Subscribe by Email

Brent Detwiler's Tweets

Jeff Purswell’s Condescending Letter Regarding “Disgruntled” SGM Pastors Who Wanted C.J. Mahaney Removed as President

On July 6, 2011, I sent out The Documents to the approximately 300 pastors in Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM).   The same day, C.J. Mahaney stepped down as President of SGM and was replaced by Dave Harvey on an interim basis.  On January 25, 2012, Mahaney, was reinstated as President.

Less than five months later at a June 11-14, 2012 retreat in Annapolis, the Board of Directors was deeply divided about Mahaney continuing as President.  In fact, Paul Buckley (Vice Chairman), Ian McConnell, and other Board Members were against him continuing as President.  Unfortunately, the majority of the nine-man Board barely prevailed and he was affirmed.  John Loftness, a Mahaney loyalist and alleged sexual sadist, was Chairman at the time.  Loftness resigned from the Board in February 2013 as a result of the allegations against him.  Buckley became the Chairman.       

After the June 2012 retreat, the division over Mahaney’s presidency continued and intensified.  By September 2012, top leaders who initially approved his reinstatement in January 2012 were now covertly and aggressively working for his removal.  That included Buckley and McConnell.  It also included Dave Harvey (former interim President and Director of Church Planting & Church Care) and Pete Greasley (former Board Member and Director of International Missions). 

This attempt to remove Mahaney was covered up by Loftness, Mickey Connolly and other hardliners on the Board until I exposed it in a series of posts in August 2014 using primary sources.  Until then, everyone in SGM was told and believed Mahaney was unanimously supported by the Board to be President.  That was a blatant lie like so many others told by Mahaney and his enablers.  

In a tremendous display of cowardice and compromise, those against Mahaney’s presidency (e.g. Buckley, McConnell) allowed a statement to be put forth in June 2012 that said the Board unanimously affirmed Mahaney’s presidency.  Those against Mahaney were pressured to be silent and told to put on a false front of unity.  They all capitulated.  These are all well-established facts that I have presented elsewhere.       

Against this background, Jeff Purswell, another Mahaney loyalist and surrogate, wrote the Board a cover letter accompanied by a condescending letter in September 2012 regarding the many SGM pastors also asking for Mahaney’s removal as President.  This effort to remove him was not confined to Board Members or other top SGM leaders.  It was widespread.

With great hubris, Purswell labeled these pastors “discontent” and “disgruntled” with nothing good to say or contribute.  I sent his deceptive and belittling letter to the former and current SGM pastors on April 1, 2015 and added commentary.  The letter serves as another example of the arrogance of those around Mahaney who protect him at all cost in order to protect their own self-interest. 

Purswell leads the Sovereign Grace Pastors College.  It is a high paying cushy job with a big budget.  There are few students (nine in 2013, nine in 2014, zero in 2015, 12 in 2016) and Purswell has numerous teachers and staff assisting him (e.g. Gary Ricucci – C.J.’s brother-in-law and alleged conspirator in the sexual abuse of children.  See Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams.)

I’ve never gotten around to posting this letter by Purswell online for the public to read.  It follows and includes my commentary to the SGM pastors.    

April 1, 2015 

To Former and Current SGM Pastors, 

I doubt you have seen this letter from Jeff Purswell to the Interim Board of Directors when [Paul] Buckley, [Ian] McConnell, [Dave] Harvey, [Pete] Greasley, et al. were trying to remove C.J. as President.  My comments are interspersed in brackets [ ] with italic letters.  I’ve underlined for emphasis.  The letter is a sad commentary on Jeff’s condescending pride toward pastors who expressed concern for C.J.’s character and presidency in 2012.  


From: Jeffrey Purswell [
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:53 PM
To: [John Loftness]; [Mickey Connolly]; Phil Sasser; Al Pino; Craig Cabaniss; Ian McConnell; Ken Mellinger; Paul Buckley - MA; Ron Boomsma
Cc: Dave Harvey; Tommy Hill
Subject: Confidential -- A Timely Note for the Board

[Jeff’s Cover Letter to Board]


I realize you have much coming at you, and I’m wary of adding to your burden.  Nonetheless, I thought it important to send along the attached [letter] in an attempt to share my perspective on a critical and timely issue.  Feel free to follow up with any questions.  I really do send this in an attempt to assist you.

I did not copy C.J. as this letter involves him, and he is aware neither of my views on this nor this letter.  Furthermore, this represents my own thoughts/reflections, and did not emerge out of conversations with others (other than the data I’m seeking to process).

Thanks so much for all you’ve done and are doing to serve all of us in the churches we love.

With affection and respect in Christ,


[Brent: True enough (it was critical and timely).  Jeff’s email followed five days after Paul’s confidential letter to Dave below.  C.J. must have been in a panic.   

From: Paul Buckley
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Dave Harvey
Subject: RE: Confidential

I talked to him [Pete Greasley] this morning.  It was a good conversation and very helpful.

I asked him to press his call for CJ’s resignation/repositioning to the board.


See the following posts for the deceitful way in which the Interim Board claimed there was unanimity when in fact men on the Board were trying to remove C.J. 

Paul Buckley, Chairman of the SGM Board & Other Top Level Leaders Secretly Plotted C.J. Mahaney’s Removal as President
Brent Detwiler
Saturday, August 2, 2014
More Evidence Surrounding the Request for Mahaney’s Resignation & Its Cover Up
Brent Detwiler
Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM

An Open Letter to the Leaders & Pastors of SGM Regarding Their Cowardice & Corruption
Brent Detwiler
Friday, August 08, 2014 at 5:01 PM
The Cover-up of Buckley’s Cover-up of Mahaney Is Underway
Brent Detwiler
Tuesday, August 18, 2014]

So Jeff wants us to believe C.J. is unaware “of my views on this” (i.e., C.J. remaining President) and that C.J. had no clue he was going to contact the Board.  Further, that he did not interact with anyone regarding C.J.’s role as President.  Really?]


[Jeff’s Attached Letter Regarding Pastors to Board]

September 25, 2012

Dear Friends,

I hope you men are well.  I first want to thank you for the work you are doing on behalf of Sovereign Grace, work that adds to the personal responsibilities each of you are already carrying.  Having served on the old board and the interim board, I understand something of the burden this represents, and I’m sincerely grateful for you men.   

I’ve just returned from the Dominican Republic, during which time I became aware of an (apparently) growing sense among members of the board that C.J. should no longer serve as president, due to rising discontent among some of our churches.  Let me first say that I realize I’m less informed about the landscape among our pastors than you men.  I also understand the impulse to act in order to preserve our bonds in the family of churches we all love, and I have no reason to doubt that you men are proceeding with the best of intentions, indeed, intentions that I share.  That said, I felt obliged to share what may be a different perspective with you men.  I’m writing this in haste, and so I, will not be as thorough and cogent as I would prefer.  However, time seemed to be of the essence, and so I thought it best to get this to you immediately upon my return from the DR, however uninformed I may be. 

[Brent: Jeff implies he had no clue there were concerns for C.J. as President of the Board until his trip with C.J. to the Dominican Republic.  In any case, C.J. made him “aware of an (apparently) growing sense among members of the board that C.J. should no longer serve as president, due to rising discontent among some of our churches.”  This fact was covered up by the Interim Board in their press releases on the SGM website and in Mickey Connolly’s letter to the SGM pastors. 

Purswell blames this “growing sense” on “rising discontent.”  He has no understanding of the issues.  For him, the problem lies entirely with “some of our churches,” not with C.J.’s lack of integrity or abusive leadership. 

He also “understand[s] the impulse to act.”  He means the Board is not being logical or rational in wanting to remove C.J.  They are being impulsive.  Purswell implies they are willing to get rid of C.J. in order to appease those who are discontent in order “to preserve our bonds.”  In others words, according to Purswell, removing C.J. is a political hack job.  There is no reason for it.

In this letter, Jeff constantly distances himself from C.J. to give the impression he is operating and thinking independently of C.J. and yet he is writing this letter based upon the information fed him on the DR [Dominican Republic] trip by C.J.  Are we to believe C.J. didn’t influence Jeff?]

Simply put: I do not believe that removing C.J. in response to pastors’ discontent is the right or the best course for the board to take at this moment.  I’ll note just three reasons for this:  

[Brent: Purswell is more specific.  The “pastors’ discontent” is driving the process to remove C.J.  This is an arrogant put down.  It demeans all the thoughtful, insightful and serious feedback the Board was receiving from pastors in the movement.  Purswell uses the word “discontent.”  He really means malcontent.  In his world, there are no legitimate reasons to remove Mahaney.]  

a.  The board’s recent affirmation of C.J. as president.  To remove C.J. from the president runs counter to the board’s step of affirming him as president a few months ago.  You men (rightly in my estimation) stood upon the objective steps the interim board took to evaluate both C.J. and the ministry.  No man in our history has undergone an evaluation that even remotely resembled C.J.’s in terms of its level of scrutiny.  And AoR’s report on SGM, while identifying a number of weaknesses, also identified many strengths and affirmed the blessings SGM has enjoyed—and no one is more humanly responsible for these blessings than C.J.  So there is no objective reason to remove C.J. at this point, and to do so would undermine the elaborate steps we have pursued to assess C.J. and SGM in objective terms.  Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the principled stand you have already taken. The objective assessment (and subsequent board affirmation) would be displaced by the subjective complaints of a few.  Nothing has changed in C.J.’s character or qualifications that warrants a reversal on the board’s assessment of him at this time.

[Brent: The Interim Board set up the Three Panel Review to “evaluate” C.J.  It was an altogether corrupt arrangement designed to condemn me and protect C.J. without any due process.  No one can deny this reality.  Every rule of evidence was intentionally set aside. 

Jeff says, “No man in our history has undergone an evaluation that even remotely resembled C.J.’s in terms of its level of scrutiny.”  That is absurd.  For example, the three extremely narrow questions used by Three Panel Review were a complete sham.  So too the AoR report.  There were literally hundreds of “objective reason[s]” to remove C.J. in thousands of pages of fairly documented evidence.  The problem as Jeff sees it is the “subjective complaints of a few” malcontents.  Per Jeff there is no objective reason in the world to remove C.J.  Jeff is lying to himself.  This is pure spin.  

In the first line of this paragraph Jeff refers to “The board’s recent affirmation of C.J. as president” which occurred three months earlier in June 2012.  At the time, John Loftness publicly posted the following on behalf of the Interim Board.  It was a lie.   

“It is important for you to know of the Board’s strong endorsement of C.J. to continue in this role of President. … We know of no one who is better suited for the office of President at this transitional time in our history.” 

If you read the evidence in my posts, it is a matter of no uncertain fact that not everyone on the Board affirmed or endorsed C.J. in June 2012.  The Board was deeply divided.  Purswell and Loftness knew this.  This too was a shameful piece of lying by both of them.]

 b.  Our current season of transition.  We are obviously in the midst of a significant period of transition, during which time a decision to remove C.J. would be unwise, premature, and disruptive to the process in place.  The board has seated a polity committee to bring to a conclusion the polity process set in motion by C.J. and the Leadership Team in mid-2009.  Far from “starting from scratch,” that polity committee has continued a trajectory set in motion over three years ago, a trajectory that has included teaching, massive amounts of discussions with and feedback from pastors, and even the solicitation of polity recommendations from our pastors in an open forum.  All of this will result in a significant and decisive reconfiguring of our polity that will undoubtedly impinge upon the definition and role of SGM’s president.  Indeed, we have already made significant adjustments to that role, such that it could truly be said that “C.J. does not lead SGM”—certainly not in the way he has in the past.  You men lead SGM.  C.J. is accountable to you.  C.J. is making no governmental decisions concerning SGM—he is simply leading ministry endeavors on behalf of SGM.  Therefore, to remove C.J. as president at this time would ignore, and potentially undermine, the transitional process that is currently underway, the outcome of which neither the board nor our pastors know.  

[Brent: Jeff is a pragmatist.  “Potentially undermin[ing], the transitional [polity] process” was of no relevant importance.  Plain and simple, C.J. did not meet the qualifications of Scripture.  Jeff also plays down C.J.’s influence and control in an effort to preserve his position.  Truth be told, if C.J. had been removed it would have pleased God; especially if he was genuinely held to account and directed to confess his sins to CLC, SGM and the Body of Christ.  C.J. was not “accountable” to anyone.  He was masterminding cover ups and manipulating people on multiple fronts.]   

Let me here make two ancillary points that are wisdom/leadership issues.  First, I also believe that removing C.J. now would do damage to those elements in SGM that are stable, alienating the pastors who support him in an attempt (and possibly a futile one) to appease those who don’t—that would be a sad irony.  Secondly, I believe it would be supremely unwise to remove and replace C.J. when the very position of president is in flux.  There has been much turmoil over the past year, much of which was inflicted upon us from without.  I feel this would create self-inflicted turmoil prior to having polity in place; intentionally creating uncertainty in a vacuum is a perfect recipe for creating (or worsening) a crisis.  

[Brent: Jeff’s “two ancillary points” have nothing to do with “wisdom/leadership issues” as defined by Scripture.  Jeff has enabled C.J. in his sin for a long time.  This has been a major factor in the demise of SGM.  And his enabling has only worsened since the time of this letter in September 2012. 

 Jeff lacks any divine perspective.  All the “turmoil” then and now are due to the discipline and opposition of God.  That is the truly “sad irony.”  Jeff says most of the turmoil “was inflicted upon us from without.”  He is right in one sense.  It came from Almighty God.  But of course that is not his meaning and it reveals his profound self-deception.  For him, SGM is under attack by outside forces and is being undermined by inside pastors who don’t support C.J.  They must not be appeased.  Yet, removing C.J. as clearly required by Scripture would have averted “a perfect recipe for creating (or worsening) a crisis.”  The worsening crisis came and continues.  Jeff is clueless as to the cause or at least he plays dumb.  It is the pride, sinful ambition, love of reputation, lying, lording, hypocrisy, etc. of SGM leaders that has brought about its fall.  Not malcontent pastors or affliction (i.e., persecution as Prater likes to present it) from without.]

c.  Imminent polity changes.  This point is related to “b” but is distinct.  I can tell you as a polity committee member that the role of president, along with that of the entire Leadership Team, will look much different after the polity reconfiguration (assuming it continues along its present course and meets with the board’s approval).  Some are obviously unsatisfied with C.J.’s leadership of SGM; be that legitimate or not, it is irrelevant to both the current and future configuration of the role of president.  As noted above, C.J. does not “lead” SGM, and neither will he in the new polity.  People who do not want C.J. “leading SGM” are barking at a shadow—the things that people object to about C.J.’s leadership won’t even be part of the role of the president under the new polity.  C.J. will not be “leading a movement”—he’ll be leading a small team of men who will function, in essence, as a ministry arm of our elders, subject to their guidance (via the board) and fully and regularly accountable to them.  

[Brent: This is rather hilarious.  Jeff has neutered C.J. and the role of the President.  They have next to no power.  The “Hush Fund” post is but one example of the power Mahaney, Prater, Buckley, and Hill have and used to cover up.  See Hush Fund Set Up by Top SGM Leaders to Meet the Demands of a SGM Pastor Whose Son Was Sexually Abused  (March 30, 2015).]

Some (most?) of the disgruntled pastors also affirm C.J.’s many strengths and (presumably) want to see him continue to function in those strengths (e.g., preaching, representing SGM to the larger evangelical world, bringing his theological discernment to bear upon ministry direction and initiatives, etc.).  It is precisely these sorts of responsibilities that the new presidential role will comprise.  He will neither be the “leader of the movement” or an authoritative head over our churches on the one hand, nor an administrator/manager or a “consensus builder” on the other.  His role will be fairly simple and confined: on behalf of all of our elders (via the board), he will be bringing leadership to the broader extension of the gospel mission of our churches—and he will be doing so under the leadership of the board and accountable to it.  Therefore, to remove C.J. from the role of president is illogical: it is ostensibly to solve a “problem” that won’t even exist.  In fact, it doesn’t even exist now.  

[Brent: Jeff is using a lot of verbiage to create an illusion.  The Executive Committee and the Leadership Team are the power brokers in SGM.  They are led by two corrupt men [Paul Buckley, Mark Prater] and are surrounding by men like them.  Power may not be as centralized but it still centralized.  C.J. learned this from [Paige] Patterson/[Albert] Mohler in their takeover of the SBC/SBTS [Southern Baptist Convention/Southern Baptist Theological Seminary].  Get your people in the right positions and on the right committees, etc.  Mohler is a seminary President but he has incredible influence over the entire SBC.  That’s why polity is never the ultimate answer.  You must have integrity or abuses and cover ups continue.

Anyway, back to my MAIN POINT.  The issue for Jeff is once again “the disgruntled pastors.”  That is how he characterizes them.  They have nothing good or legitimate to offer.  They must not be “appeased.”  Jeff’s arrogance is suffocating.]  

I could elaborate on other reasons for not removing C.J. from the presidency at this point—I’ll just list a few here: 

  • it would be unjust;
  • it would tacitly validate a number of sinful judgments and unfair and one-sided assessments of C.J.;
  • it would set a dangerous precedent for removing men from positions without cause and/or in a way that contravenes policies and due process;
  • it would, in essence, be a capitulation to Brent and his campaign against C.J.  However much some protest that they’re not “affected by Brent,” it’s absurd to deny or dismiss the effects of his documents, the slander they spread, the misperceptions they fostered, the unbiblical actions in response to them (e.g., CLC’s leadership), etc. 

[Brent: These are the kind of perverse talking points Jeff and SGM have been putting out for the last five years.  I could write a book on each point.  Jeff is the consummate enabler of C.J.’s sin.  Jeff is also the consummate hypocrite.  How many times has he exhorted others, “Pay close attention to your life and doctrine…” and yet this does not apply to him and C.J.  It takes no discernment to see through C.J.’s long history of abuse, lying, and hypocrisy.  Jeff is committed to creating a false narrative.]  

Well, that’s a brief overview on my perspective of why C.J. should not be removed (or why he should not resign) from the presidency at this point.  It is not a case of “preserving a man at all costs” or “misguided loyalty,” much less of “C.J. manipulating a process”—he does not know my thoughts on this, nor is he even aware I’m writing this.  

[Brent: Jeff never mentions, “An overseer must be above reproach” or the concerns many “discontented” pastors are raising about C.J.’s character.  It is totally irrelevant to him.  C.J. is above Scripture and anyone who thinks otherwise is “disgruntled.”  Jeff is lording it over these pastors behind their backs in his condensing pride and superiority.      

No one knows all the ways C.J. was manipulating the process in order to remain President at this point in time.  It is clear, however, there was a strong movement to remove him and he fought against it with the help of men like Purswell, Connolly, Mellinger, and Loftness.

Jeff claims C.J. “does not know my thoughts” on remaining President.  I don’t believe him.  He also claims it is not about “preserving a man at all costs” or “misguided loyalty.”  No Jeff that is exactly what it is about!  You were propping up C.J. when you should have been removing C.J.] 

So—how do I think you should proceed?  I’m not dismissing the turmoil among some of our pastors that you men are confronting—again, thank you for seeking to serve them.  Although I don’t fully know all the factors you’re considering, I would suggest a fairly straightforward approach:  contact the pastors who are discontent or unsettled (and perhaps others?), and with clarity and conviction seek to advocate and persuade.  I would recommend making the following points: 

[Brent: Again the problem or “turmoil” is not due to C.J.  He is a saint.  The problem is the “discontent or unsettled” (i.e., agitated) pastors that are creating the “turmoil” “that you men are confronting-again.”  And in the parlance of SGM, Jeff says “Thank you for seeking to serve them.”  That should read, “Thank you for seeking to silence them by pressuring them and dismissing their concerns.”  See for example the arrogance demonstrated by C.J., Jeff and Mickey when the met with the Florida pastors.   

Diverging Paths – Fairfax Church and Florida Pastors Contemplate Separation from Sovereign Grace Ministries
Brent Detwiler
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM]

1.   We are in the midst of the most significant polity shift in our history, and among those changes are some designed precisely to address a number of the very problems many pastors have communicated.  We’ve talked, listened, discussed, interacted, and now we’re acting in light of that—indeed, the past three years have already seen changes in our polity thinking and leadership structure that are unprecedented in our history. If a guy is fundamentally with us, why would he leave when we’ve gone to such lengths to address our weaknesses and build for the future?

[Brent: SGM went on a listening campaign but it was largely insincere.  A ploy to make people think they were teachable and going to change.  All the listing produced no fruit.

Jeff is totally lost.  “If a guy is fundamentally with us, why would he leave” us.  For Jeff, “polity thinking and elderships structure” were the sole problems in SGM – not pride, ambition, corruption, hypocrisy, etc.  The Book of Church Order has no power to change the human heart.  It is like the Law of Moses.  This escapes Jeff.  The problem is not SGM.  According to Jeff, no one, if they are “fundamentally with us,” would ever leave SGM!  Lord have mercy!]   

2.   Our governance has already transitioned, with the authority for SGM in the hands of our board, which consists entirely of elders.  So, it’s simply not the case that “C.J. is leading us.”  The board is leading, and C.J. exercises no authority (and little influence) over that board. And with the new polity, the president’s role is going to be (a) circumscribed by the elders, (b) under the authority of the elders, and (c) align well with C.J.’s evident gifts and strengths.  Moreover, the board will have the option to change presidents if it desires.  So are your problems with C.J.—however rightly or wrongly informed they are—even legitimate?  Are you wanting him out of a role he doesn’t even have (and won’t have)?  Would you agree that no one in SGM remotely approaches C.J.’s strengths of preaching, doctrinal discernment, ability to represent us to the wider evangelical world, etc.?  Would you object if he had a role in SGM that fit these strengths?  

[Brent: This statement is laughable.  “The board is leading, and C.J. exercises no authority (and little influence) over that board. … So are your problems with C.J.—however rightly or wrongly informed they are—even legitimate?”  Come on Jeff!  John Loftness was the Chairman of the Board.  He and C.J. were in lock step on everything!  So too Connolly, Mellinger, and Sasser.  They were C.J.’s yes men.  Loftness and Connolly were also C.J.’s hatchet men.  Ask the CLC [Covenant Life Church] pastors.  Furthermore, Mahaney led Harvey, Prater, Purswell and Hill each of whom had tremendous influence with all the Directors.  This letter by Purswell being a case in point. 

Board of Directors [September 2012]

  1. John Loftness - Chairman
  2. Paul Buckley - Vice Chairman
  3. Ron Boomsma
  4. Craig Cabaniss
  5. Mickey Connolly
  6. Ian McConnell
  7. Ken Mellinger
  8. Al Pino
  9. Phil Sasser

Leadership Team [September 2012]

  1. Dave Harvey – Church Planting & Church Care
  2. Mark Prater – Acting Director of Church Planting & Church Care
  3. Jeff Purswell – Dean of PC

Jeff has always been enamored with C.J.’s gifts, personality and connections.  “No one in SGM remotely approaches C.J.’s strengths of preaching, doctrinal discernment, ability to represent us to the wider evangelical world.”  On this basis, C.J. must be salvage.  He is the key to success.  The “discontents” and “disgruntled” must be stopped.  In fact, however, C.J. was the key to SGM’s demise because men like Jeff exalted his gifting and gave him a pass on his bad character.  The ends justified the means.  C.J. didn’t qualify according to Scripture but he was the key to SGM’s numerical, financial, and reputational success.  Or so Purswell believed.  He was wrong.]

It would not be difficult to come up with a number of other bullet points, but these are two of the main ones that are important.  I would hope that pastors presented (and dare I say, challenged?) with these and other points could be persuaded. 

[Brent: Purswell wants the Board to “dare I say, challenge” the pastors creating the “turmoil” with his points.]

I believe that what this moment calls for from you gentlemen is, quite simply, a stand—a stand that is not blind or intransigent or callous, but one that is (a) principled, (b) consistent, (c) honors due process, and (d) involves personal persuasion.  I’ve heard much over the past months of our need to “listen,” often set against an alternative of “dictating.”  The dichotomy is a false one: listening is never absolute, although in the past months we’ve done little else.  What real conversation involves is listening and advocating/persuading.  I’m encouraging you men to engage in humble, respectful conversations where real concerns are addressed (listening), and a wise, principled and biblical position is appealed for (advocating and persuading).  I would encourage you men to press through to a wise and principled consensus, and then agree together to advocate and persuade with a unified sense of conviction.  You must be united not only in mind/heart, but also consistent in your voice and communications.  I don’t know how successful our persuasion can be, but I most definitely think that the attempt is a worthy one.  To deny the amazing work of grace in our midst for over 30 years is a dereliction of the duty we have to acknowledge and give thanks to God for his mighty works.  And I believe our duty includes the work of protecting and preserving that work.  

[Brent: The Director of Theology & Training [Jeff Purswell] (changed from Dean of the Pastors College because it was shut down in 2014-2015) does not know what “a wise, principle and biblical position” is in reference to C.J.  He should open his Bible to 1 Timothy 3, 5, and Titus 1.  Jeff too was involved in lying and deceiving on many occasions.  For example, promising all my allegations would be heard but an objective third party.  Or removing me from the Pastor College under the pretense of wanting to involve more teachers.  Or sending out the Harvey letter to you behind back and labeling my documents “tale tales” while pretending to pursue reconciliation with me.  All were hoaxes.  And the list goes on and on.  Jeff is corrupt like C.J. is corrupt.  That’s why they are still working together. 

I too thank God for the “work of grace” in the past but Jeff’s proposal did nothing to protect it and preserve it.  It helped to destroy it.  If C.J. had been dealt with in keeping with Scripture, SGM could have made a real turn.  Instead the authority of Scripture was repudiated and replaced with the self-serving agenda of men.] 

This was not meant to be a thesis and it has gotten long (one loses track of time on an airplane).  But I do hope you’ll consider my perspective and suggestions.  

Warmly in Christ,


Please Help 

I recently wrote an update on our personal circumstances.  Would you please read it here and consider a gift or donation?  The work I do is not fun or easy but it is necessary.  In the coming weeks and months, I’ll be covering some stories of national importance.  I need your help to make the possible.  Please keep me in your prayers.  Thank you.   

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend