds out your well-rounded Polity Committee. Sarcasm intended. Jeff may have some differences with C.J. but he will support whatever C.J. wants. He always has.
Here is the Polity Committee:
There were 4 men on the old Board, 10 men on the interim Board, and 11 men on the leadership team. There are 9 men on the new Board and 7 men on the Polity Committee. That comes to 41 positions of influence held by 25 men. There has been, and continues to be, a lot of overlap. Those closest to C.J. frequently hold two positions at the same time or are moved from one powerful position to another.
As a matter of fact, 22 of the 25 men agree with C.J. on all the essential ingredients of polity or church governance. Only three are unknown to me. This is based upon an examination of their sermons, writings and public statements. In the same manner, it is a matter of fact that 21 out of 25 never felt C.J. unfit for ministry. This is based upon an examination of their sermons, writings, public statements and the testimony of friends or church members. Three are unknown. The fourth is Joshua Harris. The other 21 men have openly advocated for C.J.’s cause and treated him with extraordinary favoritism.
This inner circle is a tightly controlled by C.J. You could break into Fort Knox easier than this group. Except for Joshua Harris, I know of no one among this elite group of 25 who has expressed serious concerns for C.J.’s character or serious disagreements with his polity. Rather, the vast majority have commended his character, agree with his polity and condemned me and my writings. This is plurality C.J. style. No critics. No dissenters. There are approximately 275 other pastors in SGM. Unless you are a C.J. devotee you have no hope of “upward mobility” in SGM. No, C.J.’s monopoly of power continues and he handsomely rewards those that render subservience. All others end up on the SGM trash heap. Those that really stink are incinerated.
The Purposes of the Polity Committee:
1. With help and input from Sovereign Grace pastors, to establish a polity structure for Sovereign Grace Ministries and its member churches. This polity proposal will be presented to the SGM Board of Directors and, with their approval, to all SGM pastors.
I don’t know if the ambiguity in this paragraph is intentional but I do know it needs to be cleared up. What approval are we talking about? Approval of the polity proposal or approval to present the polity proposal or both. I think it means both. The Board will approve the new “polity structure for SGM and its member churches” and having approved it, present it to the SGM pastors. What a kind gesture. The pastors get to see how they will be governed.
2. With help and input from Sovereign Grace pastors, to write a Book of Church Order detailing how the SGM Board and Leadership Team should order themselves, what polity particulars should characterize local churches as members of SGM, and how SGM and local churches should relate to each other. This Book of Church Order will be presented to the SGM Board of Directors and, with their approval, to all SGM pastors.
This past March, sixty-two pastors sent a letter to the interim Board of Sovereign Grace Ministries asking for diversity among the nominees put forward to serve on the new Board of Directors. Their “help and input” did not make any difference then, it has made no difference now in the selection of Polity Committee members, and it will make little difference in the future regarding “much needed reforms.” Here is an excerpt from their March 7 letter.
“In the light of our discussions, we are declining to participate in the process of affirming these nominees [for the SGM Board] because we believe the process is premature and unwise…. There is no doubt that the nominees are upright and godly men. However, the lack of diversity of opinions is of great concern. Such diversity would come by including broader perspectives on polity from all of our churches, as well as representation from the international churches, and would greatly enhance the pursuit of much-needed reforms in our family of churches.” (Letter from 62 Pastors to SGM Interim Board, March 7, 2012)
The Book of Church Order will read the way C.J. and Phil want it to read because they are the ones primarily writing it.
3. With help and input from Sovereign Grace pastors, to write policies and suggest corresponding judicial structures related to the discipline and/or removal of church officers as well members of the SGM Board of Directors and the SGM Leadership Team, and to establish grievance processes. These proposals will be presented to the SGM Board of Directors and, with their approval, to all SGM pastors.
First, will these new policies apply to the discipline of C.J. retroactively? Or is there a Grandfather clause for him? Second, will these policies apply to Dave Harvey, Bob Kauflin, Mickey Connolly and Gene Emerson retroactively? Or are they exempted also? Third, will these policies apply to my removal from pastoral ministry? Fourth, will they apply to all the grievances I’ve been forbidden from presenting? Answers? Yes to #1 and #2. No to #3 and #4.
I hope polices and judicial structures are put into place that are just and based upon the rules of evidence. I’ve made a ton of recommendations in this regard based upon my 8 years of personal and judicial abuse. I hope someone is reading my material. Bottom line, just do the opposite of everything I’ve experienced. I’m serious. Read The Untold Story. Review the Three Panel Review process (study All Is Lost, Why the Three Panel Approach Is a Sham, Sovereign Grace Panels Are of Little Worth In Determining C.J.’s Fitness for Ministry, We Are Taking Brent Detwiler’s Allegations Seriously!, Update on My Panel Hearing, Panel Report on Brent Detwiler’s Dismissal from Grace Community Church, Try This Twelve Step Program on for Size!, Whitewashed Tombs, An Appeal for Ted Kober to Expose Dave Harvey. If you do, it will result in helpful changes in policies that will protect and benefit others in the future provided they are followed and enforced without partiality and favoritism.
4. With help and input from Sovereign Grace pastors, to write a membership agreement that reflects the agreed upon polity. This will be presented to the SGM Board of Directors and, with their approval, to all SGM Pastors.
This means the “polity proposal” regarding “governance structure” will be presented and passed before work is done on the Membership Agreement.
“The agreed upon polity” will not be agreed upon by everyone. If there is a vote by the SGM pastors the Mahaney/Sasser majority will prevail. It much more likely, however, the Board will decide for, and impose upon, the pastors “the agreed upon polity.”
Once the polity proposal is approved, churches will begin to decide whether to stay in SGM. Some may wait until the Membership Agreement is completed before finalizing their decision to stay or leave SGM.
Goals of the Board of Directors in Establishing This Polity Committee:
1. To strengthen what is presently in place that is biblical.
In February the interim Board wrote the following to all the SGM pastors regarding their biblical understanding of polity. This centralized form of governing the churches will be strengthened not weakened.
“As we’ve stated at the conference and in our various polity meetings, we continue to affirm and celebrate our existence together as a family of churches. Although this letter speaks in terms of “the Board,” that is simply a functional term for the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries and not an abandonment of biblical principle. Based upon the precedent of the New Testament, SGM is an expression of extra-local ministry that is connected to local churches, emerging out of local churches, endorsed by local churches, and working with local churches, with the goal of planting churches and serving those churches as they grow toward maturity. Thus, we will maintain our historical commitment to the pervasive biblical pattern of gifted men leading the church in its mission—planting churches, nurturing churches, and uniting churches in a common mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:39-40; 18:27-28; 1 Cor. 16:10-12; Phil. 2:19-30; Col. 1:7-8, 4:12; Titus 1:5; et al). ” (Letter from Interim Board to Pastors, Feb 27, 2012)
2. To change what is presently in place but needs revision.
That SGM churches are supposedly, but confusedly, independent and autonomous. Big revision coming.
3. To establish what is yet undeveloped or not in place.
The grievance policy for example.
4. To create unity within SGM by the adoption and clear communication of a more detailed, developed, and defended polity.
C.J. and Phil have been working on a written defense of their polity positions for months. To this end they’ve enlisted the help others including Phil’s son in law, Daniel Baker. Daniel wrote a 52 page treatise over the winter entitled, A Defense of and Model for Apostolic Government. He arrives at his conclusions in chapter 7 on “Acts 15: Apostles, Elders, and A Model for a Movement.” His treatment of Acts 15 is terribly unsound. He tries to justify the submission of the Apostolic Team (i.e., Leadership Team) to the Board of Directors. In so doing, he makes many interpretive errors. He imposes upon the text, an application of the text, which the text does not support. This is an example of eisegesis (reading a foreign meaning into a passage) rather than exegesis (letting a passage speak for itself). I totally disagree with this polity recommendation based upon the teaching of the NT. You have apostolic teams in the NT. Not Boards to which such apostolic men are submitted. This doesn’t mean there is no need for accountability. It means this is not the answer the NT supplies.
We have always believed in the accountability that comes with plurality. The many problems encountered with C.J. we’re not due to bad polity. They were due to bad character. When we put our polity to work and began to address C.J. in December 2000 it met with C.J.’s immediate resistance. Our collective efforts and his resistance continued for five straight years until everyone else capitulated.
We believed in team ministry but C.J. did not live team ministry. Hypocrisy, not polity, was the problem. C.J. was easily offended, dishonest, independent and manipulative. He believed he was superior to everyone around him. I put measures into place in 2004 to help C.J. but the Covenant Life pastors failed to follow through (see RRF&D, pp. 27-28; CR, pp. 15-19). Instead they allowed C.J. to manipulate them and turned against me. They also refused to follow 1 Timothy 5:19-21 in 2011. See In Need of a Corporate Rebuke – An Appeal to the Covenant Life Elders. I also appealed for their invention when the interim Board of Directors forced an unjust adjudication hearing upon me contrary to all their promises. See The Need for Crisis Intervention by the Covenant Life Pastors.
5. To clarify what it means to be a Sovereign Grace Ministries church.
Will SGM churches be required to give 10% of their income to SGM? Currently, the Membership Agreement reads, “To jointly carry out the mission of Sovereign Grace, member churches commit to a goal of giving 10 percent of their tithes and offerings to the Mission Fund of Sovereign Grace, and to prayerfully consider participating in all special offerings initiated among all Sovereign Grace Churches.”
Scope of Inquiry:
1. To examine our entire present polity structure and basis of authority at the local church level, the SGM regional level, the Leadership Team Level, and the SGM Board of Directors level, including the corporation bylaws.
Senior pastors are too powerful. The Chairman of the Board (Loftness) is too powerful. The President (Mahaney) is too powerful. These powers need to be curtailed in the SGM Bylaws and church bylaws.
I’d recommend SGM do away with the title, Senior Pastor. Though I’ve used it, I have never been comfortable with it. It is an extra-biblical term and one can argue it is an unbiblical term. The same with Lead Pastor. All pastors lead. I’d also get rid of Associate Pastor. The NT only refers to pastors, elders, and overseers. Jesus is the only “Sr. Pastor” (1 Pet 5:4, Heb 13:20). There needs to be a greater sense of collegiality and parity among local elders. The playing field needs to be leveled.
Of course, I also lament the fact that SGM moved away from a biblical model to a corporate model. In 1997, I recommended we change our name from People Destiny International to Sovereign Grace Ministries. We were told by our lawyers that was not possible due to copyright infringements. But in 2002 were able to buy rights to the name and made the change. With that change, I tried to persuade C.J. not to use “President of Sovereign Grace Ministries” on his new business card, etc. We discussed this as a team. Accuse me of bibliolatry, but I don’t like it when anyone moves away from the use of biblical terminology. I’ve always argued for the open, honest, transparent use of the word “apostle.”
When I started the Leadership Training School at Covenant Life Church in 1982, I introduced this quotation by T.C. Hammond
“We need to remember that truth produces its proper result and error always takes its revenge. Even slight deviations from the facts of revelation may lead eventually to graver aberrations. The best way to avoid error is to define as clearly as possible the norm of truth.” (T.C. Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, p. 14)
The disuse of the word “apostle” became an issue in 1999. For example, Dan Walsh, sr. pastor of the church in Daytona Beach, wrote me about the matter.
“About a month ago, Danny [Jones] passed on to the Florida PDI senior pastors that it was the desire of the team for us to back away from referring to Team members as “apostles” or “apostolic.” As I understood it, the purpose of the request was so that we would not unnecessarily offend outsiders of our movement with such language. Instead, we should use language such as “the PDI leadership team” or “the extended leadership team” for guys like Danny. I’ve observed this change has already taken place in Sovereign Grace magazine with the Overview issue. I’m deeply troubled by this change. I was then, voiced my concerns, and continue to have them…” (Dan Walsh, June 6, 1999)
I wrote Dan back.
“We decided not to use the term “apostle” or “apostolic team” in public settings where people are not familiar with us or the notion of apostolic ministry and are often opposed to the very idea. Likewise, we have decided to refrain from using “apostle” or “apostolic team” in PDI literature which has wide distribution beyond the TRCs [team related churches] when an explanation cannot be conveniently supplied.” (Brent Detwiler, June 4, 1999)
I used the plural pronoun “we” in my response but C.J., Dave and Steve would tell you I wasn’t on board with this development for two reasons. I felt it involved biblical compromise. Second, I felt it was ill motivated.
If you believe in apostles you should say so. If that costs you acceptance in Reformed and Cessationist’s circles then that is the price you pay for remaining true to Scripture. You can’t introduce extra-biblical nomenclature in order to save face with men whose favor you are courting. Playing the “wisdom card” became an excuse for compromise.
At this time, the Reformed world of R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Jerry Bridges, Ken Sande, et al., was opening up to us. C.J. first met with R.C. in 1995. We visited John Piper in 1997. We were all enamored and wowed by these developments. The following well-known leaders prominently endorsed us in our annual Ministry Overview issue of the magazine: David Powlison (1996), Jerry Bridges (1997), Wayne Grudem (1998), Ken Sande (1999), Mark Bullmore (2000), Mark Dever (2001), John Piper (2002), John Bettler (2003). C.J. ended the magazine in 2003. Together for the Gospel began in 2006 with Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, and John Piper. This was heady stuff.
It wasn’t long before our Polity and Pneumatology began to change. I sounded the alarm on polity in 1999 when I wrote a paper on “The Nature and Extent of Apostolic Authority.” Apostles were slowly on their way out.
The same was true with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, prophecy, singing in the Spirit, the word of knowledge, the word of wisdom, miracles, faith, healings, the casting out of demons, etc. By 2007, C.J.’s understanding of all this things radically changed though he never communicated those changes to the movement. Dave and Steve followed C.J. I asked these men to be open with SGM about the changes in doctrine. They thought it unwise. I thought it deceptive.
The November/December 1994 issue of People of Destiny Magazine was entitled, “Times of Refreshing – Overwhelming Encounters with the Spirit of God.” The header on the front page read, “Flood Warning: The Holy Spirit Is Being Poured Out! (Special Issue).”
Greg Somerville was the Executive Editor at the time. He wrote, “What an exciting time! Churches around the world, including many of those within People of Destiny, are experiencing supernatural ‘times of refreshing.’ Throughout this special issue you’ll find teaching and testimonies about all that’s taking place. May these articles deepen your thirst for the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.”
Soon after I wrote the following for the Special Ministry Overview (May/June 1995) entitled “Building Churches for the Glory of God.” In those days, there was a significant charismatic dimension to our faith. God’s active presence was felt and seen in dramatic fashion. What I declared had integrity and matched our experience.
“We hold to an essentially Reformed understanding of Christian doctrine but with a significant charismatic dimension to our faith.
“The supreme majesty and transcendent holiness of the triune God is our starting point. He is so much greater and purer than we could ever imagine. In considering this, we see our utter sinfulness and hostile defiance toward God. We realize our inability to change our condition or status before God. We stand under his judgment as wretched sinners.
“As such, we are convinced of God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation. In ourselves we are dead in sin and unwilling to repent or trust in Christ. Salvation is entirely the work of God. Therefore, God’s grace is absolutely amazing to us.
“In the Cross, the overwhelming love, wisdom and justice of God is revealed. It is astounding that Jesus, the perfect Son of God, should be crucified for our sin and credit us with his righteousness. We can only boast in the Cross through which our sins are forgiven and we are reconciled to God.
“We believe the church universal is the showcase of God’s grace and Jesus’ finished work. Therefore, all believers are called to enthusiastic involvement in a local church. In this context they are to grow in holiness, be equipped for service, and witness to the saving grace of God. All these things are possible by the presence of the Holy Spirit who is powerfully at work.
“Lastly, we long for Christ’s return and look forward to an eternity of worship and unending service.” (Brent Detwiler, Statement of Belief, May/June 1995)
Not long after this Statement of Belief was published, the fire of the Holy Spirit began to be quenched by doctrinal changes and out of concern for how men like R.C. Sproul and Mike Bullmore viewed our charismatic theology. For example, tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy became less desirable and almost contemptible over the course of time. There was a serious downgrade of our charismatic theology. We increasingly disobeyed passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20, “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; [20] do not treat prophecies with contempt” and 1 Corinthians 14:1, “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.”
I tried to stem the tide by preparing and presenting study outlines for the apostolic team and giving messages at major SGM events like “Elders, the Prayer of Faith and Healing (James 5:13-18)” (2002), “Filled with the Holy Spirit and Power - Acts 10:38” (2004), “Seven Reasons for Advocating Tongues” (2004), “The Pentecostal Reality” (2004), “Promoting and Preserving the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in Our Churches” (2004), “Does God Still Speak?” (2005).
In 2007, C.J. finally renounced most of his charismatic theology while insisting he was “far more charismatic today than I’ve ever been” (Team Retreat, January 24, 2007) and “I am more charismatic today than ever before” (Pastors Conference, April 13, 2007). That was a denial of reality. The nine gifts of the Holy Spirit highlighted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 had all but disappeared. He adopted the word “continuationist” in place of “charismatic” to describe his new Pneumatology.
That same year, I was removed from teaching Pneumatology (i.e., the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit) in the Pastors College (see RRF&D, pp. 119-121). In 2008, I was altogether removed from the Pastors College for deceitful reasons (see RRF&D, pp. 122-124) born out of C.J.’s offenses with me. I was lied to by Jeff Purswell and permanently tossed aside.
Jeff also had a big impact on our pneumatological decline. In 1994, Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology came out. It is a fine work in most respects but it contributed to the demise of our Acts 1:8 experience of power and several supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. In 1998, Jeff moved to Gaithersburg, MD to be Dean of Student Affairs for the Pastors College. I was Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs. The following year, I turned the college over to Jeff. That was 1999 and the same year Wayne Grudem endorsed People of Destiny International in our Ministry Overview issue of the magazine. Jeff graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was mentored by Wayne and served as his teaching assistant. Jeff brought Wayne’s “third wave” understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work and his fundamentalist’s view of apostles. After joining People of Destiny International, Jeff came to accept a low view of apostles. That view was passed onto others and especially to C.J.
“Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read the New Testament and see the high authority that is attributed to the office of “apostle” there. It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church—not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield---has taken to himself the title “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 911)
Wayne doesn’t believe in apostles for today. They don’t exist in his theology and anyone who references himself as an apostle must be viewed with suspicion. In Wayne’s cessationist’s understanding the ministry of the apostle has ceased.
It’s ironic that Wayne’s concern for pride and self-exaltation in people who describe themselves as apostles was unfounded in relation to C.J., Dave and Steve. They wanted to avoid the use of the term because of pride and self-exaltation. Using the word apostle meant they could be rejected by Sproul, MacArthur, Grudem and the like. They coveted their favor and company.
Supernatural experiences have all but ceased in most SGM churches. A continuationist theology is put forth but there is no continuation of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healings, faith, revelation (not normative), miracles, powerful fillings of the Holy Spirit (as depicted in the book of Acts), release from demonic agents, divine guidance (dreams, visions). Sunday mornings are predictable. Scripted. Rote. A well-established liturgy has descended upon the movement. There is little Spirit inspired spontaneity in meetings. The Third Person of the Trinity has been tamed and caged.
When was the last time “the secrets of a [sinners] heart were laid bare” as the result of prophecy causing him to “fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you.’” (1 Cor 14:24-25). Or what about this kind of experience in small groups. “What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Cor 14:26). Being “charismatic” in the biblical sense should not be equated with a church where people lift their hands in worship and sing contemporary songs to a cool band.
Paul’s clearest definition of what it means to be the “charismatic” body of Christ is found in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11. SGM is no longer charismatic. Many body parts are missing nowadays. SGM is just Reformed and deformed. The Third Wave never came ashore as promised and the tide keeps going out.
2. To examine our present governmental practices and processes, especially in light of AoR’s recommendations.
The recommendations did not address the most serious issues in SGM and put many people in a bad light while it put C.J. and the interim Board in an overall good light. For instance, the CLC pastors were castigated for having Family Meetings and small group meetings with members in order to benefit from their input and engage them in open and honest dialogue. Ted, it’s called pastoral care. They were also corrected for not “comforting” C.J. after his feeble confession to the church.
Instead, Ted and Ed should have included recommendations like these. “We recommend that C.J., Dave and the interim Board stop lying, manipulating and covering up the truth.” Or “We recommend that an open and just hearing be provided for Brent Detwiler so his charges can finally be heard.” Or, “We recommend the interim Board stop their blind devotion to C.J. which results in favoritism and start holding him accountable.” Or, “We recommend that C.J. and Dave Harvey be put on probation and their salaries cut in half until such time as they re-qualify for Christian ministry.” Finally, “We recommend AoR give back 75% of all monies paid it by SGM for writing such a biased and relatively worthless report.”
3. Let it be noted that SGM as a family of churches has enjoyed a rich history together. There are many doctrinal positions upon which there is widespread unity within SGM. As a result, the Board believes that there are some areas that should be preserved in our future polity. Here are the three important areas to be preserved.
a. SGM churches are elder-led. This has been taught and firmly established for decades. Of course there are many questions about the specific qualifications of those elders, how they are selected, how they are ordained, and the nature and scope of their authority, which will need to be examined.
As said before senior pastors should have less authority and power. There needs to be more co-equality among the elders.
b. Extra-local leadership has also been a part of our history. This will definitely inform our approach, but the Board of Directors realizes that there are many questions about extra-local ministry which must be answered. These include the nature of extra-local authority, the basis of that authority, the extent of that authority, and the means and methods by which that authority is exercised in the local church.
Yep.
c. SGM as a family of churches has historically been committed to planting and caring for local churches. This mission is essential to all that we stand for: we are determined to continue in this mission. The Board also realizes that there is much to be discussed, determined, and defended concerning the mission of the church and the ecclesiological status of SGM.
If the Polity Committee does not come out with a loud and clear apologetic for apostles then Sovereign Grace Ministries has no biblical basis for its existence. It is nothing but a parachurch ministry therefore has no authority because the relationship and partnership with SGM is strictly voluntary. Nothing can be required of the churches by the Board if it has no theological (not pragmatic) justification for its existence in the Scriptures.
The Polity Process:
Although the Polity Committee has not yet formally met, the following is the general process it will follow:
1. All SGM pastors are invited to participate in vigorous conversation about SGM polity. We encourage local elderships to search the Scriptures, to read pertinent books, and to write position papers.
Great encouragement but a meaningless effort.
2. Our approach will be to ask what we believe are the most important questions related to our polity, to search the Scriptures for the answers, and to develop a polity that is consistent with Scripture. Below, you will see many of the questions we will consider.
If they want “polity that is consistent with Scripture” they will have to say “And He gave some as apostles” (Eph 4:11). Not little “a” apostles. Not semi-technical apostles. Not the watered down, insipid, reductionistic kind they have advocated since 2004. Just apostles. Men who are sent to preach the gospel, plant churches, and build churches.
3. The Polity Committee’s work will take place during the next several months. Once the Polity Committee convenes, they have been instructed to arrange special meetings over the coming months in order to allow the participation of our pastors. SGM pastors will be invited to meet with the Committee at previously announced sites and times in order to present a polity position paper. The papers will need to be sent to us in advance so that the Committee has an opportunity to read them prior to the scheduled meeting. Each pastor or eldership will have an hour, if needed, to make a presentation, and the Committee will take 30 minutes to ask questions and comment. The Polity Committee will announce these dates and sites within 60 days of this letter.
Sorry for the skepticism. You can present papers until your blue in the face. They are worthless if they don’t agree with the already formed presuppositions of the Board of Directors and Polity Committee members.
4. Individual committee members will be available for conversations by phone in between these meetings.
Remember who is on the committee. There will be a lot of listening. Just like AoR or the Three Panels but there will be no changes. The Polity Committee will express profuse appreciation and compliment every elder on his presentation. Humility will be on display for all to see. But when it comes time to write the polity proposal all dissenting input will be like a mist. It will be vaporized. I wrote 1,200 pages and all of it was dismissed. Making a case doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t agree with C.J., Phil Sasser, and John Loftness.
5. Every SGM church’s eldership is invited to participate. No SGM pastor will be excluded from the conversation.
Not even the heretic pastors who think SGM is in need of radical reforms.
6. Experts from other denominations will be consulted if agreed to by a majority of the committee.
These “experts” will be comprised of individuals who exclusively or largely agree with the Polity Committee. They will be quoted where favorable to the proposal put forward by the committee.
7. When decisions are made by the Polity Committee, in the event that unanimity cannot be achieved, a simple majority will carry the question. Dissenting opinions among the committee members may be submitted to the Board along with their final recommendations.
Are you serious? The Polity Committee is making the decisions regarding polity and not the Board of Directors. Get out the puppets. If I’m following, C.J., Phil Sasser, Paul Buckley, Matthew Wassink, Jared Mellinger, Bruce Chick, and Jeff Purswell decide polity. If I were in SGM, I would not want this group of men making decisions for me. There may be a couple dissenters but all the rest agree.
8. The Polity Committee will submit an update of its work to the full SGM Board of Directors at its Fall 2012 retreat. The Polity Committee will also present a report of its work to the pastors at our Pastors Conference in October 2012. It is the Board’s goal that we can actually formulate and present the most important aspects of polity at the Pastors Conference this fall, but due to the magnitude of the task and complexity of the process, we cannot guarantee it.
Of course the Board of Directors will agree with the Polity Committee at the Fall Retreat. Two board members and two leadership team members were put on the Polity Committee. Do the math. The outcome is certain.
9. The final polity plan will be submitted to the SGM Board of Directors for their consideration. It is hoped that this work can be completed within the coming year.
The SGM Board will examine, rewrite and revise portions of the proposal in conjunction with the Polity Committee. That should take about 30 minutes. Remember, two Board members and two leadership team members serve on the later. By the way, the Board still hasn’t told us who is on the Leadership Team (i.e., apostolic team) except for C.J. and Jeff.
10. After examination, rewriting, and revision, a draft, along with the membership agreement, will be sent to all SGM pastors for their consideration and adoption pursuant to the Board’s polity adoption plan which will be decided at our June 2012 Board meeting.
How will the Polity Proposal and Membership Agreement be officially adopted? By a decision of the Board? By a vote of the SGM pastors? It doesn’t matter. The outcome is already determined. The Board and Committee get what they want one way or another.
Questions to Be Answered:
Below are ten questions we will attempt to answer in our development of a biblical polity. This list of questions is not necessarily exhaustive, and each of those listed entails many others.
1. In the New Testament, does any ecclesiastical body or officers have authority over local churches and their elderships? If so, what is the nature and extent of that authority?
With Jeff’s advent in 1998 a reductionistic understanding of apostles took root and began to grow. C.J. soon locked onto Jeff’s position. Dave and Steve followed suit. This embracing of “semi-technical” apostles was important for two strategic reasons. One, C.J. was on the rise in Reformed circles. It provided him theological cover or language by which to explain himself and distance himself from the notion of being a NT apostle. Two, C.J. worried about the amount of money it would cost SGM to support a growing number of apostles if we really believed they should be meaningfully involved in the growing number of local churches. He announced a reorganization plan for SGM at the Pre-Conference Gathering before Together for the Gospel in 2008. That was supposed to solve all problems and increase care. The opposite turned out to be the case.
Finally in July, 2003, C.J., Dave and Steve agreed to a watered-down understanding of apostolic ministry. The fatherhood metaphor was introduced and apostles were spelled with an “a” so small someone with 20/10 vision could not see it on an eye chart. For several years, I strenuously tried to persuade these men to retain a high view of apostles in keeping with Scripture. More on this in my next post.
Here is what Dave said in his SGM Pastors Conference message in 2005. It was entitled, “Exploring the Gap between the Big and Little ‘A’ – A Fresh Look at Apostolic Ministry.”
“As indicated already this session is an attempt to clarify our present understanding of apostolic ministry.… This message is an attempt to clarify the distinction that exists between Paul and present-day apostolic ministries – between Big A and the little a…
“The problem is if we don’t recognize that unique grace bestowed upon him [Paul], a unique authority, what it does is it throws the door open for all kind of abuse. Because present-day apostles begin to inadvertently, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes consciously, elevate their authority to be on par with the apostle Paul…
“They [apostles] exist not to first lead through their authority; they exist to lead through their service to the church.… Also, Paul was called to exercise not simply an authority but Paul was called to exercise a unique authority within the churches. There was a unique grace upon him. That unique grace created a distinct role. That unique grace and distinct role bestowed upon him an uncommon authority. It granted him this special leadership authority in the churches. That’s where we will see him act authoritatively and involve himself authoritatively on a level that no minister today or no apostle today should…
“The problem is if we don’t recognize that unique grace bestowed upon him a unique authority, what it does is it throws the door open for all kind of abuse. Because present-day apostles begin to inadvertently, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes consciously, elevate their authority to be on par with the apostle Paul.… I’m here to say that I believe Eph. 4 apostles are dramatically different than that model. They exist not to first lead through their authority; they exist to lead through their service to the church.…
“He [Paul] did not regularly equate himself with the 12 [apostles], but it’s important to understand that Paul was more like the 12 than he is like present-day apostolic ministry.… Now, listen. Here’s the take home point. Present-day apostles don’t and shouldn’t approach Paul’s apostolic ministry immediately assuming common ground with Paul…
“Because part of the calling of apostolic ministry is first to divest oneself of his rights orientation and to approach churches not with the assumption of where he has authority but of where he can engage that church to serve them.… In fact, we are more convinced than ever that the accent or the weight in the NT for the role of apostolic ministry is that man is pushing out beyond the borders and taking new ground for the gospel and not just circulating through old territory with the gospel.” (Dave Harvey, “Exploring the Gap between the Big and Little ‘A’ – A Fresh Look at Apostolic Ministry,” SGM Pastors Conference, 2005)
2, Who has the authority to ordain, install, and remove elders in a local church? By what process?
Apostles in conjunction with the elders. Sometimes the apostle is directly involved in carrying out 1 Tim 5:19-22. Sometimes he provides oversight and counsel to the elders.
3. What are the qualifications and disqualifications for pastoral ministry?
The qualifications are clearly taught in places like 1 Tim 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5. They must be impartially applied. Some men have been removed unjustly because they fell out of favor with C.J., Dave, Steve, etc. Other men like C.J. have been retained due to favoritism.
4. Who appoints the SGM Board of Directors, Leadership Team, and Regional Leaders, and to whom are they accountable? Who can remove them? What are their qualifications and disqualifications?
Apostles and prophets should be working together in team ministry. Each of these men should be based in a local church that provides care, support and accountability. These extra-local men should be characterized by the highest degree of character and integrity.
This group of men choose other apostles and prophets who are commended by local churches. This team of apostles and prophets are called to hold one another accountable. When this does not occur they should be confronted by their local churches. If they don’t change immediately, the churches that associate with them should leave and look for men who fulfill the qualifications of Scripture. Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Tim 5:19-22 should be applied to these apostolic and prophetic. They may be gifted but that is not the sole basis for being in ministry. They must also be above reproach.
5. By what process do members of a local church bring charges against an elder? An entire eldership? An SGM Board member? A member of the SGM Leadership Team? An SGM regional representative? Is there a place of appeal? Should former members be able to bring an accusation?
I’ve addressed all these issues in other writings. Someday I hope to put them in book form. I’ve made many suggestions to the powers that be. The problem is not primarily about how you bring charges but how you are treated once you arrive. The presence of partiality and favoritism on the Board of Directors, Leadership Team, and in some elderships is a major problem and should be a huge concern in the polity discussion.
6. How much ecclesiastical authority, if any, does SGM require in order to execute its church-planting mission?
In other words, can SGM require member churches to participate in its church-planning mission.
7. Can a visible, organized church consist of more than one congregation (as, for example, in Presbyterianism)? Or are visible, organized churches necessarily identical with single, local congregations (as in Independency)?
This question needs some work. I think they are asking whether a church in a denomination (e.g. SGM) can function independently of the denomination or whether the denomination has governance over the church.
8. Is SGM (a) a constituent organ of the Sovereign Grace church(es), (b) a subservient agent under the authority of the Sovereign Grace church(es), (c) an independent parachurch ministry, or (d) something else?
Someone define “constituent organ?”
9. To what extent can churches permissibly delegate (contractually or otherwise) ecclesiastical authority and/or mission activity to outside agents and organizations?
Interesting. I think this means, is it okay for churches to sign the Membership Agreement (or some other binding contract) and thereby give SGM authority over them and their mission activity.
10. How and on what basis can member churches be censured by or removed from SGM? Is this an act of ecclesiastical authority, comparable to the censure of an elder or the excommunication of a church member, or merely an organizational disassociation?
Simplified. Does Matthew 18 apply to churches. I’d also add, does Matthew 18 apply to SGM?
Brothers, we ask for your patient, prayerful participation in this process. We have much work to do in a relatively short period of time. May God grant us wisdom from above and love for one another as we approach this most important task. Please contact us with any questions of clarification that you may have.
Will the debate over polity make any difference?
Yes it will. For the first time in a long time, people will know how Sovereign Grace churches are governed and what is required of them in order to be a Sovereign Grace church.
No it won’t. Those who want radical reforms will not get them. The Articles, Bylaws and Membership Agreement will be refined but not fundamentally changed. Sovereign Grace Ministries is returning to its pre-2004 practice of apostolic ministry.
In Christ,
Phil Sasser
C.J. Mahaney
On behalf of the SGM Board of Directors
Addendum on Matthew Wassink
Matthew is the sr. pastor of the SGM church in Kansas City. This interchange gives insights into his attitudes and polity. See A Rare View Inside Sovereign Grace Ministries for the complete context. Matthew was a perfect pick for the Polity Committee since they didn’t want any diversity.
From: Matthew Wassink
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:03 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: FW: Adjudication Hearing
I vote no.[1] But that’s just to give you the heads up that having read the docs and all the other info, I’m not down with your adversarial and manipulative proposal[2], not that I think this should come down to a vote of all SGM pastors.[3]
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:25 PM
To: Matthew Wassink
Subject: FW: Adjudication Hearing
Hi Matthew. I am happy to accept the terms SGM has set.[4]
From: Matthew Wassink
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:31 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: FW: Adjudication Hearing
No Brent, you declined.[5] You even declined when the AoR representative followed up a day after the deadline.[6] You claimed your conscience wouldn’t allow it.[7] The fact that you are now going back on your word and previous decision[8] simply appears to be another example in a growing list of ways you have tried to hold SGM (the board, its pastors and its churches) hostage[9] during this whole process. You had an opportunity to participate. You declined. You then declined again.[10] I think it is totally appropriate that the board move on and accept your initial decision.[11]
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:49 PM
To: Matthew Wassink
Subject: FW: Adjudication Hearing
Matthew – you only have the SGM version of events. It is not truthful! For example, there was only one proposal and I only declined once.
From:Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:09 PM
To: Matthew Wassink
Subject: FW: Adjudication Hearing
Of course you think it is fine for the Board to move on. You don’t want the truth to interfere with the spin. Stand up and ask for an open hearing! You must allow for freedom of conscience on matters like these lest you abuse people.[12] At the time, I said that I did not feel the liberty to accept a proposal that was unjust and violated many promises made to me. Given the spin being put out by SGM, I changed my view. Any hearing is better than no hearing.[13]
[1] The interim Board would not allow me to present my charges after I reconsidered their adjudication proposal and agreed to its terms. As a result, I put a counterproposal together involving Ken Sande and asked that it be voted upon by the SGM pastors. If put to a vote, Matthew would have taken a stand against the counterproposal.
[2] Here is the “adversarial and manipulative proposal” I sent the Board, AoR, Ken Sande and the SGM pastors.. “I formally request the following proposal (“A Suggested Proposal for an Impartial, Just, and Thorough Evaluation of C.J. and Sovereign Grace Ministries”) be adopted by the SGM Board. If any parts of this proposal are unacceptable, please provide the reasons why and offer alternatives. 1) Ken Sande serves as facilitator for the evaluation process. 2) Ken selects three judges or lawyers and two pastors who are evangelical believers and highly respected with little or no knowledge of SGM to serve as the evaluators. 3) This five man panel will hear evidence for and against C.J. and SGM. They will post a summary of the evidence and give their legal/pastoral opinion as to C.J.’s fitness and the fitness of other leaders like Dave [Harvey], Steve [Shank] Bob [Kauflin] and Gene [Emerson]. They are also welcome to post their assessment of me. 4) C.J. and I will negotiate the terms and conditions with Ken for this thorough going evaluation of SGM and its agents. 5) If necessary, Ken will serve outside of his official capacity as President of Peacemakers if the terms and conditions of the agreement do not meet, or differ with, the specifications of Peacemakers and thereby prevent his official involvement. In such case, he will act as a qualified believer.”
[3] This is why Matthew was chosen for the Polity Committee. If he wouldn’t allow the pastors to vote on this proposal, I don’t think he’d ever allow the pastors to vote on anything including the Polity Proposal.
[4] Which I did. Nevertheless, the SGM Board slammed the door on adjudication and would not comment on my counterproposal.
[5] I did for good reasons at the time.
[6] This never happened.
[7] Initially that was true because the Adjudication Procedure violated 12 months of promises and commitments. It was an unjust and prejudicial proposal. I was lied to and manipulated left and right.
[8] This is sure a kind and compassionate of my situation! Lol.
[9] What a horrible perspective. I was looking for simple justice.
[10] I only declined once. This shows how vulnerable Matthew is to accepting the SGM version of events investigating or knowing the facts.
[11] Not allowing me to change my mind is a compelling reason in Matthew’s mind for not allowing me to share my grievances and fact based charges against C.J. and others. It is “totally appropriate” to deny me due process.
[12] That is, my initial refusal to participate in the adjudication hearing. Matthew should have understood and even commended my conscientious objection. Instead he ridiculed it.
[13] I never heard any more from Matthew.
]]>##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:55 PM
To: AoR Board of Directors [mail@hisaor.org]
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas
Subject: An Appeal to the AoR Board oof Directors
To the Board of Directors: Rev. Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Chairman (Billings, MT); David Schlachter, Secretary (Billings, MT); Rev. Dr. Rick Marrs (St. Louis, MO); Edith Block (Watertown, WI); Francis Taman (Calgary, Alberta- Canada); Richard D. Peters (Amery, WI); Bryce Thomas (Hickory, NC)
I greet you in the grace, love, and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Recently, Ted Kober and Ed Keinath submitted and posted their Report to the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries. There was much in the report that concerned me. As a result, I made every effort to “go and show him [Ted] his fault, just between the two of you.”
When Ted refused all such efforts, I involved other key people in my appeal to him. I endeavored to “take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” He refused to meet with Jim Pappadeas, Bob Dixon, Larry Tomczak and myself.
It is now necessary to publicly rebuke Ted. I genuinely wish this was not necessary. I am confident Ambassadors of Reconciliation has provided a great service to many individuals and groups in the cause of reconciliation. Unfortunately, the organization has been a disservice to Sovereign Grace Ministries and contributed to greater division among us and the Body of Christ at large.
What is true of Ted and Ed is also true of Bryce Thomas, who serves as one of your Board Members. In conjunction with the Sovereign Grace Board of Directors, Bryce designed a Three Panel Review process to hear my charges against C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries. It was a terribly unjust arrangement and produced inaccurate and libelous findings. I wrote him about this and asked to meet with him. He steadfastly refused.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Bryce Thomas
Cc: Learn from Your Mistakes
The three panel approach you helped devise and approved was a grave disservice. Don’t ever use such an approach in the future. It destroys people and justice. Please learn from your mistakes.
From: Bryce Thomas
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 6:16 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: What Does My Website Have in Common with Pornography? Ask Jared Mellinger!
Brent,
Would you take me off your emailing list?
Thanks,
Bryce
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:12 PM
To: Bryce Thomas
Subject: Re: What Does My Website Have in Common with Pornography? Ask Jared Mellinger!
Not yet. You need to deal with reality. Not avoid it. You are part of the problem and I still hope you will be part of the solution. I’ll also be writing you directly. The three panel approach was most unjust. If you attempted to do the same in a civil court you would be disbarred in the State of NC.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:10 AM
To: Bryce Thomas
Subject: Set Up Time to Meet
Bryce,
You have grievously sinned against me. I would like to meet with you in private as soon as possible so I can tell you your sins and appeal for your repentance. Please let me know where and when we can meet in person.
Thank you,
Brent
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 4:44 PM
To: Bryce Thomas
Subject: Please Call Immediately
Bryce,
Please call me as soon as possible. I am serious about this request. We must meet in obedience to God’s word. The three panel review you helped design, and the manner in which you carried it out, was most unjust and partial. It produced inaccurate findings and abusive statements in a public report. This must be corrected. Please meet with me.
Sincerely,
Brent
I wrote this parody to underscore the grave injustice of such an approach. I sent it to Bryce, Ted and Ed. All these things actually happened to me in reverse except for step 12. What I experienced was partial and prejudicial on every account.
I also pleaded with Ted during a phone conversation on January 25, 2012 to cite the Three Panel Review as abusive. Inexplicably, he brought no correction to the SGM Board of Directors, Bryce Thomas or any of the nine Panelists. This amounts to a cover-up of vital information germane to his report. It demonstrates Ted’s and Ed’s bias in reporting their findings. Such a miscarriage of justice and open repudiation of due process should have been exposed prominently in their report. Instead the abuse went unreported.
I sincerely hope Ted and Bryce have been forwarding you all my appeals to them throughout this nine month process and not kept you in the dark by withholding any vital information from you.
Bryce also benefitted financially because of his close relationship to Ted. Though Bryce did not act as an employee of AoR, or in his capacity as a Board Member, he profited greatly from his transaction with Sovereign Grace Ministries. I estimate he was paid at least $25,000 for his services.
Please understand that Bryce was recommended to the Sovereign Grace Board by Ted in his official position as President of AoR. I question the integrity of such an arrangement. It lends itself to ethical and financial conflicts of interest. For example, it is obvious Bryce benefitted from his relationship with Ted. The Sovereign Grace Board would not have hired Bryce if not for Ted’s recommendation. Therefore, Ted shares responsibility for Bryce’s unprofessional counsel and unethical conduct. Furthermore, Ted should have reproved Bryce in private and exposed his approach to the Three Panel Review in his Report to the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries. This absence constitutes a great dereliction of duty and reveals the presence of favoritism toward Bryce and Sovereign Grace Ministries.
As the Board of Directors for AoR you have a biblical, ethical and legal obligation to rebuke these men and direct them to make amends with haste. Such an undertaking must include private confession and public restitution. I hope you proceed expeditiously.
In short, these men have failed to live by the Standard of Conduct for Christian Conciliation. Their personal and professional errors need to be cited by you in a public report so the same mistakes are not repeated in the future. I recommend some disciplinary action be taken against them by your unanimous consent.
I have written in order to help Ambassadors of Reconciliation, not harm it. I desire the greater good of Ted, Ed and Bryce. That is why I bring these matters to your attention. You are welcome to keep me abreast of the corrective actions you take so I can communicate those actions on my blog in order to see people’s confidence restored in your organization.
Thanks for your kind consideration.
Regards,
Brent Detwiler
]]>For example, I asked Ted to denounce the Three Panel Review done last December and expose Bryce Thomas, the SGM Board, and others. Ted ignored all my appeals and left this profound example of abuse and injustice out of his report. He makes reference to the review but does not speak against the review.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:36 PM
To: Ted Kober
Cc: Degar Keinath; Ken Sande
Subject: Need to Condemn Panel
Importance: High
Hello Ted,
I know you are putting on the final touches. Here are two blog posts [56 Panel Report on Brent Detwiler’s Dismissal; 57 Try This Twelve Step Program] I ask you to incorporate (at least in summary) in your report and a couple emails to Bryce I never sent you. I trust you will cite Bryce for helping to devise such an evil process as the three panel reviews last December. I can’t put into words how devastating my experience was with the panel [Mark Prater, Warren Boettcher, Ron Boomsma] regarding my dismissal from ministry. A narrow question about C.J. was used to write a damming report about me without any due process. It was all done behind my back once again. It all happened deceitfully. The report was evil and based upon false witnesses that went entirely unchallenged. I had no idea what was happening. I was provided no information and given no opportunity to defend. It was another manipulative blindside.
That experience was one more example of how C.J., Dave and the Board were willing to abuse me, put into place a corrupt strategy, deny me all rights to remedy, and avoid all accountability in the process. Every rule of jurisprudence was violated. This must be condemned by you in the report.
Stand strong in the grace of God.
Sincerely,
Brent
I also asked Ted to press the SGM Board for an independent Church Court. He doesn’t even mention this request in his report.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 5:16 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Church Court
Ted,
Please push for the church court in your report. I’d like to avoid a civil court.
Thanks
Brent
As a result of Ted’s dereliction, I sought to contact Dave Harvey in order to set up a meeting with the interim Board and the men on the three panels to voice my grievances. Dave Harvey did not respond.
As a result of Dave’s unwillingness to talk with me, I appealed to all the pastors of SGM on Monday. I wrote the following letter and provided all the information below. I gave Dave, the interim Board and the new Board five days to answer my appeal for a Church Court. I don’t know how many pastors contacted SGM. I do know their appeal was denied once again. No one has contacted me.
That means Dave, the interim Board and the new Board have rejected my appeal to meet in private regarding the Three Panel Review and they have also rejected my request for an outside Church Court to be assembled so my charges against C.J. and others can finally be heard and evaluated by honorable men in an unbiased setting using the well-known rules of evidence.
The Ambassadors of Reconciliation Report does not deal with the evidence. It avoids the evidence. It leaves out the evidence. I have no recourse but to consider further actions including the use of civil courts. I’ve begun to consult with lawyers. I’ve attempted every other remedy under the sun. Throughout this process, I’ve asked for one thing – a thorough, just, and unbiased hearing of the evidence – all promised to me countless times.
I am NOT considering legal action because I am bitter, greedy, or have to prove myself. No, I am considering it for the good of SGM, et al. Yes, you read that right! I am looking into a lawsuit for the good of SGM and others. Here’s why.
The SGM Board has never acknowledged any wrong doing to me or the movement. C.J. made one, one sentence confession to SGM in writing. His repudiated all other statements and supported their removal from the SGM website. The Three Panel Review never reviewed 95% of my allegations and I was forbidden from participating in 2 of the 3 panels. The AoR Report avoided 1,200 pages of evidence. In short, the deceit and cunning of C.J., Dave and the interim Board prevented the just hearing of charges and the opportunity to defend against false witnesses. I hope to use a civil court to rectify these injustices.
This is part of my commitment to seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. God does not will corruption. He wills justice. God does not will deceit. He wills truth. No one has been willing to hold SGM, AoR, or individuals like Bob Kauflin, Gene Emerson, Mickey Connolly, Eric Kircher, and Ray Mulligan accountable. Courts serve this purpose by the decree of God (Romans 13:1-7) for believers and unbelievers. This lack of accountability is to the detriment of these organizations and individuals. My motive is redemptive, it is not vengeful. Change will not occur unless truth is vindicated, falsehood condemned, accountability implemented, and consequences introduced.
As it stands the following ethical reality is true in the sight of God. Proverbs 17:15 Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent — the Lord detests them both.
The nature of God, the teaching of Scripture, the good of former friends, and the well-being of the gospel have been, and are, my sincere motivations.
##
[Beginning of Correspondence to All SGM Pastors]
April 23, 2012
To All SGM Pastors,
Urgent. Please read immediately.
On July 6-7, 2011, I sent you Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine, A Final Appeal, Concluding Remarks, and The Untold Story. This became necessary for eight reasons.
See “Eight Reasons Why Sending Out the Documents Was Not Slander but Necessary” for a much fuller explanation.
I am appealing to you again. The interim Board comprised of Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, John Loftness, Mickey Connolly, Craig Cabaniss, Steve Shank, Mark Prater, Pete Greasley, Aron Osborne, and Rick Gamache, have denied me justice since they took office on July 13, 2011. My charges against C.J. and other agents of SGM have not been given a hearing. I’ve been given no remedy for my grievances.
Therefore, I ask each one of you to intercede on my behalf and petition the new Board to agree this week to the use an outside church court as outlined below. I beg your immediate assistance! This request does not differ from what was originally and repeatedly promised to me by C.J., Dave, Jeff and Joshua from July 2010 to July 2011. In reality, I am simply asking you to hold them accountable to their word so additional action need not be taken.
Yesterday I wrote the interim Board, new Board, and Panelists. I copied the CLC pastors, AoR representatives, Ken Sande, and Chip Grange (legal counsel for SGM).
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:05 PM
To: Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Andrew Mahr; Bob Kauflin; Gary Ricucci; Tommy Hill; Al Pino; Ian McConnell; John Loftness; Ken Mellinger; Paul Buckley; Phil Sasser; Brian Brookins; Mark Alderton; Ron Boomsma; Steve Teter; Warren Boettche
Cc: Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert; Bryce Thomas; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Ted Kober; Chip Grange
Subject: RE: Sovereign Grace Relocation Annoucement
I have sent the SGM Board and the CLC pastors everything I’ve ever written over the last two years. That’s because I don’t hide my words and I’ve welcomed their feedback. I’ve repeatedly asked C.J., Dave and the Board to correct any inaccuracies. I’ve written them for specific clarifications. I’ve asked them countless questions. I’ve confronted their lies and deceit. In short, I’ve done my best to walk in the light and interact with them. The offer stands. I want any factual errors I am guilty of corrected with evidence. If those factual errors prove I have judged anyone; I will repent, ask your forgiveness and write a public retraction. I’ve done this before. I’ll do it as many times as necessary. I’ve only wanted the truth. That is why I have pursued input from the Board and CLC.
Someday soon, I hope the Board will fulfill its promise and allow me to share my charges against C.J. and others in a just setting with honorable men. Someday soon I also hope they will grant my request to defend against my wrongful termination in July 2009. To date, they have forbid me from expressing my grievances in both cases even though I was promised the opportunity to do so. I also want to defend against the libelous report written by Mark Prater, Warren Boettcher and Ron Boomsma in December 2011.
All of you have believed false witnesses against me and let them go unexamined against my protest. You have slandered me in private conversations to hundreds, if not thousands, of people. For example, see In My Own Defense. You are hypocrites. Furthermore, the SGM Board has frequently and intentionally lied about me on the SGM website. I have brought this to their attention in each case but they’ve been utterly unresponsive to my appeals.
Specifically and recently, Bryce Thomas and the interim Board put together the three panel review in December. It constituted a great travesty of justice and a horrible abuse of power. I pleaded with Ted Kober to include this in his report. He did not do so. I’ve asked to meet with Ted in private. He refuses to write, call or meet. I’ve also contacted Bryce Thomas and asked to meet with him in private. He too has refused to write, call or meet. Both men show no willingness to hear their sins or pursue reconciliation with me.
On Thursday of this past week, I sent the following email to the interim Board and Panelists. Additional correspondence follows. Please appeal to the new Board for a righteous hearing of my charges and grievances by an outside church court.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:31 AM
To: Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Brian Brookins; Ken Mellinger; Mark Alderton; Ron Boomsma; Steve Teter; Warren Boettcher
Subject: Go to Your Brother If He Sins Against You (Matthew 18:5)
Importance: High
All of you grievously sinned against me in the three panel review. I would like to meet with you as a group in private as soon as possible so I can tell you your sins and appeal for your repentance. Please let me know where and when we can do this meeting.
Thank you
Brent
That same morning I followed up with a phone call to Dave. I attempted to talk with him directly. He was in a meeting so I left a detailed message with his assistant, Aaron Mayfield. In that message, I repeated my demand to meet with the men listed above. I also expressed a willingness to meet with Dave alone. I asked that Dave call me back the same day. I have not heard from him nor has he written me.
On January 29 of this year [see correspondence below], I wrote Tommy Hill and copied the interim Board and CLC pastors asking that an outside church court be constituted to hear my charges in order to avoid the use of a civil court. The Board was unwilling to provide an answer and directed me to its lawyers. I asked Ted Kober to recommend an independent church court in his report since AoR never heard or tried my charges. He ignored the matter altogether and thereby showed an unwillingness to help me pursue justice. My cry to the Board and Ted fell upon deaf ears.
I want to be reconciled to C.J., Dave Harvey, Bob Kauflin, Mickey Connolly, Gene Emerson, et al., but the first step must be the hearing of my charges. All attempts to do so have been blocked by the interim Board. Why must it be first? Because it was promised first! You are welcome to confront my perceived or actual sins but this must follow an extensive process of working through my writings where I carefully and fairly document your sins against me. You have denied due process at every turn and refused to allow for a hearing of my grievances. For example, I was not even allowed to participate in two of the three panels last December. See Try This 12 Step Program on for Size.
I will be taking further action if C.J., Dave and the interim Board don’t express a whole heartedly willingness this week to arrange for a hearing of my grievance, offenses, and charges before men trained in jurisprudence and outside of SGM. Don’t respond to this request if your motivation is to avoid a potential lawsuit or other adverse consequences. Respond with contrition.
Once again, I request an objective church court because Ted Kober, Ed Keinath and AoR never heard my charges and refused to address in their report my most serious charges and the super abundance of evidence against C.J. and SGM. Some parts of the AoR report are good. Some parts are bad. Many critical parts that should have been included are entirely missing. That is unacceptable. A $400,000 study over nine months should have covered all the evidence. The report is biased and largely focused on the wrong issues.
The new Board should act immediately and call a church court so I can present my grievances.
##
[Additional Correspondence Included for All SGM Pastors]
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Tommy Hill
Cc: Warren Boettcher; Ron Boomsma; Phil Sasser; Wayne Brooks; Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Ken Sande; Bob Kauflin; 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; Gary Ricucci; Tony Reinke; 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: Court Proceedings and Compensatory Reparations
Hi Tommy,
I am writing you as the Comptroller of SGM.
The SGM Board (old and interim) has expressed absolutely no wrong doing for their repeated abuses of me over the last 7 years. Along with C.J, both promised a fair hearing of all my charges against C.J. and other agents of SGM. Instead a most unjust hearing was carried out behind my back. The recent report by Warren Boettcher, Ron Boomsma, and Mark Prater defamed my character once again with no remedy.
I agreed to participate in the panel hearing in order to address a question related to C.J.s influence in my dismissal. These three men, with your full support, produced a report condemning me just like Bob Kauflin, Phil Sasser, and Wayne Brooks did in July 2009 without any due process. This is criminal. It is similar to Dave’s posting on July 13, 2011 which was libelous in a biblical and legal sense. So too hisletter to the SGM pastors on June 11, 2011.
In contradistinction, I have always posted rebuttals or corrections you have provided me for anything I’ve written. I’ve repeatedly asked you to correct any matter of fact. You’ve basically refused. I’ve confronted you on slander and asked to you provide support for your libelous comments. You have not responded or answered hard questions. Though I’ve repeatedly asked, you have provided no defense of yourself.
I am asking for two actions by the SGM Board because you have acted deceitfully, destructively and illegally over the last two years.
This is permissible in Scripture. 1 Corinthians 6 does not apply. It deals with “cheating” between two individuals and is minor in nature. We are talking about corruption that is widespread. Furthermore, the three panel approach was a bogus enterprise. No one I know in SGM will do justice. Therefore, a church court or civic court must entertain my charges. Biblical and civil laws apply to my pursuit of justice and compensatory reparations. If you wish, I am glad to send you a treatise I wrote on 1 Corinthians 6.
You have blocked all efforts for a just and objective hearing of charges. Some criminal. You have repeatedly denied me due process despite many appeals and protestations against your efforts to cover up the harm done to me and others. You have contributed to the destruction of people’s lives, industry, and finances. If you take no action to make things right this could turn into a class action law suit. You have violated the law in relation to others also.
I am open to trying my charges in a church court or civil court. I am not talking about mediation services like Peacemakers or Ambassadors of Reconciliation. A church court must be comprised of legal experts who have no history with SGM and are authorize to award damages and publish legal opinions. I am glad to work with Ken Sande in setting up the terms and conditions. Or we can proceed with a trial before a civil magistrate. I am happy for you to defend against my charges. I’ve pleaded for you to do so. Instead, you came up with the unethical three panel contrivance.
You have transgressed Scripture but you have also transgressed the laws of the Land. You must be held accountable in court since you are unwilling to hold yourself accountable in SGM.
Regards,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:07 PM
To: Tommy Hill
Cc: Chip Grange; Warren Boettcher; Ron Boomsma; Phil Sasser; Wayne Brooks; Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Bryce Thomas; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Ted Kober; Andrew Mahr; Bob Kauflin; Gary Ricucci; Tony Reinke; 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: RE: Court Proceedings and Compensatory Reparations
Importance: High
Hello Tommy,
When will I hear back from you on behalf of the SGM Board regarding my January 29th appeal for a just proceeding?
Specifically, has the Board accepted or rejected my request for a church court? That is preferable to a civil court dealing with 1) tortuous interference with contract; 2) negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3) defamation (which includes both libel and slander) and 4) wrongful termination.
Here is my justification for civil intervention if you refuse to allow for a church court conducted by Christians who are legal experts.
For the last seven years I have taken the approach of 1 Corinthian 6:7, “Why not rather be wrong? Why not rather be cheated?” In context, however, this passage regards “trivial cases” (i.e., cheating a brother) not the destruction of one’s livelihood and reputation through oppressive and unjust means on a corporate level by SGM agents. My grievance is not against C.J. as such (i.e., “one brother goes to law against another”) but the systemic problems that exist in an organization that has ruined the lives and ministries of many pastors. This must end.
Moreover, the SGM Board has broken its promise to use outside arbitrators in adjudicating these matters. Instead they resolved to use insiders contrary to every promise. The three panels were rigged with biased board members and favorably disposed pastors. Furthermore, the rules of engagement for the three panels were exceedingly biased – even wicked. There was no hope for justice. Under such circumstances one can reasonably argue that the civil court system is a legitimate alternative when all other remedies have been pursued.
Scripture forbids me from taking revenge but God promises to avenge his holiness in punishing evil doers through civil magistrates. “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19) Paul has a high view of the judicial system in Romans 13:1-6 for such remedies. Pursuing justice in a court setting is not “revenge.” It is honorable and just. We pay taxes for these services. Laws prohibiting discrimination and injustice in the workplace are pleasing to God. Courts are the servants of God in applying these laws. They punish evildoers.
If it were a simple matter of personal conflict arising between two brothers because one has been cheated then 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 applies. That is the context of the passage. Such relatively minor matters should be settled in the church. Surely there must be someone “wise enough to judge a dispute” of this magnitude. The text does not apply when there is a widespread disregard for God’s law and civil law by a nationally known non-profit corporation that needs to be held accountable for their actions. As a legal entity, accountability for a non-profit goes beyond the church to the state.
Laws have been broken and due process forbidden. My dismissal in July 2009 was achieved by deceitful and unjust means. The exact same approach was taken by the December 2011 panel. They took a hearing dealing with C.J. and used it to gather “evidence” (i.e., false witnesses) against me. Then they wrote a wicked report condemning me with the full support of Bryce Thomas and the SGM Board. This was in direct violation of the terms laid down for the hearing.
“A subcommittee of 3 members of the Sovereign Grace Ministries family consisting of one Board Member and 2 Senior Pastors would like to listen to information (and review if written) that you may have concerning this issue: ‘Did CJ Mahaney wrongly influence the process of Brent Detwiler’s dismissal from his church in Mooresville, NC?” Given this is the issue this subcommittee is addressing, you will be asked for information that pertains to this issue only. And we ask that you likewise direct the information that you share--to this issue only." (Bryce Thomas, November 18, 2011)
If the SGM Board has any decency, any respect for God’s law, any love for our Lord Jesus; they will finally allow for a just, impartial, and thorough hearing by leaders outside of SGM. I am willing to have Chip Grange (your legal counsel), Ken Sande and Ted Kober choose the judges and lawyers that preside. Anything less underscores the commitment of the SGM Board to cover up the evidence, deceive others, slander and deny due me process, and show C.J. favoritism beyond comprehension. I cannot allow this to happen.
##
From: Tommy Hill
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:37 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Court Proceedings and Compensatory Reparations
Dear Brent,
We have received your email sent last weekend and have referred it to legal counsel since you have alleged unspecified illegality [Untrue. I specifically cite 1) tortuous interference with contract; 2) negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3) defamation (which includes both libel and slander) and 4) wrongful termination] over the last two years and asked for damages. If you have questions, you may, of course, have your counsel contact our attorneys at Gammon and Grange.
On the personal and relational front, we continue to hope and pray for full reconciliation and look forward to the day when we can sit down and resolve our differences in a God-glorifying manner.
Tommy
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:28 PM
To: Tommy Hill
Cc: Chip Grange; 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; Tony Reinke; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert; Bryce Thomas; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Ted Kober
Subject: RE: Court Proceedings and Compensatory Reparations
It is not for Gammon and Grange to decide on the question of a church court. That is the Board’s decision.
I am far more interested in a just hearing than damages. Why? Because the Board has broken every promise made to me over the last two years. First, you killed a thorough evaluation of C.J. and SGM by outside evaluators. Second, you killed my counterproposal involving Ken Sande. Third, you killed the adjudication hearing using SGM insiders regarding all charges against C.J. Fourth, you put together a three panel hearing that was corrupt and imposed it upon me with no discussion. Those are the indisputable facts.
Tommy, the Board is not interested in a God glorifying hearing and ruling on “differences” that could lead to reconciliation. They are determined to never allow my charges see the light of day before an open and unbiased group of evaluators following the rules of evidence. They have avoided an authentic hearing and judging of charges like the plague. The SGM Board has blocked justice at every turn. That is the real issue. Stand up to them.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:20 AM
To: Chip Grange; Tommy Hill
Subject: Church Court
Hello Tommy and Chip,
What have you decided about setting up a church court in which I can present my charges and you can make a defense? You are also welcome to presses charges against me, against which I am happy to defend. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.
Would you please provide me an answer so I can decide how to proceed.
Thank you.
Brent
[End of Appeal and Correspondence to All SGM Pastors]
]]>
When those attempts failed, I sought the help of Jim Pappadeas (SGM Refuge), Kris (SGM Survivors), Bob Dixon, and Larry Tomczak. I tried to set up a meeting with Ted to discuss our concerns for his report. Ted did not respond to these initiatives either.
Yesterday, I wrote the Board of Directors for AoR. I brought my concerns to their attention and made them aware I’d be posting a public rebuke on my blog given Ted’s refusal to meet in private or follow his own teaching. I also presented my case against Bryce Thomas, the trial lawyer hired by SGM, who helped design the Three Panel Review that took place last December. I asked the AoR Board to take disciplinary action against Ted, Ed Keinath (co-author of the report), and Bryce for failing to follow the Standard of Conduct for Christian Conciliation.
I now bring this matter to the attention of those effected by the AoR Report and invite you to write Ted Kober (tkober@hisaor.org), Ed Keinath (crosslife@frontier.com), Bryce Thomas (brycethomas@charter.net) and the AoR Board of Directors (mail@hisaor.org) in a redemptive manner in obedience to the process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17.
I am confident Ambassadors of Reconciliation has done much good helping other groups experience reconciliation. Unfortunately, some of their efforts have produced greater suffering and division for those inside and outside of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
What follows is a chronological presentation of my/our unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:33 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Offenses with Me
Importance: High
Hello Ted,
I just finished reading your report. I get the feeling there is a substantial list of undiscussed and unresolved issues in your heart toward me. This concerns me since you have never written or talked to me about any offenses you may have with me. In contradistinction, I have always talked and written to you about all my concerns. I’ve been open, honest and transparent about the faults/concerns I have perceived in your perspective, character, or approach.
Therefore, please highlight each section or sentence of your report where you have me in mind and send that to me. It is impossible to know who you are referring to in comments like “Another threatened to publicly humiliate and discredit us by posting extensive blogs on the web if we didn’t respond in certain ways by that person’s imposed short deadline.” I am glad to entertain your criticisms but I need to know which ones apply to me.
I’d appreciate your prompt response.
Thank you,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:29 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: RE Offenses with Me
Importance: High
Please call me if you prefer to do this via a conversation. Today if possible. I need you to point out each statement in your report where you have me in mind. You have not come to me in private so I want to afford you that opportunity.
Sincerely,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:12 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Offenses with Me
Importance: High
In the report, you claim you “addressed sinful attitudes, words and actions of key individuals” but that is not true with me. We had two conversations. During those interactions you never addressed any attitudes, words or actions of mine as sinful. The subject never came up. The statement below is entirely untrue as it pertains to me. You have never come to me in private.
“The Ambassadors of Reconciliation team addressed sinful attitudes, words and actions of key individuals or leadership groups privately as Scripture requires. Some expressed fear that the AoR team would not confront key leaders or groups on individual actions that contributed to the conflicts. Others expressed their desires that the team would expose sins of key leaders or admonish them publicly. Just as this report does not publicly address the sins of individual members, neither does it publicly address the sins of individual leaders. However, AoR did address such issues with key leaders privately.”
After our second conversation on January 25, you wrote me on February 4. In that letter you ask me to consider several questions but you did not correct me or reprove me for sin except for one passing sentence. That is, “Moreover, I don’t often see the love and forgiving heart in you that your Lord Jesus has shown you.” That is the only corrective statement you made and it was not something you ever talked to me about in person. In fact, you never followed up after February 4 about any of the questions you posited for my consideration even though I wrote you about the contents of your letter. You cut off all communication and refused to interact with me.
Here is the point. You have never corrected, confronted, reproved, rebuked, or addressed any “sinful attitudes, words and actions.” You asked some questions in writing but you never told me my attitudes, words and actions were sinful. If you believe I have sinned against you or others, you have not told me so. As such you have flagrantly disobeyed your own teaching. You did not come to me in private. Even more seriously, you make the false claim in your report that you obeyed Scripture when in fact you disobeyed Scripture as it pertains to me. That is totally misleading.
Ted, I have ought with you. Please leave your altar and call me. The first thing I want to know regards which comments in your report are directed at me. The second thing I want to know is why you never came to me in private. You have never talked to me about any sins you feel I have committed.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:00 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Kris and Jim
You did not come to me in private. Did you go to Kris (Survivors) or Jim (Refuge) to correct them in private before posting your report?
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:26 PM
To: Kris; Jim @ SGM Refuge
Subject: Ted
Did Ted ever talk to you in private and correct or confront you for the sins he accuses you of in the report?
##
From: Jim @ SGM Refuge
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:38 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Kris
Subject: Re: Ted
We talked privately, but the blogs were a very small part of our conversation. There was zero correction. He broke his own ministry guidelines.
##
From: Kris [mailto:kirs@sgmsurvivors.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:22 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: Ted
No. Never. And I did something I never do - I actually initiated a conversation with him via email, offering to be of assistance in any way I could. He never responded to my email.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:08 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Great Hypocrisy
Importance: High
Ted, you have acted with great hypocrisy toward Jim, Kris and me. You need to make this right. See their responses [above].
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Firday, April 20, 2012 8:51 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Are You an Ambassador of Reconciliation?
Importance: High
Ted,
In your report you make the following statement.
“Our observation is that the power of worthless talk (Ephesians 4:29 if) and sinful judging (Matthew 7:1-2; James 3:5-12; 4:11-12) was greatly exacerbated by those writing and reading blogs and widely distributed emails. Coupled with the falsehoods and exaggerations about AoR, our team members and work were the threats and condemning words sent to us. Based on false information, people made assumptions, misquoted and twisted our words and statements, and made damning statements against us.” (p. 10)
The facts show you did not come to me, Jim or Kris. I’d like to know if you went to anyone in private. Did you attempt to restore these individuals in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1) as you are apt to point out to others? Or did you leave them in their sins and give them no opportunity for repentance? You make no reference to any attempts to act as an ambassador of reconciliation. It appears you are content to make vague accusations on a website but are unwilling to approach such individuals in a biblical manner.
You are completely at odds with your teaching if you have not gone to these people and acted as a peacemaker. I also wonder if you are exaggerating the magnitude of the sins against you since you provide no evidence. What falsehoods? What exaggerations? What threats? What condemning words? What false information? What damning statements? Without evidence I am concerned these kinds of statements may constitute “worthless talk” and “sinful judging.” You spend a lot of time in the report highlighting how people have sinned against you. I am not sure why you felt the need to do so. Are you bitter or resentful?
Most importantly, however, have you contacted each of these people regarding the accusations above to work out your offenses? Have they been given the opportunity to respond?
I am still waiting to hear from you. Please tell me all the places in the report where you have me in mind.
Regards,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:47 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Use of Email
Given your position on the use of email and your counsel to SGM, why didn’t you call me regarding the “sensitive issues” contained in your February 4 email? From my perspective, you did not follow your own admonition. Do you agree?
“It seemed apparent to us as outsiders that leaders within SGM have made extensive use of email for rather sensitive or confidential communications. While this may be an expedient way to communicate when key leaders work from scattered locations, the extensive use of this medium in sensitive communications seems unwise to us…. Matters of confronting others about sin, discussing issues with legal implications, discussing employment or supervisory information, confessing sins or forgiving others, and other similar communications should be done in person or documented in more formal written communications. Email tends to be less formal and inadequate for addressing sensitive issues.” (p. 15)
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Bob Dixon
In your report, you appear to have Bob Dixon in mind as one of those individuals who has sinned against you and SGM? Is that correct? If so, have you gone to him in private to confront his perceived sin and be reconciled?
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Great Travesty
Dear Ted,
Here is your authoritative exhortation to the Sovereign Grace Board of Directors about going to be reconciled. It is found in the Consultation Report from last August.
Before engaging the help of other Christians (such as through Ambassadors of Reconciliation), we remind the SGM Board members of their biblical responsibilities to initiate action for reconciliation.
Note that the direct teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul urge us to go and be reconciled to those with whom we have disputes. It does not matter whether we believe we have been sinned against (Matthew 18:15), the other person is entrapped in sin (Galatians 6:1), or if the other person has something against us (Matthew 5:23-24). We are to make every effort to make peace (Romans 12:18; see also Hebrews 12:14).
As we consider these and other verses in the full context of the Bible, we see that “going” to be reconciled requires more than email, more than blogs, more than letters, more than phone calls – it requires going to meet face-to-face. Note that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son (John 3:16). Jesus the Christ humbled himself to become flesh (Philippians 2:1-11) and come to earth in person to dwell among us (John 1:1, 14).
Note also that our responsibility to “go to be reconciled” is not excused simply because another indicates that he does not want to meet. God reconciled us to himself “while we were yet sinners” (Romans 5:6-11). God did not wait until we desired for him to come.
It is obvious to us as we read the documents written by Brent Detwiler and met with you that there are broken relationships between Brent Detwiler and C.J. Mahaney, between Brent Detwiler and individual members (current and former) of the Board of Directors, and between Brent Detwiler and the entire Board of Directors. According to Scripture, it does not matter who caused the offense. When relationship is broken, it is incumbent upon every believer in Christ to “go and be reconciled.”
Scripture does not excuse us because we are fearful that our words might be twisted. Scripture does not excuse us if we think the other person might not listen. Scripture does not excuse us if the other party indicates in emails that he will not meet with us. Scripture does not excuse us if the person does not live in our town. Scripture does not excuse us if the other party has widely shared his complaints against us. Scripture does not excuse us if the whole world reads about the complaints against us in some public media. People find all kinds of excuses not to obey the teachings of Scripture, but our social practices and customs are not what guide God’s people in such matters. (Ted Kober, Consultation Report, August 24, 2011, pp. 13-14)
My question is simple. Why haven’t you followed any of your own demands? In relation to me, Kris from SGM Survivors, and Jim Pappadeas, you have made no effort to walk in the light and be reconciled. I suspect the same is true of Bob Dixon but you have not answered my questions regarding him. In all seriousness, have you made any effort to meet with anyone you speak against in the report? Have you taken any action to contact those with whom you have offenses?
The majority of your offenses go back to August-November of last year. You’ve had months to pursue reconciliation. Once again, why haven’t you followed your directives in relation to me, Kris, Jim, Bob and others? Per your admonitions, you should have been on a plane to meet with each of us months ago. Furthermore, why haven’t you written me as requested? Why haven’t you called me as requested? Why haven’t you offered to meet with me? I am ready to do all of the above.
Ted, you have done nothing you have taught thousands of others in relation to us. This is a great travesty and needs to be corrected.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 7:03 am
To: Bob Dixon
Subject: Ted Kober
Has Ted ever come to you in private to confront or correct sins he believes you have committed against SGM or himself?
##
From: Bob Dixon
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:15 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Ted Kober
No, why do you ask?
Bob Dixon, BSCJ, QMHP, Family Counselor
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Bob Dixon
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
Have you ever talked to Ted or Ed [Keinath]? Did you meet with either of them last November at CLC? If so, did they ever register any concerns for you?
##
From: Bob Dixon
Sent: Firday, April 20, 2012 10:45 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
Marsha and I were told by another couple who interviewed with A of R that their counselor had indicated with dismay and shock, that in fact, 104 pastors had come forward in an effort to expose SGM for their abuse.
Our interviewer [Ed Keinath] was moved to tears as we shared [our] story. He gave every indication that he completely sympathized and understood the tragedy of our situation. When we were finished with the interview I looked out the small window of the office door and saw Gene and Liz sitting there. I asked the interviewer to please escort Gene and Liz down the hall so we could leave without interacting with them. He did so and said, “I absolutely understand.”
##
From: Bob Dixon
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:58 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: A of R
Brent.... Marsha reminded me that at the end of our session with Ed, he asked me if I would be willing participate in a meeting in order to address concerns about SGM. This was yet another indication from A of R that they were taking our complaints seriously. Our hopes were very high when we left. Unfortunately, I never heard from anyone from A of R again. Looks like it will stay that way.
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:10 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Follow Up on Bob Dixon
Bob met with your associate, Ed Keinath in November at the Pastors Conference. Ed only empathized with Bob. He did not confront him on anything. No one from AoR has ever brought any concerns to Bob’s attention. Just the opposite. I hope you did not have him in mind in your report. I await your clarification. Did you?
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 6:43 PM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Take Along One or Two Othes - Matthew 18:16
Ted,
I wanted to talk or meet with you in private in order to show you your fault and win you over (Matt 18:15). I’ve waited five days for a response of any kind but you could not take 5 minutes to call me or two minutes to text me. You should have expressed eagerness, if not a willingness, to meet with me.
I’ve written you numerous times over the past week. I asked to talk with you. I asked to know what parts of your report are in reference to me. I pointed out your dishonesty in saying you addressed sinful attitudes, words and actions with me in private when you did not. I pointed out your hypocrisy in not coming to me when offended at me. I pointed out your hypocrisy in relation to Kris and Jim for the same thing. I asked for an explanation on your use of email in raising “sensitive issues” contrary to the counsel you have given others. I asked whether you have gone to anyone with whom you have offenses. I’ve told you your sins in print. I’ve asked to do this in person. In spite of all this, you have made no effort to “leave your gift at the altar” and “settle matters quickly” with a “brother [who] has something against you.” (Matt 5:23-26.)
Ted, you have grievously sinned against me, specific others, the abused, the churches of SGM, and the larger Body of Christ. Therefore, I have asked Kris (SGM Survivors), Jim (SGM Refuge) and Bob Dixon to appeal for your repentance. I also asked them to join me in meeting with you per the teaching of Matthew 18:16. As is obvious in your report, you believe many people have sinned against you (and SGM) and yet you have not gone to them. We also believe you have sinned against us. For example, you confronted us in your public report but never came to us in private. I assume you justified doing so by leaving out our names but it is readily apparent who you had in mind. That amounts to duplicity.
Ted, you have set a terrible example for one who teaches others on peacemaking and the pursuit of reconciliation. You have not been a conciliator. You have brought more division. To be honest, I am concerned you hold sinful anger in your heart toward us and others. This much I know for certain; you have repeatedly violated Matthew 5:21-26, Matthew 7:1-5, Matthew 18:15, Romans 12:18, Galatians 6:1 and Hebrews 12:14. I hope you will repent to us in private and then make public restitution. Please let me know by Monday if you are willing to meet with us or talk to us using Skype. Then we can set a date and make arrangements. If Kris, Jim or Bob are unable to participate, I will provide other witnesses as required by Scripture.
Please show me the simple dignity of a response. Sinners do that much.
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Ted Kober
Subject: Please Contact Me Today
Please don’t let the day pass without calling or writing to set up a time to meet with us for reconciliation. As I said before, I am glad for you to point out in the report where you had me in mind and then tell me my faults.
Sincerely,
Brent
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 4:41 PM
To: Jiim Pappadeas; Kris; Bob Dixon
Subject: An Appeal to Ted Kober
Importance: High
Dear Jim, Kris and Bob,
I’ve repeatedly attempted to contact Ted Kober. He has been unresponsive. Though he shows no interest, would you be willing to meet or talk with Ted in accordance with the second step of redemptive discipline outlined in Matt 18:15-17? I believe he has sinned against us and others. Kris, we can make special arrangement for you if you are unable to join us in person or prefer not to use Skype.
I’ve limited the scope of my correction in addressing Ted for now. There are some good parts in his report. There are some bad parts. Mostly, there are missing parts. I believe Ted has sinned in other ways but I will address those additional matters in private and give him the opportunity to respond.
For now, I’d appreciate your assistance in helping Ted to see his hypocrisy, unwillingness to attempt private reconciliation, and public slander having not come to us first. You are also welcome to share your general perspective on his report.
Bob has already provided me a statement to send Ted. Jim and Kris, would you do the same? It can be short. I will also ask Larry Tomczak for his perspective on the report. I’d like to send them to Ted tomorrow if possible.
I know we are not in habit of communicating with each other but I felt it important that we collectively reach out to Ted, appeal for his repentance, and share with him our perspectives.
I’ve included my private correspondence with Ted below. I plan to post our correspondence this week if he is unresponsive and ask others to reach out to him and Ed Keinath and appeal for their repentance. I will also contact the Board of Directors for Ambassadors of Reconciliation.
Thanks for your help.
Brent
##
From: Jim @ SGM Refuge [mailto:jim@sgmrefuge.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:29 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Kris; Bob Dixon
Subject: Re: An Appeal to Ted Kober
Importance: High
I would love to interact with Ted regarding his condemnation and misrepresentation of my blog. As AoR’s primary blog cheerleader, I’m surprised my efforts were ignored by Ted. I’m not hurt or offended, just surprised.
I am greatly disappointed that Ted was apparently offended by the perceived sin of those abused by SGM leaders, and felt the need to add to their pain with his very public condemnation. I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around such a blatantly hurtful act coming from the president of an organization that calls itself Ambassadors of Reconciliation.
If Ted honestly cares at all about reconciliation, he should publicly repent to the abused, as he has now joined the ranks of the abusers. His actions bear no resemblance to peace making.
Grace,
Jim
##
From: Kris [mailto:kris@sgmsurvivors.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:23 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Cc: Guy
Subject: RE: An Appeal to Ted Kober
Hi Brent –
Our policy has always been that we want to remain anonymous. Although we were very disappointed with the way that AoR chose to go after “the blogs” as relentlessly as they did, without attempting even a simple response to the emails I sent, in which I offered my help, I don’t really feel like we need to participate in any sort of reconciliation process with anyone – at least not the sort of process that the AoR people would expect. We would not wish to speak on the phone or Skype with anyone. We’re happy, however, to have you pass on the following statement to the AoR folks:
To whom this may concern:
As random bystanders who were ourselves thrust unwittingly into the midst of SGM’s problems back in late 2007, we definitely sympathize with the magnitude of the job with which the AoR organization was tasked when hired to explore SGM’s weaknesses and failures and attempt to bring healing to SGM’s victims.
Much has already been said on the Survivors site in response to the report which AoR released recently. If I were to summarize our readers’ reactions, I’d say that many were very disappointed with the way so much of the report’s focus seemed to be upon “the blogs” and the (perceived) sinfulness of those who had spoken out about the way they’d been harmed by SGM. It came across quite clearly in their report that the AoR folks had taken personal offense with “the blogs” early on and never bothered to dig more deeply to try to find out WHY AoR was met with suspicion. Consequently, AoR is – ironically – guilty of committing the very same sins toward blogs and bloggers that they themselves had found so off-putting. The AoR representatives felt free in their report to vent their disdain toward “the blogs” without ever having communicated with anyone from SGM Survivors. (And this, of course, was despite the fact that I’d made at least a couple of efforts to engage with Mr. Kober via email back in December and offered to help AoR in any way I could.)
Also, since it is my understanding that AoR was hired to examine and evaluate Sovereign Grace Ministries, NOT “the blogs” or SGM’s victims, it was especially bizarre to see so many peevish references to all the ways in which bloggers and SGM’s victims did not meet AoR’s expectations.
That being said, I can truly say that AoR’s report was, unfortunately, essentially what I had expected it to be. I’m sorry that that turned out to be the case, but I can understand why a “reconciliation” business with only the most rudimentary outsider’s understanding of SGM’s history and culture would lack the perspective and the knowledge to look beyond SGM leaders’ pretty words and shining surface behavior and see how twisted the organization actually has been.
We don’t want anything from AoR. But if they would like to grow from this experience, I would suggest that they consider the ways they failed SGM, SGM’s victims, and themselves by being so quick to accuse bloggers of sins without taking the time to explore more deeply where the bloggers are coming from – and why they themselves felt it was OK to castigate “the blogs” in their report without first following their own rules for conflict resolution.
Blessings,
Kris
##
From: Bob Dixon
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 10:45 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Ted Kober
As most people understand, it is extremely difficult for anyone who has been abused to report the offense, even to the proper authorities for a myriad of reasons (fear of retaliation, fear of more abuse, ostracism, fear of revisiting the feelings and emotions relevant to the abuse, embarrassment, shame, etc.). Everyone who shared their stories of abuse with A of R were hoping that by entrusting their story to the perceived “proper authority,” in this case A of R, justice and resolution would occur. The very last thing abused individuals expected was for the proper authority to essentially turn on them. This is a great travesty. These people are now doubly harmed and have had emotional and psychological problems aggravated by their experience with A of R.
Our interviewer [Ed Keinath] was moved to tears as we shared [our] story. He gave every indication that he completely sympathized and understood the tragedy of our situation. When we were finished with the interview I looked out the small window of the office door and saw Gene and Liz sitting there. I asked the interviewer to please escort Gene and Liz down the hall so we could leave without interacting with them. He did so and said, “I absolutely understand.”
Personally, Marsha and I feel betrayed. We were told by another couple who interviewed with A of R that their counselor had indicated with dismay and shock, that in fact, 104 pastors had come forward in an effort to expose SGM for their abuse. He gave every indication that he completely sympathized and understood the tragedy of our situation. When we were finished with the interview I looked out the small window of the office door and saw Gene and Liz sitting there. I asked the interviewer to please escort Gene and Liz down the hall so we could leave without interacting with them. He did so and said, “I absolutely understand.”
Prior to the interviews starting I wrote A of R asking them to reconsider the venue for the interviews because they were asking the abused to come back to the place that represented where the abuse occurred. I also mentioned the Pastors Conference was simultaneously being held where those reporting abuse would likely see their abusers face to face (which of course they already knew). In light of the emotional trauma this would likely engender in those reporting abuse, I asked them to reconsider where they had chosen to do the interviews. They ignored this request (which further demonstrates and lack of appreciation and knowledge in dealing with abused people).
Looking back, now that the report has come out, I am convinced A of R simply did not and does not comprehend what has happened to those who have experienced abuse at the hands of SGM. I’m afraid rather than resolve any problems or being ambassadors of reconciliation, they have stirred up a hornet’s nest and are complaining as to why they are being stung.
Thanks,
Bob
##
From: Larry Tomczak [mailto:1larrytomczak@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 5:41 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: An Appeal to Ted Kober
To whom it may concern:
I have been asked my thoughts on the AoR report. First, I appreciate all the hard work that went into this project dealing with very sensitive matters in scores of people's lives. I trust AoR was well compensated.
Second, after waiting and praying for almost a year regarding this endeavor (regularly not daily), I was EXTREMELY disappointed with the results. I could scarcely believe what I was reading. I believe multitudes share this perspective.
Third, my wife and I believe the report was a serious disservice to scores of people who invested incredible amounts of time and effort to serve the AoR team. Doris and I gave over 250 hours to prepare for our contribution in addition to travel time and the days given to the interview. Addressing the illegal, immoral and documented blackmail plus the reprehensible conduct that shattered our reputation, relationships and family ties (plus our livelihood) was afforded a dismissive SIX sentences in the report! Unbelievable.
Finally, we are of the opinion that if the SGM leaders had simply done the report on their own, they would have been more forthright and harder on themselves than this most favorable AoR document.
When we shared our experience with Ted and his assistant, one wiped away tears and the other dropped his head in shocking dismay at our traumatic experience, manipulation, falsehoods and numerous examples of unChristlike behavior we experienced that could have destroyed our Christian lives as a family of six. We, like hundreds of others who experienced spiritual abuse from SGM leaders, now wonder if some of the apologies and asking of forgiveness will have to suffice.
We love you Ted and the team but inquire if your labors represent the accurate picture of the systemic problems that multitudes hoped would be addressed and corrected so SGM could begin a new season in humility and integrity.
Trusting God’s sovereign grace, I am, yours in His service,
Larry Tomczak
##
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Ted Kober
CC: Jim Pappadeas; Kris; Bob Dixon; Larry Tomczak
Subject: Private Appeals Continue
Dear Ted,
It has been over a week since I first asked you to call me. I don’t understand how you can reject all my attempts to engage you. I believe you have sinned against me and I am happy to hear how you believe I’ve sinned against you. I’ve sincerely sought to engage you in a redemptive and biblical manner but you appear obstinate in your rejection of all attempts at reconciliation.
Jim Pappadeas, Bob Dixon, Larry Tomczak and I would like to meet with you. We all have concerns for your Report to the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries from April 10, 2012. We would like to discuss our concerns with you personally.
In obedience to Scripture and for your godly good, I’ve also asked these men to join me in helping you see how you have sinned against us and others. I’ve included their appeals and perspectives [above] but this is inadequate. We also need to meet in person. As it stands Ted, you are rebelling against the commands of Scripture and living contrary to everything you have taught and demanded of others.
I have many things to say about the report regarding inaccuracies (e.g. AoR’s confidentially requirement), bias, unfactual assertions, and dereliction of duty. That is, how you largely failed to address what you were tasked to do. There are some good and bad parts in the report but the most important parts (e.g., C.J. and the Board’s deceit) are left out. I will write you in private about these matters and give you the opportunity to correct my perspectives before I share them at large. The report is public. It requires a public response.
Of greatest importance for now is your failure to meet, hear our offenses, or pursue reconciliation. Your indifference undermines all your credibility and the entire ministry of which you are the President. If you have not done so already, send my previous appeals to your Board of Directors along with this correspondence. I hope they will reprove you and hold you accountable to the most basic tenets of the organization.
Ted, I have faithfully sought to obey Scripture in my pursuit of you. Please text, email, or call me today. I’d like to keep this matter confined to Jim, Kris, Bob, Larry and me. Whether I appeal to a wider audience is up to you. Contact me by the end of the day so we can set up a time to meet in the near future.
God’s grace rest upon you.
Brent
Post Script
Used by permission
From: Jenn Grover [mailto:jenngrover@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:34 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Cc: mail@hisaor.org; Bryce Thomas; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Ted Kober; Chip Grange; Andrew Mahr; Bob Kauflin; Gary Ricucci; Tommy Hill; Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Al Pino; Ian McConnell; John Loftness; Ken Mellinger; Paul Buckley; Phil Sasser; Eric Grover; Bethany Grover; Mike Pierson; Tom and Jennifer Calano; Nathan Rutman; Ryan & Krista Hughes; Wayne and Michelle Harvey; Mark Altrogge
Subject: Re: AoR Refues All Reconciliation Attempts
I would add that my own interview with Ed Keinath also was in complete contradiction to what AoR published. Ed told me that since last summer he and Ted had been concerned about the board's blind devotion to CJ. He also expressed whole-hearted agreement when I indicated that at the heart of SGM's problems was a culture of selfish-ambition. Ed also indicated that he and Ted estimated that about 20-30 churches within SGM were already prepared to leave SGM.
I don't pretend to know why the report does not match what was communicated to many of us but the disharmony between what we heard with our own ears and what was published casts a significant cloud of suspicion over the report and the SGM leadership.
I plead with you that if any of you fear God and know why this disharmony exists that you would come forth.
Jenn Grover
Pittsburgh, PA
[Used by permission]
##
From: Grover, Eric [mailto:Eric.Grover@uhhospitals.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 10:55 AM
To: Jenn Grover; Brent Detwiler
Cc: mail@hisaor.org; Bryce Thomas; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Ted Kober; Chip Grange; Andrew Mahr; Bob Kauflin; Gary Ricucci; Tommy Hill; Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Al Pino; Ian McConnell; John Loftness; Ken Mellinger; Paul Buckley; Phil Sasser; Bethany Grover; Mike Pierson; Tom and Jennifer Calano; Nathan Rutman; Ryan & Krista Hughes; Wayne and Michelle Harvey; Mark Altrogge
Subject: RE: AoR Refues All Reconciliation Attempts
I would like to add my voice to the others in regards to the contradictions between the AoR report and my interview as well. During our phone call Ed Keinath expressed to me his concerns about how the interim board was expressing “blind loyalty” to C.J. and he asked me what I thought they could do to make sure that the board “got it” (referring to their report). He told me that based on their interviews that around 30 churches were ready to “walk out the door.”
Here is the e-mail that I sent to Ed last week after the report was released requesting a phone conversation to help me reconcile the disconnect between the report and our phone conversation. Ed has not replied to my request.
4/18/2012
Good morning Ed,
You may not remember, but I spoke to you several months ago during an interview as a part of the SGM group reconciliation process. During that conversation, you shared several things that led me to believe that the AoR report would include significant criticism of SGM. When I read the report that was publicly released yesterday, I was greatly confused as the report seemed very different in content and tone than what you represented was your view of the SGM board during our conversation.
I was wondering if you would be willing to talk to me on the phone and help me clear up the confusion that I am experiencing regarding the disparity between our phone call and the report?
Thanks for your time, I am grateful for brothers in Christ outside of SGM who are faithfully seeking unity in the body.
You can reach me by e-mail, or by cell phone at [deleted].
Thanks.
Eric Grover
[Used by permission]
##
From: Todd Twining [mailto:toddtwining12170@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Bryce Thomas; AoR Board [mail@hisaor.org]
Subject: AOR
Dear Bryce, Ted and AoR,
Many questions are swirling around in my mind right now. Please take time to consider that it was very difficult for me to even come before the panel with my testimony.
I would have to say that I am more than sad at the AoR report regarding Sovereign Grace Ministries. I believe righteous indignation would be appropriate at this point. There is a poor amount of information regarding Larry Tomczak - the primary reason I was involved in speaking before the panel. Reading the report, and considering the volume of documents and testimonies brought before AoR, sadly, my biggest question is this - Was this an utter waste of time and resources?
How has this report accurately considered the information brought by Brent Detwiler? Why are the blogs such a focus when people who have at times been part of an often secretive, suppressive and oppressive leadership environment have been so shut down that being able to talk about it is actually useful? Have you gone directly to Jim Pappadeas and Kris/Guy? Do you think there may be injustices done here that this report does not reflect? I do. These blogs do not exist because we don't have anything better to do. We are wholly concerned with what we see taking place.
Does the abrupt move to Louisville, Kentucky, of the SGM staff raise any concerns in your minds? The fact that this move has coincided with the release of this report is unfortunate. Many of those who have been in relationship with SGM for decades had NO IDEA this was coming. Does the lack of courtesy bother you? Many say no one is owed an explanation, but we say we are. It is our time, money and lives that have partnered together to build SGM. We feel betrayed.
This report favors Sovereign Grace Ministries’ leadership and does not advocate for those who have been courageous to come forward and share their hearts and experiences with you. It is not non-existent, just way out of balance. There are countless others who did not experience the grace or strength to come before you with their own experiences and give a report. To be dismissive of us by quoting a percentage makes us a statistic. We are not a statistic. We are brothers and sisters in Christ who has been greatly offended and negatively affected by Sovereign Grace Ministries.
I am grateful for so many things about my time in SGM and have been careful and consistent to bring those things up whenever I have a chance. But I am tremendously burdened that your report is doing a major disservice to the kingdom of God. Would you please prayerfully consider if this report, in any way, has minimized the sin of Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership? Was this report possibly focused more heavily on the blogs and the specks in other people's eyes than the beam in the eyes of those you were called to evaluate?
I understand that reports will have limitations and the scope of what any human organization is able to accomplish is not going to be all-inclusive. But your report will be the dividing mark for so many people, not because of what it says, but because of what it does not say.
Sirs, I gave my trust to you in participating in this “reconciliation” attempt. My ultimate trust is in our Lord Jesus alone, but I believe the ministry of reconciliation is so close to His heart. It is the ministry He gave to all of us believers. So, I am coming to you to let you know that I cannot in good conscience agree with or support this report. My testimony was to help the Tomczak family by revealing ways SGM had several missteps in the process. Quite frankly, I feel you have violated my trust and it would be difficult for me to recommend you as an organization to anyone else.
Sincerely,
Todd Twining, former Sovereign Grace pastor
[Used by permission]
]]>Nothing in this announcement from Thursday comes as a surprise. It was all so obvious. See Who will be the Next Chairman of the Board and President of Sovereign Grace Ministries? (March 20, 2012), Next Up: The New Leadership Team and Partnership Agreement (March 23, 20) and C.J.’s State of His Heart Message – Reflection on Personal Sins (December 28, 2011)
Sovereign Grace Ministries is fleeing Covenant Life Church (CLC) but not being honest about the main reason for its departure. That is, the breakdown in relationship with the church’s pastors and people. C.J. left CLC for Mark Dever’s church last August without even discussing the matter with the CLC pastors (see C.J.’s Flight from Covenant Life, August 13, 2011). Then in January of this year, he transferred his CLC membership to John Loftness’ church who is now the Chairman of the Board and spiritual leader of the movement. The day C.J. left CLC for Capitol Hill Baptist in such an unbiblical manner, I knew he would not be coming back. The writing was on the wall.
The cost of living in Gaithersburg, MD is the fundamental reason given in this announcement for the departure of SGM to Louisville, KY. That is dishonest. It may be a factor but it is NOT a major factor. The main reason, and everyone knows it, is C.J.’s conflict with Joshua, the pastors and the church. C.J. (and SGM) would never leave “the dearest people on earth” if not for the breakdown in relationships. No, C.J. is leaving because he is offended and unreconciled with hundreds of people including many close friends.
Why can’t C.J.and John just be honest! This is John’s first masterpiece (see “The Mona Lisa of Spin by Master Harvey,” October 20, 2011). He is carrying on the tradition of spin. John and the new Board are terrified by the prospect of being transparent – just like the old Board. The same sinful patterns of manipulation and cover-up continue unabated.
Here’s what I’d recommend. Call the Secret Service (they're popular nowadays) and have them hook up each of the old and new Board Members to a polygraph machine and ask two questions. First, “Is C.J.’s offense with Covenant Life the main reason for this relocation? Yes or no.” Second, “Is C.J. (and SGM) leaving ‘the happiest place on earth’ primarily because the cost of living is too high in Gaithersburg? Yes or no.” Oh my, the polygraph machine just burned up. It spiked out.
Folks this kind of explanation is lame. It is just another reason why C.J. and the SGM Board have lost all credibility. They don’t know how to be honest. Just tell us the truth. You are leaving Gaithersburg because of a falling out with Joshua, the pastors and the church. And oh, secondarily, the cost of living in Louisville is great and guys like C.J. will make a killing on the sale of his house. The compelling reason for leaving is Covenant Life Church. Not how much money Pastors College students will save on rent. Now, that’s the truth.
No one ever seriously thought of relocating SGM until conflicts arose between C.J. and the CLC pastors. The plan has always been for Joshua Harris to replace C.J. in Gaithersburg. No one ever thought of turning SGM over to Joshua so he could move the operation to Tim Buck Two and say sayonara to Covenant Life Church.
##
Here is the announcement from Chairman Loftness. It is in blue letters. My commentary is in black letters.
Sovereign Grace Ministries Relocation Announcement (April 19, 2012)
From the Board:
At our recent retreat, the Sovereign Grace Ministries Board decided to relocate the Pastors College and our Gaithersburg office to Louisville, Kentucky. The move will take place in 2012. Given the significance of the decision, we wanted to communicate with you directly about how we reached this decision and share some of its implications.
Around 2008, our country’s economic downturn began to place a strain on SGM’s ability to do ministry in several key areas. Supporters (including Sovereign Grace churches) were broadly affected by the recession, and giving declined for several years as a result. In response, the Leadership Team made extensive cuts to staffing and other costs, while still trying to preserve the ability to fund church planters, train pastors, and serve our international partners. But there was a limit to how far cutting could go before church planting and other activity central to our mission had to be scaled back.
I beg to differ. In 2008 there was over 2.4 million in cash reserves and 1.5 million in liquidable assets (e.g. 4 townhouses). There was no strain on SGM’s ability to do ministry. Every year since 2007 there has been an increase in cash reserves, investments and assets. Total assets on August 31, 2007 were $5,526,129. Total assets on August 31, 2011 were $6,234.757. That is an increase of $708,628 over four years or an average increase of $177,157 per year. Cuts in spending contributed to this increase but these cuts never necessitated the scaling back of ministry.
Since 2007, SGM also purchased land worth $768,170. I called Tommy Hill this week to talk about this acquisition. He was in a meeting. I left a message with his secretary but he has not returned my call. This land could be sold off if needed.
Sovereign Grace is rich and flush in excess cash and liquidable assets. All this talk about “a strain on SGM’s ability to do ministry in several keys areas” is a bunch on malarkey. It may have been challenging to balance the budget in 2008-2011 but that is all. The "extensive cuts to staffing and other costs,” if they actually occurred, were not necessary because SGM was in financial jeopardy.
For instance, SGM did not need to lay off people like Bo Lotinsky, Bill Galbraith, and Trish Barnett. They had plenty of cash reserves to retain these outstanding employees. They could easily have been kept in employ. They were shown no loyalty by SGM. What is worse, at the same time, C.J. and Dave were increasing their compensation and also that of close buddies like Bob Kauflin and Jeff Purswell. Sovereign Grace should produce a graph showing the increases for these men from 2007 until 2011.
The same is true in 2012. There is no need to down size. Recently Covenant Life Church suspended its expected 10% or $800,000 a year giving to SGM. This caused no harm to the ministry. The following statement comes from a member of CLC’s Financial Advisory Subcommittee who has firsthand knowledge of SGM’s financial position. This person published the following clarification because SGM was telling employees it may be necessary to lay them off because of CLC’s action. Dirty politics.
“I think it is important for our church family to be aware of a critical finding of the subcommittee, namely that CLC’s decision to suspend its monthly contributions should not result in any SGM employee losing their job due to financial considerations in the near term. As a subcommittee, we spent a significant amount of time reviewing the financial position of SGM, including its balance sheet reserves, cash flows, budgeted expense projections and income expectations. According to SGM’s audited financial statements for its fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, the organization had net assets of $5.9 million and only $300,000 in current liabilities. We reviewed more recent financial information and concluded that SGM has sufficient financial resources to continue to pay its current employees. No one should be under the impression that our pastors have cost anyone their job. That simply isn’t the case.” (March 26, 2012)
I’d also like to know why there weren’t “extensive cuts” to C.J.’s and Dave’s compensation packages during 2008-2011. Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. I know the answer. While others were laid off they felt deserving of increases. Every year their income increased. I’ve asked for a detailed accounting of this information but SGM has refused to provide it. C.J.’s compensation package is comprised of the following items.
SGM should provide donors a clear accounting for each line item starting in 2007. C.J.’s compensation may have been reduced recently but that is because of all the attention he has received. SGM may end up revealing his 2012 compensation package, but I don’t believe they will for 2007-2011. And by the way, C.J. is so wealthy he doesn’t need to be paid anything. He can retire for life.
Bottom line, SGM has over 2.5 million dollars in cash. Every year since 1982 it has accumulated more cash. It’s just sitting there. SGM has never run a deficit. For instance, in the most recent fiscal year, SGM had $138,605 in excess of revenue over expense. Tommy Hill should produce a graph of increases in cash and assets since the inception of SGM 30 years ago. In lean years you use surpluses. In dire years you liquidate assets (like all the townhouses SGM owns free and clear.) By this definition, there have been NO lean years or dire years.
SGM does not need to leave Gaithersburg because of hard times! They may want to flee Covenant Life Church like the plague but there is no financial necessity whatsoever to do so. Just using the cash reserves, SGM could run a 100k deficit every year for 25 years. This supposed need to relocate to Louisville is misleading.
I know giving has declined in SGM but not primarily because of the economy. SGM is no longer a family of churches like it used to be and people aren’t connected to the mission like they use to be. During our first 20 years we did Celebration Conferences and live Mission Presentations in every geographical region. It gave us a wonderful opportunity to be with the people and among the people. There was a tremendous sense of camaraderie. C.J. ended these conferences over my strong objection. We never had any problem with fundraising the first 25 years.
Over the last 5 years, the team related churches (as we used to call them) have increasingly felt less and less connection to the apostolic team (as we used to call it) and the mission. Ask anyone who has been around for 20-30 years. The resultant loss in individual contributions exponentially outweighs the cost of living in Gaithersburg.
There used to be a real sense of family and personal commitment to our collective call. That is largely gone. SGM is a corporation. Now we have a Chairman, President, Board of Directors, Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Ambassadors of Reconciliation. What happened to apostles, prophets, miracles, the restoration of the church and personal evangelism?
Most importantly, the long standing patterns of sin I’ve tried to identify in the movement have adversely affected so many people in the churches. The economic down turn is only one factor and it is not the decisive factor for a decline in giving. People in the churches have loss the motivation to give because Sovereign Grace Ministries is not the same and its leaders cannot be trusted. Church members don’t care nearly as much about SGM. They have lost confidence. How can they give when C.J. won’t even reveal his salary history after 9 months of persistent asking.
One program that faced particular challenges was the Pastors College. Even though the Leadership Team has been proactive about keeping costs as low as possible, the extremely high cost of living for the DC area set the base cost fairly high. This had several effects on our mission:
One of my sons lives in downtown D.C. not far from the White House. Let’s not compare living in D.C. to living in the northern suburbs. And we are talking about living in Gaithersburg, MD for 10 months, not ten years. The actual difference in cost of living for such a short time is minimal in real dollars. Moreover, SGM owns at least four townhouses that were bought with cash. They can charge four PC families $700 per month (which is less than what it would costs in Louisville) and still clear 21k per year.
Furthermore, students have been housed by CLC members. Occasionally free and normally at a reduced rate compared to the area. A two bedroom apartment rents for $700 in Louisville. A two bedroom apartment rents for $1,400 in Gaithersburg. Do the math. $700 x 10 months is 7k. That is the cost differential in a worst case scenario. And the opportunity to be a part of CLC and learn from CLC is priceless. It also positions students to easily visit and preach at tons of other SGM churches. Louisville is way off the beaten path! We don’t even have a church in Kentucky or its neighbor, Indiana. SGM has ONE small church close to Louisville in Dayton, OH. That’s it. Just look at this map. http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/churches/united-states.aspx.
Small churches could only afford to train a pastor every several years, limiting their ability to expand or pursue church planting
All because of the cost of living. So renting in Louisville is going to change all of that? Really?
Although Jeff Purswell wanted to explore a two-year curriculum, doing so would be prohibitively expensive because the main cost of attending (housing) would more than double (10 months to 22)
If Jeff does a two year curriculum in Louisville the cost of the PC will far outweigh the cost of a 10 month education in Gaithersburg.
Prospective church-planters from outside SGM, many already carrying debt from seminary, faced an enormous hurdle to attend the Pastors College without a sponsoring church
The “enormous hurdle” is their personal debt not a 7k increase in housing which is a worst case scenario. Come on. Put it in perspective. We are talking about a 10 month curriculum. Not the normal 3 years required for a Masters of Divinity. Going to the Pastors College is an incredible deal, any way you look at it.
Furthermore, if C.J. reduced his compensation package from 300k to 160k he could provide 7k to every student in the Pastors College and compensate for the higher cost of living. In 2008 C.J. gave 100k to Al Mohler’s seminary. Has he ever given 100k to the Pastors College in one year? He also had SGM give 100k to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2008. Al Mohler doesn’t need the money. The SBTS has an extraordinary endowment. So 200k was given to impress Mohler when he didn’t need it while “extensive cuts to staffing” were made to SGM which threatened (if you believe the hype) the ministry.
See http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/magazine/2008Spring.pdf. The public record is on page 43.
And what about Dave Harvey’s compensation? Bob Kauflin’s compensation? These guys are rich because of Sovereign Grace Ministries. C.J., Dave and Bob could easily make up the differences for cost of living. And of course, far less that 140k (20 students x 7k) is needed to pay for the difference in housing costs since most of the students are in PC townhouses or housing provided by members of CLC at a reduced rate.
More can be said about this, but we hope that is sufficient background to illustrate why, for several years now, the Leadership Team has been considering relocation for the Pastors College and the rest of SGM. In short, our mission is to serve Sovereign Grace churches, and being located in the DC area was placing limitations on our ability to do so. The economic downturn raised the profile of that issue, and the idea of relocating is only further validated by the needs we now see to expand on—not lessen—church care, training pastors, and pursuing mission.
I don’t believe the Leadership Team (C.J., Dave, Joshua, and Jeff) was seriously “considering relocation” “for several years now.” Joshua, what is the truth? Did you plan to leave CLC and move the headquarters and Pastors College to a low cost area in the central United States where we hardly have any churches? Did you plan to take C.J. with you to plant a small church for PC students? Did you plan to build a brand new facility for Sovereign Grace Ministries and the Pastors College? Better yet, let’s see the minutes, Tommy Hill, from the past several years where these discussions are recorded.
I also find this statement absurd. “In short, our mission is to serve Sovereign Grace churches, and being located in the DC area was placing limitations on our ability to do so.” From my perspective, the opposite is true. It has been much easier to serve churches with SGM in Gaithersburg. It is centrally located to the majority of churches. Many PC students could drive back to their home churches to visit on weekends. No longer. PC students could easily fan out and preach throughout the region. No longer. Conferences were held free of charge at CLC. No longer. For instance, how much will it cost having the Pastors Conference at Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando this November? How much more will it cost for pastors to go to the conference since it is not centrally located like CLC for many? How much will the cost of registration increase to cover the cost of meeting rooms, coffee bars provided by the hotel, transportation and accommodation for support staff, etc.
By the way how much will a new PC cost? A new headquarters? A new church building. Oh that’s right. C.J. won’t need a church building since he wants to limit the size of the church to 186 people so PC students can have a normal church experience. That’s the average number of attenders on a Sunday morning in America. God forbid PC students be at CLC where they can be exposed to every imaginable benefit from which to learn.
When I designed the PC curriculum I required the students to rotate through all the ministries of CLC. From ushering to outreach, they observed, asked questions, took notes, gathered materials, participated, and wrote up reports. We sure don’t want that happening anymore. CLC is a liability don’t you think?
And what about all the brothers who come to the PC from Spanish speaking nations. I guess the Board doesn’t want them exposed to Iglesia Gracia Soberana de Gaithersburg which meets in the CLC facility. Yes, it’s becoming clear. There are lots of good reasons to pull out of Gaithersburg. In all honesty, the new Board has been snookered by the pretentious and fallacious counsel of the old Board.
And come to think of it, building a new PC or headquarters will not be much of a problem after SGM dumps the old PC and headquarters on CLC. CLC will be forced to buy the SGM facility unless they want a Taco Bell in their basement and a Beauty Salon in the PC. That should cost CLC around 2 million. Fork it up church.
Here was the plan (see pages 94-100 in "Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine" for fuller context). It did not include relocation but it did include Joshua Harris.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:33 PM
To: Pat Ennis, C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, Steve Shank
Subject: 7 Year Plan
If you’re not already planning to do so on the [upcoming] retreat, I’d love to hear your thoughts if possible on the 7 year plan you’ve been working on. I’m sure I’d learn from what you’re doing.
Brent
From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:38 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: 7 Year Plan
Well, I haven’t thought about it for a few months so I am not sure I have much to share at this time. It primarily involves continuing to cultivate relationships with key leaders while adding a few and possibly writing a book on pastoral ministry before I delegate all of this [SGM] to Josh.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:57 PM
To: C.J. Mahaney
Cc: Steve Shank, Dave Harvey, Pat Ennis
Subject: RE: 7 Year Plan
I’d love to hear your thoughts on how and when you’d delegate to Josh and how and when a team would form around him.
From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:03 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: 7 Year Plan
I have no specific thoughts other than do it when I’m 60.
C.J. turns 60 in September 2014, that’s 16 months from now. Joshua was the plan. Not John Loftness. Gaithersburg was the location. Not Louisville.
This plan began to change in early 2011 when C.J. felt increasingly disenfranchised and marginalized by the CLC pastors. In reality, Joshua and the pastors weren’t doing everything C.J. wanted them to do and this was causing conflict. C.J. felt unappreciated and didn’t feel CLC was doing enough to support him and SGM. This came out in the comments made by Mike Bradshaw and Brian Chesemore’s (C.J.’s sons in law) when they left Covenant Life Church last August. C.J. was struggling with CLC long before I sent out my documents on July 6-7, 2011. See C.J.’s Sons-in Law Resign as Pastors at Covenant Life Church (August 10, 2011) and C.J.’s Flight from Covenant Life (August 13, 2011).
All this was greatly exacerbated when Joshua resigned from the Board of Directors on July 13, 2011 because he thought it best to wait on deciding C.J.’s fitness for ministry until after a thorough, outside, and objective evaluation was done of him and all of SGM. This further offended C.J. Within a month he left the church. Dave Harvey put out his normal spin at the time.
“Josh’s resignation from the board is not a grand statement about our future together. It’s not even an indication that we disagree on most things. We don’t. In fact Josh and the board agree on about 98% of things, especially on our shared mission we have been given to see churches planted and built in this country and around the world. We share this vision, even if we find disagreements elsewhere.” (Dave Harvey, “Where we differ, and where we agree,” July 14, 2011)
Back to my original point. Being in the DC area has never put limitations on the Pastors College or SGM. Being in D.C. area has been a huge advantage. We’ve been able to easily plant and adopt churches throughout the Middle Atlanta States as a result. John Loftness also fails to point out that higher cost of living areas also generate higher income for the ministry.
For instance, Montgomery County is the 13th wealthiest county in the nation. Fairfax County is the 3rd wealthiest county. Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax of generated millions of dollars for SGM because of their location. The median household incomes are $92,213 and, $104,259 respectively.
The same is true of Dave Harvey’s church in the wealthy suburbs of Philadelphia. There the median household income is $80,448. Now catch this. The median household income for the Louisville is $61,000. I estimate SGM would have 2 million in assets, instead of 6 million, if SGM was based in KY from the beginning.
Or to put it another way, Gaithersburg, Fairfax, and Philadelphia account for 50% of all revenues from SGM churches. Housing may be cheaper in Louisville but so are salaries and therefore contributions.
That’s why this question is silly. “If we were starting SGM tomorrow, what would be the main factors for determining location and where would those factors lead us?” Not to Louisville, that’s for sure. Being in D.C. allowed us to reach the megalopolis that runs from Washington D.C. to Boston. That’s where you find the most concentrated population centers in the United States. Being located in D.C. area also made it easy to plant churches in the southeast. I can’t imagine we’d have 13 churches in Florida if we were based in Louisville all these years.
No, instead of churches in Jacksonville, Orlando, St. Petersburg and Miami, we'd have churches in Lexington, Bowling Green, Owenboro, and Covington which are the largest cities in Kentucky after Louisville. Come on, the capital of Kentucky if Frankfort. Ever heard of it?
Bottom line. Being in Gaithersburg did not place limits on SGM’s ability to fulfill its mission. Working with Covenant Life Church enhanced their ability to fulfill their mission. CLC never charged for the use of their facility for events like the Pastors Conference, Small Group Leaders Conference, etc. We saved so much money because of their generosity and work.
We don’t want to give the impression that a move was a done deal even before the events of July 2011—it wasn’t. However, this conversation long preceded these events and, for the reasons given above, it has been an increasingly strong likelihood for several years. Over the past few months, our staff has explored various locations for a potential move, including visits, demographic studies, many conversations, and much prayer. They shared this information with the new Board when it was established, thus confronting us with this question: if we were starting SGM tomorrow, what would be the main factors for determining location and where would those factors lead us?
Here are the main factors that led us, after much discussion, to approve this relocation generally, and to choose Louisville in particular:
The cost of living index is much lower there, such that we anticipate up to 40% reduction in the cost for a student to attend the Pastors College
This sounds like Obama promising to reduce the budget deficit when running for office. The Board often makes promises or claims in their public relations statements but they don’t supply facts and you don’t get a follow up report when they are wrong. I’d like to see their estimates. I’d like to see how they came up with these figures.
By the way, how will PC students educate their children? The CLC school use to help with tuition and also provided an excellent home school program. And how much will housing expenses actually decrease? CLC members used to provide housing at reduced rates. They saw it as a ministry and a privilege.
Opportunities for collaboration means taking courses at Southern Seminary. The Master of Divinity program requires 88 credits at $438.00 per credit hour which comes to $38,544 in tuition alone. What they spend for five classes will equal the 7k they supposedly save in housing. I wonder if C.J.’s church will become a Southern Baptist Church so students can get a reduced tuition rate. Otherwise it is going to cost a ton of money. The following comes from the SBTS website.
“Financially, Southern Seminary is one of the best opportunities in theological education. Thanks to thousands of faithful churches who channel support through the SBC Cooperative Program, tuition costs are far lower than at most comparable schools. Even non-Southern Baptist students, who pay a higher rate, find Southern Seminary one of the most affordable schools for ministry training.
Current Tuition Rate (Master-level Courses)
$438.00 per credit hour
$219.00 per credit hour for members of a Southern Baptist church.”
http://www.sbts.edu/future-students/tuition/membership-verification/
The lower cost of living also allows us to further reduce administrative overhead (although ours is already lower than the standard for non-profits), especially in the areas of office space (including the Pastors College) and staff compensation.
I served on the finance committee throughout my tenure. “Administrative overhead” is a reference to support staff, not a reference to the leadership team (C.J., Dave, et al.). The best way to see if SGM’s overhead is lower than the standard for non-profits is to look at the total expense for all employees including their benefit packages. Send me the figures Tommy. I think the overhead for SGM is higher. I’ll post a redaction if I’m wrong.
And since the PC students will be saving 40% in cost of living expenses, does that mean C.J., Jeff, Bob, Tommy and Gary will take 40% decrease in salaries and benefits? It sounds like the support staff will.
The more central location will make it easier for pastors to audit classes or attend preaching practica (Louisville is within a day’s drive for two-thirds of the U.S. population)
This one makes me laugh. Chairman Loftness needs to take a geography course at a community college and then go on the SGM website to see where all the churches are located. It will be much more difficult for the vast majority of the churches to get to Louisville than it is to Gaithersburg. What may be true of the U.S. population is not true of SGM pastors. The Board has increased, not decreased, the financial hardship for SGM pastors. It is a 10 hour drive to Louisville from Gaithersburg if you don’t stop to pee. The 18 CLC pastors will be buying plane tickets and staying in motels if they are around.
Basing Sovereign Grace Music out of Louisville places Bob Kauflin’s team much closer to Nashville, where they can both learn from and help influence other spheres of Christian music development
Nashville is three hours away. You have to plant a church in Nashville to “influence other spheres of Christian music development.” Bob should move there if he wants to go country but that will certainly get him fired by C.J. (who hates country music). But here’s another idea. How about staying in D.C. so you can influence the whole nation and the most influential people in the world with the gospel! So what is it? Country music or the entire Country?
There are three questions that we anticipate you’ll have immediately.
First, don't we want the Pastors College to be near a Sovereign Grace church?
The answer is yes. However, another recent development will remedy this. The Leadership Team has wanted to plant a church in Louisville near the seminary for several years, and after speaking at a college event there in February 2011 C.J. began to consider leading the plant himself. He made this desire known to us when we were seated as a Board, and we approved the plant this month. Although this was by no means determinative for the Pastors College, this does mean that students will have the opportunity to participate in a church plant led by C.J. This will both facilitate CJ.’s ongoing influence in the college, as well as provide students a smaller church experience that will more resemble their ultimate ministry context.
Good question John. “Don’t we want the PC to be near a SG church? That’ an easy one. Absolutely not! We don’t want it near a church, we want it near 28 churches like it is now. By near, I mean three hours or less. The only SGM church near Louisville is in Dayton, OH. It is a tiny church plant. Someone buy John a subscription to National Geographic. They have great maps too.
Seriously John, why don’t you tell us why C.J. began to consider moving to Louisville to plant a church in February, 2011. It was because of growing difficulties and a deteriorating relationship with Joshua and the CLC pastors.
Having the PC in C.J.’s church will facilitate his influence but hardly anyone else in SGM. It is dangerous for C.J. to have so much influence. He needs to be back at CLC being influenced, not surrounding himself with devotees and enablers!
Another reason for moving the PC is in order to “provide students a smaller church experience that will more resemble their ultimate ministry context.” Does that mean the Board will prevent C.J.’s church from growing since eighty percent of all churches in America are under 200 people. Is C.J. going to remain the only pastor on staff and only have a single secretary to assist him for the next 20 years?
Well I guess the Board is going to cap growth like a Louisiana oil rig because it is better for students to be in a normal church. I guess they’ll have to move the PC if C.J.’s church gets big. You know, over 200. This is so short sighted. It should not be listed as a reason for leaving Covenant Life Church.
And “students will have the opportunity to participate in a church plant led by C.J.” that we be totally unlike any church plant they ever do. You know, an authentic church plant when you start with no other staff, a small group of people, and limited grant money from SGM. When you knock on doors, hand out tracts and invite people to events. When you begin meeting in your home. When you oversee every ministry and preach every week. When you pastor all of the people, not some of the people. When you wash cars and rake leaves to reach the community. When you have a salary of 50k a year.
It will be very different for C.J. He is taking Sovereign Grace Ministries and millions of dollars with him. And having Bob Kauflin, Jeff Purswell, Gary Ricucci and Tommy Hill is not every church planter’s “ultimate ministry context.” In addition, C.J. will have 20 PC students to help him. And of course, droves of students will come from Mohler’s seminary. This is not a church planting. It is a relocation. It’s a red carpet. Its instant numerical success unless God decrees otherwise.
Second, won't it be difficult to replicate the benefits of having Covenant Life Church as a host church?
We do not want to give the impression that this decision was a no-brainer—it certainly was not. SGM’s setup with CLC has provided numerous benefits over the past 15 years. From host families and adopting care groups to event volunteers and its members’ hospitality, CLC has made a tremendous investment in the Pastors College since its inception. So, of course, this cannot all be replicated. And we want to thank the pastoral team of CLC and its members for these many years of faithful service and the fruit they have borne—the Pastors College would not be where it is without them. However, we believe that in the long run the Pastors College program will be enhanced, and all SGM churches will be better served, by this relocation and the benefits it offers.
No it won’t be difficult to replicate the benefits of having CLC as the host church. Easy as pie. In fact, Chairman Loftness and the new Board believe getting the PC out of CLC and into C.J.’s church will enhance the PC and better serve all the SGM churches in the long run. Who needs CLC anymore. A church that doesn't even exit is more than CLC's equal. What an extremely presumptive statement (cf. James 4:13-17)! C.J. could die tomorrow! God could take him for Sovereign Grace’s idolatry of a person. Where would that put SGM? And if history is our guide, C.J. will likely have a falling out with Mohler sometime in the future.
Why is the new Board so committed to build the ministry around one man who goes through friendships and co-workers like people go through toilet paper? It is stupid. It is dangerous. It is idolatrous. C.J. should not even be in ministry. Moving to Louisville is not the solution to all of SG problems or the key to its success.
Third, how will this affect the Pastors College calendar?
Although this relocation will require a transition period, we want to minimize any disruption to Sovereign Grace churches’ training needs. Therefore, we plan to host a new Pastors College class beginning in January 2013. The year will be slightly abbreviated, running January-August, with some parts of the curriculum delivered through other venues (e.g., small group settings). The following year’s class will commence in September, 2013, putting us back on a normal schedule.
It will be interesting to see who teaches when the new PC begins in 2013. Will Kenneth Maresco, Mark Mullery, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, Corby Megordan and Bruce Chick be invited back to teach. I don’t think so.
As noted above, we are excited about opportunities this will afford us to collaborate with Southern Seminary, which will only enhance our program and facilitate further training for our students and pastors. The Leadership Team will communicate more details in coming weeks.
Al Mohler is working hard to make special arrangements for C.J. Money speaks. The SBTS Board might be open to the idea.
Please join us in praying for all those participating in this relocation. Despite the many adjustments this will entail, we are trusting God and hopeful that this move will position us for greater service to our churches as together we proclaim the gospel and plant churches for the glory of God.
This move to Louisville should break everyone’s heart. Joshua should be replacing C.J. SGM should be in Gaithersburg. The PC should be in CLC. The dream is coming apart at the seams now. We planned to work together for life but that has ended in tragedy. The vast majority of men who started and built SGM are gone overwhelmingly due to bad experiences with C.J. That is not harsh. That is reality. C.J. has left a wake of destruction in his path. And all he can say in response to the Ambassadors of Reconciliation Report is “I want to sincerely apologize for the ways in which deficiencies in my leadership [not character] have contributed to the ministry failures catalogued in this report.”
We could debate the merits of relocating SGM at this point in her history, if people were reconciled. If there was unity and peace. If brothers were enjoying fellowship. If there were no offenses. But that is far from the case. The move to Louisville is born out of sin.
If the six new Board members are concerned about money for SGM, they should confront the old Board including John, Mickey and Craig; for not giving the SGM pastors any voice. There are at least 30 churches who are wondering what, if anything, they will give to SGM. Don’t be concerned about the cost of living in Gaithersburg. That is foolish. Be concerned about humbling yourselves and requiring C.J. to be reconciled to Josh, the CLC pastors, the church and many others including me. In my case, the first step is a real hearing of my charges by just and honorable men. When C.J. and the interim Board repent will you have more money to use then you need. You’ll be giving much of it away to others who have need. If you don’t repent, people and churches should stop contributing all monies.
I started my blog on my Facebook page on July 10, 2011. Here’s why. It was my first post.
The Documents
by Brent Detwiler on Sunday, July 10, 2011 at 9:29 am
On Wednesday, C.J. posted the following. “Over the last few years some former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace have made charges against me and informed me about offenses they have with me as well as other leaders in Sovereign Grace.”
This was a terribly misleading statement by my friend. For many years, men who worked with C.J. tried to help him see his pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgments, and hypocrisy.
The input C.J. has received started in December 2000 and did not come from former pastors and leaders who leveled charges against him because they were offended.
I hate to say it, but this is an example of Sovereign Grace spin and it was one important reason why I sent out “The Documents” on Wednesday night to all the SGM pastors.
I wrote the first post because of C.J.’s deceit. I’ve continued to write because of C.J.’s deceit and that of the old Board, interim Board, and now the new Board. John Loftness is not telling you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the main reason the blog continues. This is post number 94. I wish it was not necessary.
Grateful for your partnership in the gospel,
John Loftness, Chairman
on behalf of the Board
]]>The Courier-Journal
April 20, 2012
A small, growing denomination that has faced internal conflicts in recent months is moving its headquarters from Maryland to Louisville.
Sovereign Grace Ministries announced that it plans to launch its first Kentucky church and tighten its already strong bonds with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Sovereign Grace — based in Gaithersburg, Md. — is a three-decade-old network of more than 90 churches worldwide and about 28,000 members.
Sovereign Grace officials said they are moving to take advantage of Louisville’s lower costs of living and overhead compared with suburban Washington, D.C., and so its pastor-training program could collaborate more closely with Southern Seminary.
The announcement also comes amid increased tensions between Sovereign Grace and its flagship congregation, Covenant Life Church, where its headquarters is located.
That tension has been part of wider conflicts within Sovereign Grace that emerged in public view last summer with the release of internal church documents from a former church official, accusing its president, C.J. Mahaney, of pride, dictatorial conduct and doling out harsh criticism he was unwilling to receive himself.
Mahaney took a leave of several months while the Sovereign Grace board reviewed the case. It declared him fit for ministry and restored him to the presidency earlier this year.
The relocation announcement comes just two days after an independent panel — brought in to review the conflicts — faulted the group for an overemphasis on sin and a lack of emphasis on God’s grace and forgiveness.
The report also cited an often-arbitrary system of discipline that left many pastors and lay people feeling wounded, while those at the top lacked outside accountability.
While it currently has no churches in Kentucky or Indiana, Sovereign Grace and Mahaney have close ties with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace have each donated at least $100,000 to the seminary, according to the school’s publications
Mahaney formerly served as vice chairman of the seminary-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which promotes male authority in churches and families.
Sovereign Grace and Mahaney have been prominent in New Calvinist circles in recent years, as has Southern Seminary and its president, Albert Mohler. The multi-denominational Calvinist movement emphasizes God’s power, rather than human free will, in matters of salvation and earthly events and promotes male authority and tightly disciplined churches.
Mahaney and Mohler are among the organizers of biennial Together for the Gospel conferences in Louisville, such as one held last week at the KFC Yum! Center, which draw thousands to hear talks by top names in the New Calvinist movement.
Mohler on Thursday reaffirmed his longstanding support for Mahaney, which he voiced last summer when the allegations first went public. He said he believed Mahaney faced “ambiguous” charges and that the church board handled them correctly.
“C.J. Mahaney, like any strong Christian leader, is able to lead precisely because of who he is and how God uses him,” Mohler said. “That doesn’t mean that he can lead all people any more than any other leader can lead all people.”
He welcomed the start of a Sovereign Grace congregation in Louisville, which Mahaney plans to lead at an as-yet undetermined location.
“I think the Sovereign Grace churches are a demonstration of the revitalization of Christianity in the early 21st century,” Mohler said. He described them as “a group of deeply committed Christians who are doctrinally conservative, who are spiritually healthy, wonderfully happy and demonstrate both the truth of Christianity and the joy of Christ.”
Brent Detwiler, a former high-ranking church official who released the internal documents last summer, said he brought “detailed and specific” charges against Mahaney and faulted the church board for failing adequately to review them.
“The thing that is disingenuous is that the real reason Sovereign Grace is leaving Gaithersburg for Louisville is not cost of living,” Detwiler said. “It’s the fractured relationships” with Covenant Life, which has cited concerns over Sovereign Grace’s governing structure and response to the conflicts, Detwiler said.
The report on Sovereign Grace came from Ambassadors of Reconciliation, a Lutheran group specializing in conflict mediation that was brought in as outside evaluators of denomination. It did not call for any leaders to be removed or disciplined for allowing problems to develop in the church.
The report on Sovereign Grace Ministries said many people it interviewed valued their experience in the denomination.
The Ambassadors of Reconciliation lauded the movement’s emphasis on church planting, commitment to prayer and strong small-group networks.
But despite the group’s having the word “grace” in its title, leaders from the top down showed a heavy preoccupation with the sins of members.
Some described the process as spiritually helpful, while others saw it as “beating people down or unfairly scrutinizing them.”
An “over-emphasis of the teaching about sin without the balance of God’s grace leads people to be judgmental, critical, and at times despondent,” the report said.
In a written reply to the report, the board committed “by God’s grace to correct the failures identified in this report” and adopt its recommendations, which include developing more formal procedures for ordination and for members to appeal disciplinary actions.
]]>
No one is helping C.J. No one cares for his soul. He is like a sheep without a shepherd. I feel great compassion for him. Darkness and misery are his constant companions but he does not know why. He lives in a pit of despair but cannot get out. He laments the loss of companions but sees no fault in himself (Psa 88:8, 18).
There are no shepherds in C.J.’s life to help restore his soul. Green pastures and living waters are far from him. His soul is full of darkness and his life is full of trouble but he views this as God’s mysterious plan for the godly and mature. He can acknowledge no wrong and take no responsibility for this anguished state.
As I listened to C.J.’s three recent messages from Solid Rock Church,[1] I felt an overwhelming sense of empathy for his lostness. For his cluelessness. For his blindness. I say this will great tenderness. He does not see his sin, only his suffering. He does not see what he has done, only what he thinks has been done to him. He has defined his life in terms of a victim. When in greatest need of shepherds, he only has enablers. No one will speak truth that will set him free.
In his first message, C.J. shares no personal illustrations of self-righteousness or moral superiority (so evident for so long) with his church family. In the second message, he views his many trials, hardships, and sufferings as due to persecution. In the third message, he is abandoned by friends and feels abandoned by God due to no fault of his own.
He is the persecuted one. The suffering servant. He sees none of this as due to God’s discipline in his life. He avoids verses 7 and 16 in Psalm 88. His trials are only due to God’s mysterious plan for the godly and the mature. He sees no relation between root and fruits or between sowing and reaping. He is lost. He does not understand why his life is full of suffering and pain. This affects me deeply and compassionately. I want to see him well and prospering.
C.J. uses a bifocal lens through which to interpret his life. That which has been done to him and that which God has mysteriously willed for him. Nothing is due to his sin. He is the victim. Others the victimizers. Friends have abandoned him. He has not abandoned friends. God is distant though C.J. steadfastly obeys.
If only C.J. humbled himself and saw how he has lived and what he has done; the despair would flee, the darkness would lift, reconciliation would occur with former friends and God would draw near. Please pray that Jesus, the Chief Shepherd, provide genuine care for C.J.’s harassed and helpless soul.
[1] A Surprising Punch Line, Luke 18:9-14, March 18; A Surprising Command, James 1:1-4, March 25; A Surprising Prayer, Psalm 88, April 1.
]]>