This is a timeline of the details outlined in "The Documents" that Brent Detwiler wrote to address longstanding issues within SGM and with C.J. Mahaney as well as relevant SGM historical data. I have updated the timeline with major events as the crisis has continued to unfold. This timeline was developed for the benefit of those who were unable to read through all of Brent's documents and to provide a visual aid for piecing the events together. This is not intended to be an exhaustive argument in any fashion; that has been accomplished in Brent's documents. Where possible, links to the source material have been provided. Every attempt has been made to provide an accurate representation of Brent's documents and SGM historical information. If you believe that there are inaccuracies please indicate in the comments the title of the entry, the date, and the relevant corrections. I will not moderate comments on this, but please consider keeping your comments limited to the timeline as opposed to your view of SGM, Brent, or C.J. There are plenty of other places on the web already available for this type of dialogue. Additional media content (relevant photos, video, and audio) may be added to the timeline. Please feel free to contact me if you have additional media content to add. Thanks to Eric Grover and Brent Detwiler for editorial review input.
Created by JennGrover on Jul 26, 2011
Last updated: 04/20/12 at 11:00 AM
Tags: SGM crisis PDI People of Destiny Mahaney Detwiler Tomczak
Citing cost of living as the primary motivation, but loosely referencing the "events of 2011" SGM announces their move to Louisville, KY and also that CJ Mahaney is planning a church plant in Louisville. Also mentioned as a benefit is the proximity to Al Mohler and Southern Baptist Seminary
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Sovereign-Grace-Ministries-Relocation-Announcement.aspx
AoR Report on Group Reconciliation is released with a statement from SGM.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/file.axd?file=2012/4/Group+Reconciliation+Report.pdf
an update from the SGM board indicates that John Loftness has been elected Chairman of the SGM board. The new board will meet 3x a year with most work occurring in committees. The Leadership team consists of CJ Mahaney, President, Dave Harvey, church care and planting, Jeff Purswell dean of the PC, and Tommy Hill director of finance and administration. The leadership team will carry out day to day activities of the organization.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Update-from-the-Sovereign-Grace-Board.aspx
http://t4g.org/media/2012/02/celebrity-pastor-indecent-exposure/
http://t4g.org/media/2012/04/the-sustaining-power-of-the-gospel-2/
Room rates at the new venue start at $244/night. The resort features a golf course, spa, and fine dining.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Pastors-Conference-2012-Dates-and-Location.aspx
Ron Boomsma
Sovereign Grace Church of Pasadena
Pasadena, CA
Paul Buckley
King of Grace Church
Haverhill, MA
Craig Cabaniss
Grace Church
Frisco, TX
Mickey Connolly
CrossWay Community Church
Charlotte, NC
John Loftness
Solid Rock Church
Riverdale, MD
Ian McConnell
Grace Bible Church
Philadelphia, PA
Ken Mellinger
Living Hope Church
Harrisburg, PA
Al Pino
Palm Vista Community Church
Miami Lakes, FL
Phil Sasser
Sovereign Grace Church
Apex, NC
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Introducing-Our-New-Board.aspx
An Appeal from Thirteen SGM Churches for the SGM Board to Stop and Listen
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 AT 8:37PM
This is an update sent to the members of Sovereign Grace Church in Fairfax, VA tonight. It includes an appeal from thirteen churches.
March 7, 2012
To Sovereign Grace Fairfax Church members:
“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 15:5-6 ESV)
Greetings!
These past months have been a time of trial and testing that has required much patience and endurance from all of us. We thank God for the harmony and peace that we are experiencing as a church. Your prayers and encouragement have been invaluable to all of us on the Pastoral Team, and we so appreciate serving the Lord together with you.
In keeping with our desire to communicate updates in a timely way, we want you to know that there has been an important development with Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). On February 27, SGM sent an update to the ordained pastors in the movement letting us know that they had selected nine nominees for the permanent Board. In their update, SGM asked that we send our affirmations and concerns about the nominees by today.
Below is the cover email to our response that we sent this afternoon to the SGM Interim Board and C.J. Mahaney, the Board President, along with our church’s response.
Vince and I plan to discuss this development with you at the March 18th Family Meeting. Until then, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact any one of us on the Pastoral Team.
Grace,
Mark, on behalf of the Pastoral Team
March 7th Cover Email from SGC Pastoral Team to SGM Interim Board Members (copies went to C.J. Mahaney, the permanent Board nominees, and the SGM Pastoral Team)
Dear Interim Board members,
Attached is the response of the Sovereign Grace Church (SGC) Fairfax Pastoral Team to your February 27th request for our affirmations or expressions of concern about the nine nominees to the Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) Board. Thank you for the enormous sacrifices each of you has made over the past months to serve our family of churches. Though we need to express our disagreement with some of what is being proposed, we want to assure you that we do so as friends who deeply desire to lean in and work together with you. We are eager to preserve the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace, and to continue our mission together.
As you read our response, please hear the spirit that undergirds all that we say, including the tremendous appreciation we have for our long history together. On page three of the response you will also see the names of a number of SGM churches and pastors who share our concerns and have let us know that they would like to be included in our response. Collectively, we represent 13 churches, including three of the founding churches of SGM. Each one of us shares our goal of providing a reasoned, Biblically sound appeal to you, the Interim Board members, which reflects the love we share for our family of churches and our hope for reform in the movement.
We want you to know that we have no plans to leave SGM and strongly desire constructive dialogue with you. I welcome a chance to speak to you in person and can be reached at 703.691.0600 (office).
Mark, on behalf of the SGC Fairfax Pastoral Team
##
March 7, 2012
Dear members of the SGM Interim Board,
“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 15:5-6 ESV)
We write to you on behalf of the Pastoral Team of Sovereign Grace Church (SGC) Fairfax in response to “An Update from the Board,” that we received on February 27, 2012. These have been very troubling times for our family of churches, and we thank God for you, as you have labored many hours serving as Interim Board members. We continue to pray that the Lord himself will preserve your souls in peace and that as fellow brothers in Christ, we all will remain focused on glorifying God our Savior.
When we received your update, the SGC Fairfax Pastoral Team discussed the changes in the leadership structure, the functions of the permanent Board, and the nomination and affirmation processes. We also reviewed the list of nominees for Board membership. In the light of our discussions, we are declining to participate in the process of affirming these nominees because we believe the process is premature and unwise.
Our Concerns
The process is unnecessarily rushed.
You ask that the online feedback form with affirmations and concerns be submitted by March 7, just 10 days after we received the update. You do not explain your rationale for the urgent timeline. We suggest that it would be better to wait until after Ambassadors of Reconciliation releases its report of findings. We understand that this report will include key weaknesses and strengths in SGM’s cultural norms, polity, and structure, all of which could inform the way we move forward in seating a Board.
Ongoing lack of or contradictory communications
We see an established pattern of a lack of communications, including the absence of regional meetings, over the last several years. The most recent example is that we received your February 27th update without any meaningful conversation about the process involved or the contents of the update. Within the update itself, there is very little explanation about how and why the new Board nominees were selected.
In addition, we have received contradictory communications that make it difficult to know what to believe about the actions being taken by the Interim Board. For example, you had explained in “Sovereign Grace Board’s Response to the [Panel] Reports that your “mandate as an interim Board was to evaluate Brent’s allegations,” leaving a “thorough examination of SGM’s leadership structure … to the next Board.” With your latest update, however, it is clear that you have made determinations about polity outside of your self-described scope.
Lack of diversity among the nominees
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.
Ongoing polity problems
SGM’s new Board, like the previous and Interim Board, will have great authority without strengthened accountability. In effect, the Board remains self-appointed and self-perpetuating because we have no commitment that you will act on the concerns that SGM pastors express.
In addition, there is a lack of sufficient clarity about SGM as an entity. There needs to be a theological document that lays out the Biblical explanation of SGM that is published, peer-reviewed by those outside our movement, and discussed as a whole by all SGM pastors.
Proposed Way Forward
The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty. (Proverbs 21:5 ESV)
Our dear brothers, we appeal to you to slow down. Please stop and listen to the churches you are connected to and emerge from; create forums for pastors to speak together and with you; and call a council of pastors from each church together to discuss our future and make decisions together.
We make these appeals as one of the founding churches in our family of churches and as fellow followers of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who can redeem all circumstances and make right all relationships. Also attached is a list of churches and their Pastoral Teams who agree with our concerns and proposed way forward.
Please receive this letter as an expression of the desire we all share for the reform of our family of churches. For over three decades, we all have been walking together for the sake and advancement of the gospel. We hope to continue doing so fruitfully for decades to come.
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you,
Lou Gallo, David Hinders, Vince Hinders, Luke Middleton, Mark Mullery, and Seita Sakaguchi
Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax
##
The Pastoral Teams of the following Sovereign Grace churches have reviewed, and are in general agreement with, the concerns expressed in the March 7, 2012 response letter from the Sovereign Grace Church Fairfax Pastoral Team to the Sovereign Grace Ministries Interim Board:
Christ Church – San Francisco, CA
Toby Kurth, Tim Chao, Jeff Locke, Jon-Paul Momsen
Christ Our Redeemer Church – Vancouver, WA
Daniel Morse
Covenant Life Church – Gaithersburg, MD
Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Dave Brewer, Don DeVries, Braden Greer, Isaac Hydoski, Grant Layman, Jamie Leach, Joe Lee, Matt Maka, Adam Malcolm, Kenneth Maresco, Corby Megorden, Mark Mitchell, Kevin Rogers, Eric Sheffer, Jon Smith, Ben Wikner
Crossway Community Church – Vancouver, BC
Pat Sczebel, Fred Eaton, Marty Jones, David Smith
Grace Christian Fellowship – Spokane, WA
William Farley, David Farley, John Kershinar, Dave Nelson, Jim Spurgetis, Mark Williams
Grace Covenant Church – Jacksonville, FL
Joe Calabello, Craig Eddy Sr., Ed Edwards
Gulf Coast Community Church – St. Petersburg, FL
Jerry Cisar, Steven Brunson, Daryn Kinney
Sovereign Grace Church – Cleveland, OH
Darren Lander, Roman Bibyk, Bob Digney, Eric Grover, Jonathan Putnam, Brian Reebel, Keith Schifano
Sovereign Grace Church – Greenville, SC
Matt Rawlings
Sovereign Grace Church – Indiana, PA
Mark Altrogge, Stephen Altrogge, Joe Ryer
Sovereign Grace Church – Oswego, IL
Josh Fenska, Jamie Maxim, Tab Trainor
Wellspring Church – Pleasanton, CA
Sam Shin, Justin Chang, Chris Feng, Dan Kim, Thomas Ki
Churches Added - March 8, 2011
Grace Church - Bristol, England
Nathan Smith, Peter Bowley
Grace Community Church – Bradenton, FL
Luan Nguyen
Redeemer Church at Lake Nona – Orlando, FL
Benny Phillips
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/3/7/an-appeal-from-thirteen-sgm-churches-for-the-sgm-board-to-st.html
CLC members receive an email from CLC pastors informing them that CJ has transferred his membership to Solid Rock.
"Having had the opportunity to meet with C.J., we have agreed, with sadness, to accept and support his membership transfer. C.J. has communicated to us that he no longer thinks the formal mediation he requested last fall is needed (this mediation was going to be led by Ted Kober and was to address differences C.J. had with the pastors’ public leadership in response to the release of Brent Detwiler’s documents)."
http://www.covlife.org/newsletters/2012_02_27/
"A week ago my wife [Doris} and I [Larry] completed a 21 day fast to seek the Lord for 2012. Near the top of our list were issues related to SGM (Sovereign Grace Ministry). At the end of the fast we received a call from Dave Harvey, interim President of the ministry, wanting to ask forgiveness for his sinful behavior towards us and our family almost 15 years ago. A week later he sent us an advance copy of their panel report dealing with our departure from SGM.
What follows is our public response to this public report. It would serve the reader to first read the statement we made available on our website larrytomczak.com entitled, “The Tomczak Departure from SGM – What Really Happened?”
As Doris and I said in our “Departure” statement, we are not blameless in our journey. We love all those involved and simply present here observations that either amplify or adjust some points expressed in the SGM report. We forgave our brethren years ago but, as a matter of integrity, present here seven significant points that need to be addressed."
(Follow link to read their concerns)
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2012/2/1/open-letter-upon-release-of-sgm-panel-report-on-tomczak-depa.html
After being leaked online, SGM releases their panel report two days ahead of schedule.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/An-announcement-regarding-CJ-Mahaney.aspx
The SGM panel report, in its entirety, is posted online.
http://www.scribd.com/cjmwikileaks
"After examining the reports of these three review panels, we find nothing in them that would disqualify C.J. from his role as President, nor do they in any way call into question his fitness for gospel ministry. Therefore the Board has decided unanimously to return C.J. to the office of President, effective immediately."
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=3275
Terry Virgo, leader of New Frontiers International and old friend of Sovereign GRace Ministries and CLC, spends the weekend at CLC and speaks three times. Messages include: "Empowered by the Holy Spirit"," Formidable Power in Prayer", and "The Spirit-Filled Church"
http://vimeo.com/33729393
http://vimeo.com/33728681
http://vimeo.com/33603467
http://vimeo.com/covlife
After a tremendous amount of criticism from the SGM Survivors blog and others, Josh Harris posted an update on his blog that he has requested that his publisher postpone re-releasing "Boy Meets Girl."
"Update: In June I announced that my publisher was releasing a new version of Boy Meets Girl. But since then I asked my publisher to postpone this re-release because I wanted to make sure I had the time to process the critique and concerns many people have shared with me about Boy Meets Girl and I Kissed Dating Goodbye (i.e., that they encourage a legalistic approach to relationships). I want to make sure I've carefully considered that critique and evaluated the book in light of new lessons God is teaching me and my local church (for more on that please see this webpage). If there are significant edits or changes that need to be made I want to make sure and clearly explain those to readers.
But right now our church is facing a very unique season and I just don't have the time to give the attention and focus to any writing project. My publisher was very gracious and agreed to indefinitely postpone any new edition.
For more on what I've been learning since I wrote both these books, see this post that features several messages I've given in the past few years."
http://www.joshharris.com/2011/06/which_cover_for_boy_meets_girl.php
Dave Harvey announces that the three panels have begun work, they will not disclose the members names until the work is complete, the work will be complete by December 13 but the board will not release the reports until January, and describes the more narrow scope that the panels will tackle.
"...Three committees have been formed, each one responsible for answering one key question established by the independent facilitator. The first committee will answer the question: Was Larry Tomzak's departure from Sovereign Grace Ministries handled properly? The second committee will answer the question: Did C.J. Mahaney wrongly influence the dismissal of Brent Detwiler from his church in Mooresville, NC? The third committee will answer the question: Was C.J. Mahaney's participation in fellowship in 2003 and 2004, including the giving and receiving of correction, in keeping with the teaching of Scripture?
Each committee has been directed to determine three things:
What happened?
What is the significance of what happened?
What should the Sovereign Grace board do based upon the panel's findings?..."
Original post about panels: http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Evaluating-Brent-Detwilere28099s-allegations.aspx
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/What-are-we-doing-about-the-charges-against-CJ.aspx
Tthe SGM Refuge blog & Twitter both report that CJ's confession at the July CLC family meeting as well as his initial post about his leave of absence have been removed from the SGM website. Harvey cites personal conviction as well as an increased personal concern about how the board has handled CJ's confessions as the reason for the removal when the removals are brought to light.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/A-note-about-online-confessions.aspx
"You may recall in the last session I mentioned a file that I have had diagnosing SGM and so I have been asked by the board to discuss how the challenges we have been talking about began to organize for us and some of the essential questions we have been asking as we've gone along. I can't cover everything in about 30 minutes. But I can provide you with a sampling of the most important things that were talked about. This is a board report, this is not a message, but I think you will find it very informative. Before I get there I want to acknowledge a tension the board feels. It kind of tugs at us each and every day. There is a continuum in SGM right now along which you could locate all the pastors somewhere. On one side, SGM has these deep systemic problems, magnified by the blogs, magnified by Brent's docs, magnified by the criticisms, and they want to see immediate repentance, they want to see sweeping changes, the fruit of the board getting it is measured by our contrition. Anything less than that would be denial, living in denial. And not that there are a few SG pastors that would be in that category. And then on the other side of the continuum is another group where they believe important adjustments are necessary, they are important. They would be more in the category of refinements and we are distracted in this season by what's going on, by Brent's documents are overplayed, the leave of absence was totally unnecessary. We need to get on with serving the pastors and serving churches. The fruit of us getting it, the board getting it, for that group is measured by us defending SG more vigorously, ignoring the critics. And just punching the accelerator and moving forward. And this is probably a larger group. There is a larger group of pastors over on that side. And I think the only thing everyone is agreed upon is that the interim board appears like a bunch of idiots (laughter) at times. But my point is you can kind of plot the SG pastors at different parts of that continuum although more are decisively slanted towards the second category than the first category. My point of sharing that with you is this. The pastors of SGM are far from monolithic in these issues and the board has tried to keep that in view as we sought to analyze and isolate the issues, as we've tried to think about what God is saying to us, as we try to think about where there is agreement on the board, what we are hearing from SG pastors, what we are hearing from the people in SG churches as well. Here's the thing. In the initial phase of the crisis is absolutely critical because there is this impulse you feel that you want to immediately define the problems and compose solutions. And there is a pressure that you feel to do that as well. because people are angry, people are afraid and you as a leader want to offer them something in that. But the problem is that a quick definition sets a trajectory. It becomes an interpretive grid for how we would really define the problem. That’s why we must be really, really careful in doing that. Because as I mentioned in the last session, SGM is a ministry consisting of almost 100 churches, in 22 different nations, and anytime we find ourselves evaluating SGM, we are not just speaking about the Board we are speaking about all these different churches and all their diversity. So as a Board we’ve been in the process of walking through this exercise involving four different questions. The first question is: Are we agreed on what we are seeing? In other words, are we agreed that this is even a problem? And if it is a problem, are we agreed in how we are defining the problem? If the answer to that is yes, then what kind of response does this problem call for? Is it an acknowledgement of changes in our thinking—that we used to think this way, now we think this way? Is it a referendum or… Is it an acknowledgement of error—and maybe there’s an apology that’s necessary? Is there an acknowledgement of sin that this requires—and we need to express some kind of confession? Or is this…it’s a real issue but the interim report is just not constituted, there’s not time, there’s too many other priorities to really deal with it-- so we have to defer it over to a permanent board, which will be appointed? And finally how will we respond and where will we respond to SGM over these things? And so I want to talk about some of the categories that have been forming. CJ mentioned several of them already, I’m going to add a few to those. But before I share our understanding of the problems, I want to mention something that I think touches on all the areas that we are going to talk about. And that is that our most immediate problem was not that there were critics or that we had polity refinements that needed to take place or that even an absence of proper policies that hadn’t been implemented. Our most immediate problem back in July was that there was a shaking of confidence in the leadership of SGM. I’m not saying that there was loss, but it sustained a blow. And what started out as a Brent thing or a CJ thing or a SGM thing, depending on how you were looking at it, it morphed into something else, it morphed into a confidence thing, where we came to see rather immediately that the level of trust was dented. And it kind of greatly complicated our ability to steer. I had a pastor write me and say “I guess the only thing I would suggest is…which I would assume…I guess the only thing I would suggest which I assume or realize and understand is how important the issue of trust is right now. I think we did see it. I think we do see it. You can determine that for yourself. When CJ took the leave of absence and Brent’s documents were put into circulation and the blogosphere light up over all this, I think it was a question that was sewn into the minds of some, not all, some SGM. Perhaps this question—What don’t I know? And the board was in an awkward place because it was like we could adjudicate this situation or we could defend SGM, but we can’t do both. We can’t do both at the same time. And we felt strongly that we had to go forward in providing leadership. AOR was telling us the same thing, that we must provide leadership in this. And so we were jealous to protect the integrity of this process. And to protect the integrity of this process made it like we had to be really careful in public statements on behalf of SGM and on behalf of CJ as well. But we began to realize that among the SGM pastors, rather than being given the benefit of the doubt, we had to win back the benefit of the doubt. So we have been endeavoring to conduct ourselves in a way that would do that over a long period of time, or over a period of time. Recognizing that you had questions that needed to be answered. We are prepared to stand before you, prepared to stand ___. We are prepared to win back confidence where that might be necessary. Now I need to add almost immediately that some pastors experienced no lack of confidence whatsoever and have been very vocal about it to us. And our attempts to actually regain confidence can smack to them as overreaction, as just accommodations to critics. But I think the board realizes that we can’t serve you effectively if we don’t possess your confidence. So even a small problem here is too much of a problem for us. ____ can be a little bit of cancer. Any at all is too much. So we take it seriously, and I hope it serves you to hear what we are seeking in how we are prioritizing some of these things right now. I think there’s three broad categories we are working with. I’m just going to touch on them so that we can discuss it a little bit and then move on. Some of these things CJ has touched on already as I indicated. Three categories would be: polity particulars, pastoral practice, and communication. Those are the broad categories: polity particulars, pastoral practice, and communication. And let me just talk first about our first category: polity particulars. Let me give you some subheadings that we are kind of filing under that. First subheading under polity particulars would be polity clarity. Now again, this is not a new category. This is where we agree with. We touched on it. Part of what has contributed to our need for polity refinements has not only been what the board has observed over the years, but has been the feed back that we have received. And even of late, over the past few months, we have received some pressing questions by e-mail. An example of that would include: how exactly is a board member appointed? To whom is the board accountable? What exactly is the nature of SGM authority into a church? From where does the board derive its authority to act? Who has the decision-making authority for missions? Who has decision making authority about a church-plant? What are the qualifications of a board member? And several others as well. One pastor wrote to me and said, “we are unclear as to what our relationship is with SGM board.” We understand that the board’s functioning with a certain level of authority, but we do not know what that authority is or how the relationship of the local church functions. Yea, ok, we get that. Now the actual steps that we have taken has been to do these presentations and CJ set that in motion. And we have been talking about that with you a bit over the past year and a half. Now tomorrow, Jeff is going to be going ahead and sharing some material out of the partnership agreement. Now let me just say right out of the gate…we’ve got an edition of the partnership agreement which was the membership agreement, now we are calling it the partnership agreement. The goal in presenting it to you tomorrow is not to fast-track it or to avoid the process of feedback which we desire, or to have you affirming what you need to affirm in it. Actually we're thinking rather than doing another presentation on polity which we thought you found helpful in some ways and not helpful in other ways, this will provide you a tool to portray how we are presently thinking about this and it will best facilitate discussion from here, so we thought this format would serve to signal some directions in our thinking and spark the best feedback. Actually as we roll this out and try to do it this way we've got some great feedback from different pastors because it is in this format. So we think that will serve you. And heads up to the ladies, part of the meeting tomorrow is going to be about polity so if that doesn't do anything for you tomorrow, please use your time in any other way you think is best (laughter) we did draw on feedback from you last year on that (laughter) You're sprung from the meeting. Part of what we are learning on this is that we just need to do all we can to connect the dots, to say we use to believe this, now we believe this, in other words to clearly acknowledge exchanges and clarify the bridges we are crossing, you know that CJ led us across in years past. CJ was talking about that earlier in his session, we want to underscore that as a board, we see the need for that as well. We want to do that. The idea is that it is not enough to develop it in an area, we have to define our development clearly for the church and the pastors. OK so that is polity clarity under polity particulars. Relationship With Covenant Life The second one is the relationship with CLC. Through a series of circumstances that the board wants and desires to dissect there have been some pretty extraordinary developments that have occurred. And these developments in some ways, many ways predates the release of Brent's documents and the growing body of disagreements that are emerging over the past 4 months of which you are aware. The issue is the presence of a drift between SGM and CLC. I think some of it is the undetected consequences of certain strategic decisions that SG has made and again this report is just looking at it from the side of SGM. This is the board report to you, we're looking at it through our own responsibility. I think we have as a ministry made certain decisions, strategic decisions, for instance CJ leave the senior pastor role but not retaining an eldership. Some of the primary leaders of SGM haven't formally defined roles in the local church. The caregroup these men are involved in are more SG based than Covenant Life based. The reality of all this is this relationship is so significant over the history of our ministry together. You know, the pastors' college being housed here, the SG offices here, their generous giving for so long. It was just not bearing the kind of fruit that any of us have expected and again I am reporting this from our side. I think if Josh was standing here he would say, well I know he would, we want to look at that and examine that ourselves from our side. And it is not like it is being ignored either. The board's been meeting and talking. We've had 4 different meetings all together. CJ is meeting personally with Josh. The mediation is moving forward as well. And part of the challenge of doing a full diagnostic of this, is that we really feel like we need CJ to be able to meaningfully interact with this since we are evaluating things that are being assessed while he was leading as well as while we are leading. So we want to take this as far as we can, but then involve CJ as the dust clears on the group reconciliation, the group review process. OK so polity particulars, polity clarity, relationship with Covenant Life Congregational Voice and Recourse I think it is clear that not all SG churches are in the same place at seeing the value of the congregations roll and applying it in the same way. I think SG has been broadly tarred with the criticism, with this criticism, but many churches have been doing this for years, some not, but some doing it for years. I think what's understandable is that this would emerge in a movement 30 years. We're a movement that has accented the leadership gift and men have been gifted in leadership and emphasized that and not necessarily given a corresponding attention to the congregation's role in the church. And I think the point I am trying to make here, in the polity presentations, some of the things we've done in the class in the pastors' college, those changes are being made on the level of the local church. But I think we need to improve in taking the principles we have encouraged in churches and applying them as an organization, as a ministry in SG. Let me give you an example. About 6 years ago I felt strongly that Covenant Fellowship Church should change its name and become SG Church. So I pitched it to the elders and none of the guys liked the idea. But I would have thought it was the right thing to do so I just thought I'll be patient and bring it up from time to time and I'll see if God begins to move on the hearts of the elders. So over the next 18 months through a number of different discussions we had the men were beginning to get vision for it, begin to get excited about it. We were united as an eldership. We thought ok, because we're united as an eldership we now have all we need to take this to the congregation. And we want to take it to the congregation, because absent that we wouldn't have what we need to be able to move forward. So we took it to the congregation and pitched the idea. Hey we want to change the name, and we not only want to get you involved but send us your names, your ideas for names for churches. There was a collective groan when we first announced it. Ok, so I thought that is the way the elders were, so I expect the congregation to be the same way. So we spent a 6 month period where we had the opportunity to talk to the congregation and have them pray and get back to us. We were getting no traction whatsoever. And it didn't matter - next month and next month, no traction whatsoever. And so after 6 months we just stood up before the folks and said you know what we are not going to change the name and there was a roar that came from the congregation and there was a standing ovation and I was standing in the front row was my wife Kim and she said (laughter - something about not being successful in persuading my own wife). Involving the congregation - that was the natural thing to do because absent their support - we didn't have the warrent to be able to move forward on that. Here's the point I want to make. As an eldership we've been ruthlessly methodical with those kinds of things. But I voted on Jeff becoming a board member - I raised my hand in the meeting - without even thinking about how that principle that we applied as a local church would be applied on the level of SG, or me advocating that. So that's something we've been talking about now with CJ over the past year. How do we do that. That's folded into the polity material. But I am realizing I believe this deeply and I apply this on the level of a local church. But it hasn't penetrated down for me on how it should be applied in SG. So that's an area we want to grow, that's an area we want to improve. And that is polity particulars. The next category is pastoral practice. A couple of these are reiterations but on behalf of the board I want to echo some of the things that CJ said just so you know that not only is CJ intent on seeing these changes but the board is intent on seeing these changes as well, partnering together in whatever way to do that. So first being eldership disputes and discipline. This is probably the most obvious one, the most regrettable one, the Aor mentioned this in their original proposal They said, "SGM as an organization has contributed to the current disputes by failing to develop and adopt formal processes for handling allegations and charges against its own leadership." And then from the statement that came from Ray Ortlund and Carl Trueman, and Kevin DeYoung it said, "This whole thing has been made worse by the lack of established disciplined processes. So we are tracking this, we realize we need action in the following categories: developing stages and degrees of discipline, being more effective at pastoral care during processes of discipline, developing rehabilitation strategies for men that might be under discipline, outreach to offended ex-pastors in SG. And of course what CJ mentioned as well, developing objective evaluation standards based on measurable criteria and then consistently applying them as we serve in the churches. So this is where we are really excited about what we are going to learn from the group reconciliation process and our own internal assessment as a board. It's unfolding, it's playing out, it takes time. So that's eldership disputes and discipline. Pastoral practice. Here's another one. Stuck on sin. That's just another way of saying what CJ was talking about on the doctrine of sin. Two criticism in particular though that are emerging that we are less familiar with. The first is that we are too confession centered. Again from the first independent panel, they came back saying, "From varying degrees the three of us have wondered at times whether this controversy was made worse by over emphasis on introspection," what CJ was talking about, "and confession." I take that to mean that our fellowship bends towards confession, and maybe finds its ultimate satisfaction in confession, rather than just rejoicing in the grace of God, seeing the Gospel work and talking more about that. So confession centered. The second one is proclaiming forgiveness. And Ted and Ed from AoR wrote in their report, "One disappointment for us was the lack of proclaiming God's grace to one another. It seems apparent in this dispute, when confessions were made whether orally or in writing, we observed no evidence of proclaiming God's forgiveness to the one who confessed." And we've asked Ted to talk about that a little bit more tomorrow because seeing this we want to run toward it. But you know I was convicted when I began hearing this from these men. I remember reading both of CJ's confessions to Brent thinking, and I really felt CJ did a great job, of sharing honestly and thoughtfully regarding his conviction, but at no point did it ever even occur to me to pronounce God's forgiveness over CJ and to remind him of that. And that is just the latest example. I don't think I've done that well with my kids either. So I am becoming Mr.-Proclaiming-Forgiveness-Over-Sins-Confessor(laughter) and I am available for the rest of the conference. I'm taking confessions (laughter) (inaudible). So that's pastoral practice. Those two categories. And the final category is communication. And the first thing I want to talk about under communication is what we are calling non-culpability. And what I mean by that is interpreting of the past, there is a perception of the board, that we interpret the past through non-culpable categories. That there is a way we are perceived that we don't like to accept blame. And I've heard it summarized in a few emails that I received that I brought with me here. One pastor said, "There is a tendency in SGM to put past practices and present change under the rubric of maturing and growing in deficiencies and this lacks clarity to me. It just seems to evade "I am responsible." Now, this is a tricky one. I want to bring you the challenge in a careful manner because I realize if I do this wrong it seems to validate the criticism that people can feel. Here's how we see it so far. The board thinks that we are better at accepting personal blame than we are at organizational blame. That we are better at, or more accustomed to, let's say it that way, acting on personal correction that we are at organizational feedback. So we've been poor at, CJ said that we do evaluation - we do. Ever since I've been on the board there is so much time that we've spent thinking about SG, talking about SG, meetings late at night together, there's kind of informal conversation that's always going on. But we realize that we have been poor at formally evaluating SG and then conveying where there might be weaknesses and the areas we feel we need to grow. Now, we are just not far along in this process to know where that is located: whether is it pride, is it weakness, is it just a lack of well defined feedback loops that we have. And actually defining any culpability where we may have missed stuff, it has got to include CJ. And CJ is very desirous of this. And leading into everything that we are talking about. But we do realize that we have not done well at rigorous, formal organizational evaluation. We regret that. We are sorry for that. We take responsibility for that. And we are committed to improving in that. And get to us where you see we need to be thinking more about that, what you think we need to see. So that's what we see so far in that category. We're not assuming there is not more to see, but that is where we are now. I want to say as well, just to make sure we are thinking about culpability as comprehensively as possible. Culpability has to be based on the data that we see and the conviction that we feel informed by the word of God. And it can't be used merely to satisfy critics. But we want to urge pastors to humbly pursue and humbly examine criticism when it comes in. But we also want to protect pastors as they come under criticism, and understand how best to respond. And I think it is real important that we establish an understanding that people thinking that you did something wrong, or demanding that you did something wrong, or blogging that you did something wrong, doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Biblical culpability comes when bad fruit is examined by two things: by ones conscience and the feedback of other people they are in community with who have an informed perspective. If you eliminate a conscience and act only on feedback, you become critic centered in your leadership. If you key off of only conscience and don't factor in community, factor in other voices, you can become independent, become overly subjective. But it is never humility to simply acknowledge what we don't see. Culpability must be clearly defined, not just randomly assigned. Now we have to remember that we can't accept culp - that is you as a pastor, you know, if you are pastoring in Reading, Pa. you can't accept responsibility for what the pastors do in Denver, or in Vancouver, or over in the UK. If a SGM pastor makes a mistake, it isn't something that everyone can stand accountable for. It's not something that the board can always stand accountable for. We want to look intently at the issues, we as a board want to, we are not looking to microexamine your local church for the mistakes you have made. We want to examine the board where we need to improve. We want to examine the pastors college, what we are teaching there. We want to examine our personal teaching, things that may have contributed to the problems in SG. But it is never humilty to acknowledge things we don't see. But if we don’t see something, I think humility searches the matter and goes after the matter. And so here’s our commitment, here’s what we want to affirm to you. We recognize that we’re always going to receive criticism. We’re always going to listen to criticism and take criticism seriously even if it is not necessarily brought in the right way. We’re always going to engage that before God, and we always want to respond biblically to what we see, as informed by Scripture, as informed by conscience and as informed by counsel. That’s the category under communication. And that’s just the strength of dissent. I think this is something that we are learning in this season, that we have a culture in SGM that’s strong on honor. And oh my am I glad that we are because that’s a biblical thing. But for honor to remain biblical, it must be held in tension with other values. And one other value that I think we want to be understanding more and talking about more is the value of dissent. I touched on this a little bit in the video. But you know I’m not talking about complaining, I’m not talking about independence, I’m not talking about people just spouting your opinions. I’m speaking of the value of thoughtful, brotherly engagement that results in people first understanding one another. In fact, understanding one another well enough that we can objectively represent the positions of all the other persons, even when we disagree. But through that biblical engagement, through those discussions realizing we disagree. And we can still walk together on secondary matters, we can still walk together. And it’s in the strength of that dissent and the recognition that dissent is ok. What it does is it strengthens our critical faculties as a family of churches, and it helps us as an organization avoid “group-think”. John Loftness was talking to Mark Dever one day and Mark Dever just brought a kind of passing critique to SGM which I thought was very insightful. He said, “You know, you have a culture of self-deprecation over there where we critique ourselves, but it doesn’t seem as though you’ve learned how to critique or disagree with each other in a healthy way.” I thought you know we need to look at that more. And so we want to be able to establish an environment where disagreement is welcome and see that permeate all the ranks of SGM to the extent it might not be there in certain places. And to put out this idea that to disagree might appear disloyal. And I think CJ distributed the approachability card a few years back and was encouraging teams to go through it to cultivate that. So, preliminary report. Those are the preliminary categories. From here we are going to continue to examine this as an interim board, even as we wait for the results of the AoR report. What can we learn from the review panels and we hope to provide some kind of written report on the progress that we make on these things as well as the other reports also. So in closing let me just say one thing, and I think CJ echoed this as well, but I think it bears repeating: We have some weaknesses; we have many strengths, and it would not please God, nor would it help pastors to help the people in our churches if we lost sight of the many strengths as we seek to address some of the weaknesses. It would only confuse and hinder if we allow some weaknesses to be portrayed as if there are many weaknesses. We must keep our eye on many strengths while not neglecting some of the weaknesses. So we are going to address the weaknesses even as we fortify and rejoice in God’s grace in and through the many strengths He has birthed and sustained within SGM. May God help us all as we go down that important road. Let’s pray."
"...I have been looking forward to this moment when I could address you. I have spent much time over the last 4 months studying 2 Cor. … Paul is uniquely personal in 2Cor, uniquely heart revealing and heart appealing. He says to the Corinthians “my heart is wide open to you” he expresses this care in this unique way it is the only time he does this…soon after this statement Paul says this to them “make room in your heart for us” You bear no resemblance to the Corinthians…But I think there is relevance in his communication. I want to …my heart and I want to appeal to you to make room in your heart for me..."
http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/11/11/cj-mahaney-at-the-pastors-conference-family-meeting/
The Saturday before the SGM Pastors Conference, an email was sent to all SGM senior pastors."
"...In their most recent family meeting, made public through Josh’s Facebook and on their website, CLC openly shared their negative assessment of SGM leadership. They expressed their belief that there are deep-seated problems in SGM, and that our authority has operated in unaccountable and arbitrary ways. On a few occasions, we have shared our concerns with Josh regarding the sweeping and pejorative assessments he is making of SGM, his broad conclusions about the way SGM functions based on his limited exposure to SGM, and the apparent lack of consideration for the impact of his leadership statements on the broader family of SGM. We wanted to share our perspective with you here because of the public nature of Josh’s comments and our concerns for how SGM is being portrayed..."
http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/11/14/blessed-are-the-peacemakers/
senior pastor and current SGM board member, Mickey Connolly, Led by “Brent, it grieves us to say that you have clearly become divisive and as a result we are issuing you a first warning and appealing to you to repent. We take no pleasure in having to do this but believe it to be our sacred duty as shepherds who are charged with protecting the flock of God entrusted to our care.”
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/11/3/crossway-pastors-threatened-to-excommunicate-me-for-being-di.html
Twining's letter is posted on Detwiler's blog. The letter addresses some of the issues of SGM.
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/11/1/todd-twining-worship-leader-song-writer-pastor.html
Harrington's letter to SGM is posted on Detwiler's blog. It addresses his concerns with SGM.
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/10/31/harrington-and-harvey.html
CLC Pastors address Gary Riccuci's departure, issues of concern with SGM, changes to the church constitution, and other issues were addressed.
"The reality is that the tensions and disagreement we’ve been working through over the past four months have been a strain on our church’s relationship with Sovereign Grace. We have asked questions as a pastoral team about whether we should step away from membership in Sovereign Grace. We’ve questioned whether we should maintain our current level of giving to Sovereign Grace. The actions of the Sovereign Grace board have shaken our confidence in their leadership." - Joshua Harris
http://www.covlife.org/1030_members_mtg/
"Hi Brent, hope you are well today.
The letter I sent on Monday appealed to you to have your pastor contact us, reaffirmed our desire to pursue reconciliation, and urged you to deliver your feedback in the group reconciliation process through a phone conference with AOR. But that letter also informed you that the door for adjudication was closed – so yes, that was our final word on the topic of adjudication. But we can make arrangements today if you desire to take the next step towards reconciliation. We really hope and pray you’ll consider this.
On behalf of the board,
Dave"
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/2011/10/29/get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-cj-no-adjudication-hearing.html
Long time CLC pastor and current SGM Pastor's College pastor Gary Riccuci transfers his membership to Solid Rock Church. Riccuci is Mahnaey's brother in law. In Josh Harris' email to members he explains, "Gary disagrees with our leadership, going back to decisions we made last December, and continuing up until the present."
Ted Kober acknowledges some mistakes and surprises uncovered through the AoR's participation in the SGM crisis.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/An-update-from-Ted-Kober.aspx
CJ Mahaney speaks at Cornerstone Church of Knoxville. In his introduction of Mahaney, Kittrell declares Mahaney fit for ministry.Audio for Kittrell's endorsement and Mahaney's message linked below.
http://www.cornerstonechurchofknoxville.com/ministries/teens-relay/media/sermons/when-someone-doubts/
CJ's third son-in-law resigns as an SGM pastor. He indicates that his resignation is not related to issues relating to CJ.
http://twitter.com/#!/WhitacreSteve
Dave Harvey address some people's questions via a video.
http://vimeo.com/28196677
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Video-Answering-your-questions.aspx
AoR issues a detailed consultation report that identifies some weaknesses within SGM. AoR abstains from declaring CJ fit or unfit for ministry because they feel as though that is the church's responsibility.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/The-consultation-report-from-Ambassadors-of-Reconciliation.aspx
Mahaney posts a personal update and indicates that Mark Dever is pastoring him. No mention of Ken Sande or CLC pastors is made in his post. Mahaney had indicated that Sande would be counseling him in his initial post about his leave. Mahaney also reveals his plans to speak at a pastors conference in the Dominican Republic.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/cj-mahaney/post/A-Personal-Update.aspx
CLC Members receive another email . This email explains that a family meeting date and time have been moved and outlines the agenda for the meeting.
The agenda includes: the creation of the ad hoc committee, caring for victims of sexual abuse who have told their stories on the blogs, Mike and Brian's resignations, C.J Mahaney's attendance at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and improving communication.
The letter reveals that there is conflict between Mahaney and the CLC pastor's over how the CLC pastors have led regarding the charges against Mahaney.
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=2740
CLC members receive an email with 3 letters from the one from the CLC staff, 1 from Mike Bradshaw, and 1 from Brian Chesemore explaining that C.J.'s 2 son-in-laws who are on staff at CLC are resigning. Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that both men and their families are leaving CLC.
The two men explain their reasons for resigning. Both men indicate that they disagree with the manner in which the CLC pastoral team is leading in regards to the charges brought against C.J.
The CLC Pastors site their differences and express that they appealed for the men to stay and that their differing opinions are welcome.
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=2729
A panel comprised of Ray Ortlund, Kevin De Young, and Carl Treuman declare Mahaney fit for ministry. The proclamation is controversial as the independence of the panel is called into question due to their existing relationships with Mahaney.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Findings-from-our-preliminary-panel.aspx
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Listening.aspx
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60208395/Part-7-Is-C-J-Above-Reproach
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/An-honest-take-on-a-difficult-week.aspx
Dave Harvey posts about Josh's resignation
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/A-note-from-Joshua-Harris-and-our-board.aspx
Dave identifies a difference in perspective regarding whether God is disciplining all of SGM or if God is correcting primarily C.J.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Where-we-differ-and-where-we-agree.aspx
Among the resolutions, the board deems C.J. fit for ministry. The board accuses Brent of slander and defamation of character.
Josh does not sign the Resolutions
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/Sovereign-Grace-Board-of-Directors-announcement-regarding-CJ-Mahaney.aspx
Brent responds: http://sgmrefuge.com/2011/07/14/a-reponse-to-dr-duncan/
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/07/a-word-about-cj-mahaney-and-so.php
Update Sources