BrentDetwiler.com

Mush-Minded Invertebrates

2012-02-24T02:04:09Z

When Christians fail to immerse themselves in Scripture they turn into mush-minded invertebrates! Spineless creatures with no cerebral cortex! They devolve into jellyfish that have neither a backbone or grey matter.

That’s because we live in an age of moral hostility not just indifference. There can be no rights and wrongs. The only absolute is tolerance which has come to mean the mindless acceptance of evil. In our day, people crave comfort, approval, and advancement. They not willing to suffer for righteousness or speak up against evil. They are unwilling to disturb the status quo.

This put us on a collision course with Jesus who said, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you.” (Luke 6:26a) And “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” (John 7:7) The Bible is a double-edged sword (Heb 4:12), not a butter knife. It is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3:16)

My opponents often quote a handful of Bible verses but don’t understand their meaning in context. This is not a mean spirited put down but they are not schooled in Scripture or conversant with Systematic Theology. In like fashion, they have little knowledge of church history or Historical Theology. Or, if they do, they fail to connect the dots. As a result they are “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” (Eph 4:14)

Too many people in SGM are vulnerable to this kind of manipulation. Rebuking Dave for extensive lying and deceit is not a lack of gentleness. Calling C.J. to account before the SGM pastors for spiritual abuse and hypocrisy is not slander. Holding the SGM Board accountable for their broken promises and favoritism is not a lack of kindness. Exposing the three panels for manifest partiality is not divisiveness.

Ignorance and cowardice are a lethal combination. Some who say I am bitter, judgmental or harsh mean well but they are misguided. Others are arrogant. In fact, those who condemn the loudest typically claim a superior knowledge of good and a superior understanding of kindness. They fancy themselves champions of love, gentleness and forgiveness. They would never read my documents or access my blog. They are too holy but in reality they are fooled by “the trickery of men” and “craftiness in deceitful scheming” because they have partial or faulty notions of godliness and God’s Word.

In other words, they are nicer than God. But their “holier than Thou” attitude betrays their self-righteousness. In their niceness, they end up commending evil. In their cowardice, they end up commending themselves for being gentle. They are not true to Scripture. They’ve imbibed the spirit of this age. Their super-spirituality is humanistic thinking dressed up in a few Bible verses but it is not in line with the testimony of Scripture.

Men and women throughout Sovereign Grace Ministries must rise up with knowledge and courage. They must be informed, ask hard questions, call men to account, study Scripture, fear God, and address evil. They can’t worry about being liked or accepted. The sins of Sovereign Grace Ministries are not superficial; they are serious and they have not been addressed by the three panels or anyone else in public. Polity recommendations have been made but deceit, hypocrisy, partiality, cover-up, and heavy handedness remain unaddressed. No one is being held accountable. The outside of the cup may be cleaner but not the inside. Things have gotten worse not better.

With this introduction in mind please read the following article. Don’t be silenced or intimidated by mush minded invertebrates or deceived by the damage control of SGM elderships like the one surrounding Dave Harvey.

The Theology of Invective by Michael Bauman[1] (July 5, 2006)

I can see no other way.

We must learn once more to confront nonsense in all its forms and to call things by their real names. We must learn that euphemisms are lies and that patience and gentleness sometimes do no good. Worse still, they often do injury. Count on it, when you treat a fool with nothing but kindness, he remains a fool. If you pat him on the back and stroke his ego, he does what any fool does: he mistakenly concludes that everything is alright with him, rather than realizing that you are simply being kind to ignorance the way you are kind to all other forms of poverty.

We must revive the ancient and honorable art of invective, which is to language what justice is to law -- a means of giving people what they deserve. What some of them deserve is a good kick in the pants. This article, therefore, is dedicated to telling the fools to bend over and grab their ankles. The beatings will now commence.

The New Testament

If, like me, you are a Christian, you often encounter brothers and sisters in the faith who are, to put it plainly, well-intentioned but mush-minded invertebrates. They seem unwilling and unable to grasp with clarity or conviction that some things are wrong and some are wicked. Even if they could grasp that fundamental truth about the world, they lack the courage to call evil and error by their real names. They do not understand that if you fail to call evil evil you are treating it no differently than you treat goodness, which you do not call evil either. The only thing they seem able to oppose publicly is that small collection of Christians who speak forthrightly, Christians who are less afraid of giving offense to the offensive than they are of aiding and abetting wickedness and error with sloppy and unjustifiably lenient language.

This will never do.

We Christians rightly recognize Christ as the very embodiment of love. But Christ was no bleeding heart, and He was no invertebrate. The “gentle Jesus meek and mild” never existed. He is a nineteenth and twentieth century fiction. The historical Jesus was another matter altogether. At various times, and when the situation demanded, the real Jesus publicly denounced sinners as snakes, dogs, foxes, hypocrites, fouled tombs and dirty dishes. He actually referred publicly to one of his chief disciples as Satan. So that his hearers would not miss his point, He sometimes referred to the objects of his most intense ridicule both by name and by position, and often face to face.

No doubt His doing so made the invertebrates around him begin to squirm because they realized how offensive this tactic would be to outsiders. Nevertheless, Jesus persisted. He did so because He knew better than his jellyfish camp followers that alluding to heinous acts, and to those who continue to practice them, in only the most innocuous and clinical language does no one, least of all the offenders themselves, any good. I cannot say it forcefully enough: Christ did not affirm sinners; He affirmed the repentant. Others He often addressed with the most withering invective. God incarnate did not avoid using words and tactics that his listeners found deeply offensive. He well understood that sometimes it is wrong to be nice. I deny that we can improve upon the rhetorical strategy of Him who was Himself the Word, and who spoke the world into existence.

The objection raised by the invertebrates that Jesus spoke aggressively only to self-righteous Pharisees simply misses the point. Any sinner who rejects repentance, or any sinner who holds repentance at bay because he somehow believes it is not for him, is self-righteous.

Paul talked the same way.

Although his invertebrate comrades probably considered it offensive and indelicate of him to do so, Paul did not hesitate to suggest to several churches -- publicly, plainly, and in writing -- that his many detractors ought simply to emasculate themselves (Gal. 5: 12). If you believe that circumcision makes you right with God, he argued, why not go the whole way and really get right with God? If Lorena Bobbitt was reading the Bible on the night that made her famous, this was the verse she read.

Furthermore, in the same letter, (in fact, in the space of but three verses) Paul twice refers to his Galatian readers, the very people he is trying to convince, as fools (Gal. 3: 1, 3). Subsequent events indicate that his shocking words, though clearly offensive, were not ineffective. The Galatians chose to follow Paul rather than the Judaizers, whose tactic was, in Paul’s words, to “win the approval of men,” the very tactic urged upon us so indefatigably by the invertebrates -- though never in gender specific language.

In short, if the religion and practice of the New Testament offend them, the invertebrates need to argue with Jesus and Paul, not me.

Christian Literature

Furthermore, like Christ and his chief apostle, the greatest Christian writers of the Western world also refused to subscribe to the principle that language deeply offensive to one's readers or listeners ought always to be shunned. Neither the greatest writers of Western tradition (such as Dante, Erasmus, Milton, and Swift) nor the best of the present day permit their language to be censored or vetoed by the hyperactive sensitivities of the spineless. Great writers select one word over all other words because that word, and that word only, most fully conveys their meaning, and because that word, and that word only, can best be expected to produce the author’s intended effect. That meaning and that effect are occasionally, and sometimes intentionally, offensive.

The Rules

Verbal precision, not inoffensiveness, is the traditional hallmark of the West’s best writing and the West’s best books, some of which were deeply and intentionally offensive to great numbers of those who first read them. Dante’s Inferno consigns a number of Catholic notables -- including popes -- to Hell. Erasmus’s Praise of Folly excoriates monks and theologians as a shameless and squalid mob. His Julius Excluded locks Pope Julius out of Heaven because he was an adulterous, blood-thirsty, syphilis-ridden, mammon hound. Some of Milton’s political pamphlets and poetry are, among other things, timeless handbooks of insult and invective. Great portions of the works of Jonathan Swift constitute a veritable scatologist’s Bible. These works and many like them would never have been written or published had the modern preoccupation with inoffensiveness been then the controlling consideration. Because that preoccupation now prevails, these books and many like them are being harried out of the literary canon. In other words, the guidelines according to which the invertebrates want us to write are guidelines that not only would have radically recast many of our culture’s great books had they been followed, but would have prevented some of them from ever being written at all. Had modern guidelines been previously in effect, they would have banished many of our civilization’s most important and memorable texts far more effectively and extensively than has the politically correct curriculum at Stanford, Harvard or Oberlin.

Freedom and Virtue

Invertebrates cannot comprehend that despicable conditions inevitably arise in a fallen world. Those despicable conditions sometimes require us to employ the language of shock and of confrontation in our unflagging efforts to push back the frontiers of evil and error. But the spineless do not like it when we do. They want to police the way we speak. They want, literally, to erase words from our language. I have been told by one Christian professor, whom I like and whom I respect, that there was never a time when shock language was right. Such language, I am asked to believe, ought to be eliminated. But though others delete it, I shall not. The fewer words you have at your disposal, the fewer thoughts you are able to think or to articulate with full precision, and the fewer points you are able to make with your desired effect. When the range of words is small, the range of thought is small and the power of speech is diminished. In that sense, word police are thought police. The invertebrates want to put you under arrest.

Resist.

Language, like liberty, is not normally lost all at once. It slips through our hands a little at a time, almost imperceptibly. Don’t let it happen.

Slang words and shock words have their legitimate use. Sometimes the right word is a slang word or a shock word because no other word conveys your meaning as fully or as accurately, and because no other word elicits the response you desire. Sometimes the right language is language that falls beyond the pale of polite discourse –- but not of virtue.

[1] Michael Bauman is Professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, in Hillsdale, Michigan, where he also is Director of Christian Studies. He also is the Scholar in Residence for Summit Semester. He holds a B.A. from Trinity College (1977), an M.A. from McCormick Seminary (1979), and a Ph.D. from Fordham University (1983).

The Willful Blindness of the Securities Exchange Commission to Investigate Bernie Madoff

2012-02-21T13:54:54Z

The parallels are unmistakable. The SGM Board and Three Panels are analogous to the SEC. C.J. is Bernie so to speak. I’m the Greek geek. This most intriguing excerpt from the book, No One Would Listen – A True Financial Thriller by Harry Markopolos reads like the story surrounding Sovereign Grace Ministries since 2000.

TODAY Biography and Memoirs (March 1, 2010)

Harry Markopolos is the whistle-blower who uncovered Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme 10 years before the rest of the world learned of the biggest financial crime in history. While a lot has been written about Madoff’s scam, few actually know the dramatic details of how Markopolos and a small group of sleuths went about investigating the fraud that reached around the globe. In “No One Would Listen,” Markopolos shares his story. An excerpt.

On the morning of December 11, 2008, a New York real estate developer on a JetBlue flight from New York to Los Angeles was watching CNBC on the small seat-back television. A crawl across the bottom of the screen reported that Bernard Madoff, a legendary Wall Street figure and the former chairman of NASDAQ had been arrested for running the largest Ponzi scheme in history. The developer sat silently for several seconds, absorbing that news. No, that couldn’t be right, he thought, but the message streamed across the screen again. Turning to his wife, he said that he knew that she wasn’t going to believe what he was about to tell her, but apparently Bernie Madoff was a crook and the millions of dollars that they had invested with him were lost. He was right — she didn’t believe him. Instead, she waved off the thought. “That’s not possible,” she said, and returned to the magazine she was reading.

The stunned developer stood up and walked to the rear of the plane, where the flight attendants had gathered in the galley. “Excuse me,” he said politely, “but I’m going to be leaving now. So would you please open the door for me? And don’t worry — I won’t need a parachute.”

At about 5:15 that December afternoon, I was at the local dojo in my small New England town watching my five-year-old twin boys trying to master the basic movements of karate. It had been a gloomy day. Rain continued intermittently, and there was a storm in the air. I noticed there were several voice mails on my cell phone. That’s curious, I thought; I hadn’t felt it vibrate. I stepped into the foyer to retrieve the messages. The first one was from a good friend named Dave Henry, who was managing a considerable amount of money as chief investment officer of DKH Investments in Boston. “Harry,” his message said clearly, “Madoff is in federal custody for running a Ponzi scheme. He’s under arrest in New York. Call me.” My heart started racing. The second message was also from a close friend, Andre Mehta, a super-quant who is a managing director of alternative investments at Cambridge Associates, a consultant to pension plans and endowments. I could hear the excitement in Andre’s voice as he said, “You were right. The news is hitting. Madoff’s under arrest. It looks like he was running a huge Ponzi scheme. It’s all over Bloomberg. Call me and I’ll read it to you. Congratulations.”

I was staggered. For several years I’d been living under a death sentence, terrified that my pursuit of Madoff would put my family and me in jeopardy. Billions of dollars were at stake, and apparently some of that money belonged to the Russian mafia and the drug cartels — people who would kill to protect their investments. And I knew all about Peter Scannell, a Boston whistleblower who had been beaten nearly to death with a brick simply for complaining about a million-dollar market-timing scam. So I wouldn’t start my car without first checking under the chassis and in the wheel wells. At night I walked away from shadows and I slept with a loaded gun nearby; and suddenly, instantly and unexpectedly, it was over. Finally, it was over. They’d gotten Madoff. I raised my fist high in the air and screamed to myself, “Yes!” My family was safe. Then I collapsed over a wooden railing. I had to grab hold of it to prevent myself from falling. I could barely breathe. In less time than the snap of my fingers I had gone from being supercharged with energy to being completely drained.

The first thing I wanted to do was return those calls. I needed to know every detail. It was only when I tried to punch in the numbers that I discovered how badly my hand was shaking. I called Dave back and he told me that the media was reporting that Bernie Madoff had confessed to his two sons that his multibillion-dollar investment firm was a complete fraud. There were no investments, he had told them; there never had been. Instead, for more than two decades, he had been running the largest Ponzi scheme in history. His sons had immediately informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and agents had shown up at Madoff’s apartment early that morning and arrested him. They’d taken him out in handcuffs. It looked like many thousands of people had lost billions of dollars.

It was exactly as I had warned the government of the United States approximately $55 billion earlier. And as I stood in the lobby of that dojo, my sense of relief was replaced by a new concern. The piles of documents I had in my possession would destroy reputations, end careers, and perhaps even bring down the entire Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the government’s Wall Street watchdog — unless, of course, the government got to those documents before I could get them published. I grabbed my kids and raced home.

My name is Harry Markopolos. It’s Greek. I’m a Chartered Financial Analyst and Certified Fraud Examiner, which makes me a proud Greek geek. And this, then, is the complete story of how my team failed to stop the greatest financial crime in history, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. For the previous nine years I had been working secretly with three highly motivated men who worked in various positions in the financial industry to bring the Bernie Madoff fraud to the attention of the SEC. We had invested countless hours and risked our lives, and had saved no one — although eventually, after Madoff’s collapse, we would succeed in exposing the SEC as one of this nation’s most incompetent financial regulators.

For example, it was well known that Madoff operated his legitimate broker-dealer business on the 18th and 19th floors of the Lipstick Building on New York’s East Side. But what was not generally known was that his money management company, the fraud, was located on the 17th floor of that building. Months after Madoff’s collapse, the FBI would reveal to my team that based on our 2005 submission providing evidence that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, the SEC finally launched an investigation — but that its crack investigative team during the two-year-long investigation “never even figured out there was a 17th floor.” I had provided all the evidence they needed to close down Madoff — and they couldn’t find an entire floor. Instead they issued three technical deficiency notices of minor violations to Madoff’s broker-dealer arm. Now, that really is setting a pretty low bar for other government agencies to beat. But sadly, all of this nation’s financial regulators — the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision — are at best incompetent and at worst captive to the companies they are supposed to regulate. As I would later testify before Congress, “The SEC roars like a mouse and bites like a flea.” In retrospect, considering how much I have learned since then, and how much my team has learned, that probably was inaccurate: I was being too kind. Tens of thousands of lives have been changed forever because of the SEC’s failure. Countless people who relied on that agency for the promised protection have lost more than can ever be recovered. In some cases people lost everything they owned. And truthfully, the SEC didn’t even need to conduct an extensive investigation. My team had given them everything they needed. With the materials we submitted, it would have taken investigators no more than the time it took to ask Madoff three questions for his fraud to be discovered and his operation to be shut down. The magnitude of this Ponzi scheme is matched only by the willful blindness of the SEC to investigate Madoff.

What Does My Website Have in Common with Pornography? Ask Jared Mellinger!

2012-02-18T20:10:36Z

Here’s another one of my favorite sermons. This one is by Jared Mellinger. He is the senior pastor of Covenant Fellowship Church in Philadelphia. That means Jared is Dave Harvey and Mark Prater’s pastor. He is a favorite son and probable candidate for the permanent SGM Board.

My interaction with his message is in blue lettering. It is titled, “Spiritual Reformation – The Message of Malachi 2:1-9” from November 6, 2011.

Comments Regarding C.J. (Minutes 20:01-23:12)

“Many are the faithful leaders who have been disliked because they refuse to show partiality. And what this means is that the way to know whether or not a leader is being faithful is never to measure popular opinion. That is the thinking that creates leaders who show partiality. Nice people who tell others only that which they want to hear.

This is the lead in to comments about C.J. Point one – C.J.’s lack of popularity is due to his faithfulness to God and Scripture.

“Tell me, what does it prove if a faithful pastor, a man who has faithfully upheld the gospel and the word of God and whose life is an example to many people. What does it prove if that kind of man has many detractors? Only that those who are accused are following the path of our Suffering Savior whose reputation was also dragged through the dirt for our sakes.

I am glad for the ways C.J. has been a faithful pastor, upheld the gospel, and been an example. But that is not why C.J. has so many detractors! C.J. is not being falsely accused of wrong doing because he is too much like Jesus. No, it is due to his deceit, pride, sense of superiority, hypocrisy, and abusive practices. These ways don’t represent the Lord but they have adversely affected lots of “detractors.”

Jared strenuously asserts that C.J.’s many detractors only prove his righteousness. That is a bad piece of reasoning. C.J. is not walking the road of suffering on his way to the cross like our Lord Jesus Christ. No, C.J. is being disciplined by the Lord; he is not suffering for the Lord. The real C.J. is being exposed because he has fought to conceal his sins for so long. His reputation is not being dragged through the mud for righteousness sake.

“And what does it prove if there are a good number of relational breaks in the ministry of a godly and faithful pastor? Only that some have good company in Paul who experienced more relational rifts in the ministry than any of us. 2 Timothy 1:15, “All who are in Asia turned away from me.” Whatever the cost, leaders must, we can’t, we must not be partial in our instruction and in our application of God’s word. This is why God calls leaders to honor him…. No partiality. No people pleasing allowed in our proclamation and application of God’s truth…

What Jared claims is obvious is actually insidious. It defies decades of evidence. Jared’s lack of sound reasoning is an affront to one’s sanity. He must come to grips with all the ways C.J. has been an ungodly and unfaithful pastor. Jared is a false prophet in his pronouncement. Those that have left the movement are not like those who deserted Paul the apostle. There is no comparison. C.J. is not Jesus and he is not Paul the apostle.

Incredulously, these are the only two paradigms Jared uses to explain what is happening in C.J.’s life. Believe me, the “many detractors” and “relational breaks” are not due to C.J.’s superior righteousness. Not even Dave Harvey would agree with that assessment. They are deeds of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21). C.J. has experienced more relational rifts than any leader I know in the movement. Those who worship him get along with him well. Those who speak the truth in love often experience his sinful judgments and chastisement. They learn to remain silent, are fired or repositioned, or leave SGM.

“We must be impartial in our evaluation of other leaders. This impartiality language is what is used in 1 Timothy 5:21 where God requires leaders to render impartial evaluation of other leaders that they are close to. That they are working alongside of. This is why accusing a leader of being incapable of rendering an impartial evaluation of another leader is a terrible thing to do. God’s word demands and requires impartiality from us in this regard. And we need to hold that out for pastors. We need to hold that out for leaders. This practice of impartial evaluation of other leaders that they work closely with because that is what God himself expects and requires. Friends, in every situation, faithful leaders instruct from God’s word and bring God’s word to bear and they do so without partiality."

Once again, Jared has a very high view of himself. He is “impartiality” incarnate. But this could not be further from the truth. Jared leaves out verse 20 in 1 Timothy 5:20-21. [20] As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. [21] In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

This solemn warning by Paul is critical because leaders who are friends are tempted to be partial. Ask everyone who has worked for C.J. But not Jared. He considers himself above such concerns. Indeed, the very concerns addressed in Malachi 2:1-9. Yes we should hold out hope for our leaders to act with integrity but when they have repeatedly betrayed the people of God with cronyism it is time to call them to account as a group. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. That is true of the SGM Board and many other leaders in SGM.

We began appealing to C.J. to repent of sinful patterns in December 2000. He has continued in those same patterns for the last 12 years. His November 9, 2011 message at the Pastors Conference is the latest example. No one has been willing to rebuke C.J. before the church in the presence of all the elders. No one has been willing to hold him to account. No one has been willing to judge righteously. These verses have been flagrantly disobeyed. The latest example being the nine men on the three panels. Their reports are unbelievably biased and partial.

It is this unwillingness to do justice that is so incriminating. Instead of truth telling, there is deceit. Instead of accountability, there is cover up. Instead of transparency, there is concealment. It is a “terrible thing” to charge leaders with being unwilling (not incapable) to render impartial evaluations. It should never be necessary! But that is not the case in Philadelphia or among the pastors in SGM. To date, I don’t know of a single leader in SGM with the requisite courage and integrity to publicly rebuke C.J., Dave and the SGM Board. SGM has no prophets. I hope that changes and it may if churches leave in the months to come. This much is certain. Jared’s favoritism, bias, and partiality are on full display throughout his message.

Comments Regarding Pornography (Minutes 33:33-39:28)

“Faithful leaders promote holiness in the people of God…. So not only do they walk that path of holiness personally, they promote it in others…. The end of verse 6 says “he turned many from iniquity.” Turning others from sin. Keeping them from sin and iniquity. And the negative is there in verse 8, “You have caused many to stumble.” Spiritual leaders must not cause people to stumble. Pastors are protectors of the people. They are appointed by God to ensure that God’s people do not fall into sin. They are there to help turn many from iniquity…

Shepherds of the flock of God which Jesus purchased with his blood have a responsibility to protect people from false Christ’s, false gospels, false teachers, and false prophets. They are also called to model the Christian life, promote holiness and turn people from sin. No problem so far.

Jared is teaching from Malachi 2:1-9. His attitude is arrogant. He prides himself in being like Levi (vs. 4-7) and unlike the priests (vs. 1-3; 8-9) who have defiled the temple and caused people to stumble in sin. He sees no relevance in these verses to himself or Sovereign Grace Ministries. And yet these verses address some of the maladies so evident in the ministry.

Mal 2:1-9 “And now, O priests, this command is for you. [2] If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the Lord of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. [3] Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it. [4] So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the Lord of hosts. [5] My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. [6] True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. [7] For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. [8] But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts, [9] and so I make you despised and abased before all the people, inasmuch as you do not keep my ways but show partiality in your instruction.”

Jared now transitions from the meaning of the text to the application of the text. He is about to jump off a cliff and commands the church to follow him. The text addresses leaders but he sees no application for himself, the Covenant Fellowship pastors, the SGM Board, or C.J. He focuses on the errors of the people while extolling his impartial leadership. If he were true to the text it would convict him, Dave Harvey, and Mark Prater for their biased instruction which keeps many from knowing the truth. Instead the church is the one in need of correction. Though the passage is about priests, Jared finds no application to the CFC pastors.

“I was thinking this week and praying this week as I often do during sermon prep about what this point means for you, the people of Covenant Fellowship, and what does it mean for me with the responsibility that I have along with the other pastors to protect the holiness of the church and there were two areas in particular that came to mind as I was thinking about the application of this text to you that came to mind that I want to share with you here today.

What Jared is about to say is not protection. It is propaganda. This is the standard fair response to critics by SGM. Label them slanderers. Defame them. Ignore them. Discipline them. Ostracize them. It is the same treatment endure by all the prophets.

“One area to turn people from sin is to help them avoid ungodly speech. There are so many Scriptures that speak to the defiling effect of sinful speech. There is a kind of speech that will ruin all who hear it according to 2 Tim 2:14-17. Speech that will, the text says, “lead people into more and more ungodliness and their talk will spread like gangrene”…

Jared takes this text and abuses it. He is no exegete. He yanks it out of context and misapplies it to my writings. They are gangrenous according to him. Full of death and decay. Now he asks a question of the discerning. Watch out, this is a set up. Take note, if you don’t agree with Jared’s application you are a simpleton or worse. You may be guilty of a sin more serious than accessing pornography on the internet.

“Words can do incredible damage. [A] question for the discerning. Which would be more dangerous for a Christian to be exposed to? A website devoted to sexually immoral images or a website devoted to sowing suspicion against leaders and tearing people down. Friends there is more than one way to ruin your soul. Avoid ungodly speech. Avoid speaking of it. Avoid listening to it. For the sake of the holiness of the church.

Which would be more dangerous? Jared implies my website is more dangerous than a pornographic website. Nothing biased, prejudicial, or partial about that remark. Such a conclusion is clear to the discerning! Moreover, reading what I have written will destroy your soul faster than viewing grotesque acts of bestiality or pedophilia!

Contrary to Jared, I don’t sow suspicion in my documents or my writings. I share discernment and evidence that helps people divide between truth and error in an environment of control and manipulation. Evidence that has been covered up in some cases for over a decade. I am not sinfully tearing down people. I am exposing serious patterns of sin among SGM “priests“ like Malachi did. For over a decade I did this in private. Then it finally became necessary to appeal to the SGM pastors. See “Eight Reasons Why Sending Out the Documents Was Not Slander But Necessary.”

Here is my question for the discerning. Was Malachi sowing suspicion and tearing down leaders in his day? Was his speech like gangrene? Was his message worse than pornography? If so, don’t read Malachi. Don’t talk about the book. And don’t listen to others who reference his book.

Hear me. In using this analogy, I am not equating my writings with Scripture but I am making a valid point. The priests in Malachi’s day hated his writings. If they were alive today, they’d fully agree with Jared’s assessment of my website. They’d hate it, despise it, and equate it with pornography.

“Another way that leaders promote [holiness]. This is the second category that came to mind that I want to share with you is in how we protect others from stumbling is to help them avoid divisive people…. In the NT, one of the most important ways local elderships protect the holiness of the people and keep them from sin is to guard them and warn them against those who in the language of Acts 20:30, “rise up and speak twisted things seeking to draw away disciples after them.” Romans 16:17 commands Christians to watch out for those who cause divisions. Be aware of them. Identify them. Watch out for them…. Titus 1:11 describes a divisive type of person and then says “they must be silenced.” I’ve realized there is a time to listen to those who disagree and there is a time to silence them. To privately and publically warn others about them for the sake of protecting the church. Titus 3:10-11 says “that after those who are stirring up division have been warned we must have nothing more to do with them….”

This message was given on Sunday, November 6. Three days later C.J. took the same approach at the SGM Pastors Conference. Read “C.J.’s State of His Heart Message – Reflection on Personal Sins.”

“I think the days ahead are going to require more discernment as it relates to the identification of slander and the influence of slander in our churches. I think the days ahead are going to require courage on the part of pastors and when necessary publicly identify those who are divisive. I think the days ahead are not only going to require [it], I think they are going to require courage.” (C.J. Mahaney, Pastors Conference, November 9, 2011)

Four days after C.J.’s instruction, Mickey Connolly excommunicated me and warned people to have no contact with me or any of my writings. Those who refused to obey him were commanded to leave CrossWay Community Church. Mickey conducted this “marking” by a lying and deceiving use of the Bible and commentaries. Read “Mickey Connolly’s Deceitful Use of Scripture and Commentaries.” The SGM Board has taken no action against him despite several appeals to them. Jared, C.J. and Mickey are on the same page. Group think is widespread. These are talking points for the SGM faithful.

Tragically, current and former pastors in SGM are afraid to speak up. Current and former members likewise. They contact me all the time but ask I not disclose their identities. I understand but it is discouraging. They are so fearful of SGM and their pastors. They see what it will cost them to speak prophetically. By the way, I am glad to visit any SGM church if their pastors want me to answer questions, meet with the church or help in some other way. Don’t fear SGM. Fear the Lord.

Men like Jared are prophets of peace. All is well is SGM. C.J. suffers like Jesus and is betrayed like Paul. Dave Harvey can continuously lie, spin and deceive. Mickey Connolly can intentionally twist the Scripture and use commentaries in a devious fashion without consequences. Yet, men like Malachi and Jeremiah are guilty of “sowing suspicion against leaders and tearing people down” according to Jared’s functional theology. Nevertheless the words of Malachi and Jeremiah apply to Jared and SGM.

Jeremiah 6:13-15 “From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. [14] They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace. [15] Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them,” says the Lord.

We as a church need to think clearly about this category of biblical leadership if we are to be protected from divisive men who might seek to harm Covenant Fellowship at some point in the future.”

Covenant Fellowship Church needs to think clearly about the role of biblical leadership in contrast to the heavy handed leadership of Jared. Like C.J. and Mickey, he believes it is time to silence critics. It is time to discipline critics. It is time to mark critics. In reality, he is deceiving the church by keeping the truth from them. It is part of a massive cover up by the Sovereign Grace elite. So much is going unaddressed and being concealed. Yet , church discipline and excommunication await those who dare to speak up. Marking and shunning for those who hold leaders accountable.

But here is a happy thought to close with from the mouth of Jesus.

Matt 5:11-12 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. [12] Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Be a prophet.

Silencing a Voice for the Gospel

2012-02-15T17:56:44Z

John Loftness is a SGM Board Member and the senior pastor of Solid Rock Church outside of Washington D.C. He is also the leader who introduced C.J. before his “state of my heart” message at the November 2011 Pastors Conference. John said:

“The board also thought it was wise and helpful if CJ could receive pastoral care from someone who knew him well and was familiar with all that was going on in Sovereign Grace. I consider it a great privilege to stand with my friend during this most trying time. We’ve met often, we’ve talked extensively about his soul his leadership and how to evaluate Sovereign Grace. So what you are about to hear reflects the content of many, many conversations over the last four months.”

Tragically, those “many, many conversations” produced no contrition and no confession – only self-justification. Please read “C.J.’s State of His Heart Message – Reflection on Personal Sins.”

What follows is an excerpt of a recent message by John on Philippians 2:19-30. I’ve provided comments in blue ink by playing the part of a fictional church member who interacts with his instructions.

You’ve Got to be Ready to Fight

“If you are a Christian, you’ve got to be ready to fight. Now we got to make sure that the fights we are engaging in are the one’s God wants us to engage in, okay? We are not just running around [to] every doctrinal controversy [and] fighting. There are some sins and conflicts we just overlook. But when the gospel is at stake we’ve got to be willing to take a stand, and even, and I’m not being dramatic here, okay? We’ve got to be willing to take a stand and even die for the defense of the gospel. So are you ready to fight?

Great Pastor John! I’m on your side. Onward Christian soldiers marching unto war! But pastor, what fight do you want me to fight? Oh that’s right, a gospel fight! Okay, count on me but could you be more specific?

“We’ve got to take a stand when a gospel minister comes under attack! Epaphroditus stood with Paul in his defense before a Roman tribunal and in his resistance of, in [Philippians] chapter 3, the circumcision party. So I am standing with you. We’ve got to learn how to do that. We’ve got to stand together.

Do you have a particular gospel minister in mind? I’m thinking your friend, C.J. Don’t worry pastor, its time I learn to stand together with all my brothers and sisters in SGM. So I’ll proudly stand with C.J. like Epaphroditus stood with Paul.

Anyway, C.J. and Paul have a lot in common don’t you think? Both are extraordinarily gifted. And neither did anything wrong. Like Paul said, ‘I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.’” (Acts 25:8) I see your point, that applies to C.J. too. And those Judaizers are devils. May all who undermine C.J.’s ministry “emasculate themselves!” (Gal 5:12)

“One way Satan tries to thwart gospel ministry is through silencing gospel ministers. And so when you go through the life of Paul he was constantly being attacked because Satan knows if we can take this man who God has given these extraordinarily gifts to, if he can take him out of the world, we get a gospel voice out of the world! And so he often attacks ministers. We’ve got to be aware that in our day that pastors and preachers will be discredited and attacked. Sometimes the attacker thinks he is doing it for good reasons, but Satan’s goal in that attack is to silence a voice for the gospel in the world.

I agree, C.J. has been attacked like Paul. And Brent Detwiler, what a fool, he actually believes he is raising legitimate concerns. Idiot! Really, he is a servant of Satan! He only wants to discredit C.J. because he hates C.J. Nothing he says is true. His accusations are vicious slander. I know he is trying to get our worldwide gospel voice, C.J., out of the world.

“So church we got to learn how to fight. Me too. And we’ve got to learn how to stand together.”[1]

Darn right! Like D.C. Mayor Marion Barry once said, “Down with dope! Up with hope! In SGM we say, “Down with Detwiler dope. Up with Mahaney hope!” United we stand. Divided we fall. May God crush Beelzebub under our feet.

Post Script

Dear John…these remain the true motivations of my soul. This quote is taken from the opening paragraph of my second major document on October 8, 2010.

“I’d like to begin by reiterating why I’ve put such great effort in writing you at length in a “Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine” (RRF&D) and, now again, in “A Final Appeal” (AFA). At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, I am genuinely concerned for the glory of God, the propagation of the gospel, the testimony of Sovereign Grace Ministries, the well-being of others, and the good of your soul. I love you. I love Sovereign Grace Ministries. I want the full measure of God’s blessing to rest upon you.”

[1] John Loftness, “Leadership Models - Philippians 2:19-30,” February 5, 2012, minutes 36:44-38:44.

Reinstatement of C.J. Big News

2012-02-13T21:49:15Z

Today I received the latest edition of World Magazine. Here is the write up on C.J.’s reinstatement. I am the sole accuser. No systemic problems.

“The board of directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries reinstated C.J. Mahaney as president of the Maryland based church-planting ministry. Last June, Mahaney began a voluntary leave of absence after former Sovereign Grace leader Brent Detwiler accused him of pride, deceit and hypocrisy. Mahaney said he only plans to resume the role of president temporarily, noting that he would like to return pastoral ministry and the pulpit.” (World Magazine, Feb 25, 2012)

Seven months ago, Ligon Duncan commented on his blog that SGM was taking the high road. Somehow the “outside review” never materialized and SGM ended up on the low road.

“It would have been very easy for the leadership of SGM to ignore and dismiss these charges, because so many of them are so evidently self-serving and spurious accusations. But instead, the leadership of SGM has taken the high road, or rather they have chosen to go the way of self-examination, submission to outside review and correction, self-abasement and repentance. It just makes me love and respect them all the more.” (Ligon Duncan, July 12, 2011)

Al Mohler spoke in similar fashion. Like DeYoung, Ortlund, and Trueman, he found nothing of concern in my documents. We all know what happened to the “independent investigation.” It was killed in its infancy by the SGM Board.

“’I always have had only the highest estimation of C.J. Mahaney as a man and a minister,’ Mohler said in an interview. ‘That continues absolutely unchanged. There is nothing in this current situation which would leave me to have even the slightest pause of confidence in him.’… Mohler said he believes Mahaney and the Sovereign Grace board are being prudent in planning an independent investigation from people outside the denomination to make sure those involved are above reproach…. ‘There is nothing disqualifying in terms of anything that is disclosed in this [the documents]’” (Peter Smith, newspaper reporter, July 12, 2011)

Expect more of this in the days to come. Together for the Gospel is coming up on April 10-12. John MacArthur is no longer counted among the five but expect Dever, Duncan, Mohler (and lesser lights) to heap praise upon C.J. for his humility and the SGM Board for their unbiased investigation.

An Alarming Letter to a Church from Its Pastors

2012-02-07T19:26:37Z

February 6, 2012

Dear Pastors,

I [Brent] recently read your pastoral letter to the church and I was alarmed by its contents in many important respects. I realize you have been misled by the erroneous information supplied you by Dave Harvey and Mark Prater.

I’ve copied my response to some old friends who are still members or others who have a heart and history with the church. This is not an attack on you men. It is an attack on falsity and duplicity. I also plan to post this on my blog. The way you are being deceived is true of many pastors in SGM. You are not unique.

You, the church and the town hold a dear place in my heart. That is why I’ve taken the time to write. I appreciate your desire to serve the church during this time of shaking. I hope this response helps you to do so with greater clarity and truth.

My comments are in blue ink.

Brent

February 3, 2012

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We [the pastors] want you to know how we are trying to process everything that is happening with Sovereign Grace Ministries. As pastors, we have spent hours discussing it. We have submitted questions and concerns to the SGM board and had many conversations with Mark Prater, our regional board member. We have talked with Dave Harvey. All of us have talked with numerous pastors in other SGM churches to see how they are processing things.

Simply put, Dave and Mark (and the entire Board) are not trustworthy. Over the last 7 months, they have lied, broken promises, acted with deceit, distorted the truth, and covered up evidence. These charges are documented on my blog at http://www.brentdetwiler.com/ and in my manuscripts (i.e., RRF&D, AFA, CR, etc.) The evidence is overwhelming.

One thing we want to remember is that our church has benefited immeasurably from our partnership with SGM. SGM has helped shape our understanding of the gospel and the character of God. They have provided us with guidance and support. We have benefited personally from the teaching and counsel of many pastors in SGM. We’ve enjoyed relationships with other churches in SGM, e.g. we’ve done youth camp with our sister churches. We’ve been able to participate in church planting across this country and in other countries in a way we could not have by ourselves.

There have been many evidences of grace in SGM over the past 30 years but the integrity and humility of key SGM leaders has been in decline since the events of 2004.

We believe the men on the SGM board are godly men. We believe the men who were on the panels are godly men. I [the sr. pastor] know they love and fear the Lord and want to do what is right in God’s sight and for those he purchased with his blood. I have never experienced anything but grace and care from CJ Mahaney, Dave Harvey, Mark Prater, Jeff Purswell and Aron Osborne, as well as the man who cares for our church but is not on the board.

The men on the SGM Board and panels have acted with partiality and favoritism. They have not feared the Lord or done what is right in the sight of God. The three panel approach was a hoax. A phony substitute for justice. The panels did not begin to address my allegations as promised. Furthermore, each report was biased (terribly so in two cases) and failed to deal with the evidence despite claims to the contrary. I will show this to be the case in the coming weeks.

We believe they have done their best to approach this whole situation in a godly way. We don’t believe they are trying to ignore sin, cover up sin, or show favoritism. Have they done everything perfectly? No. Have they made mistakes? Yes - they’ve acknowledged they have. They could have communicated much better. Maybe they could have done the panels differently.

They have not done their best and their approach has not been godly. Far from it. For 12 months they promised an outside evaluation of all charges against C.J. and SGM. This solemn promise was broken on August 25, 2011. (See “Promises Were Meant to be Broken,” August 26, 2011)

After this I made the counterproposal below that included Ken Sande but the SGM Board would not even discuss it. They totally ignored it. They were not interested in a just, impartial and thorough hearing of the evidence.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:45 AM
To: SGM Board; Ken Sande; Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas
Cc: CLC Pastors
Subject: Suggested Proposal for Just, Impartial and Thorough Evaluation of C.J. and SGM

I formally request the following proposal be adopted by the SGM Board. If any parts of this proposal are unacceptable, please provide the reasons why and offer alternatives.

Ken Sande serves as facilitator for the evaluation process.
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.
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.
C.J. and I will negotiate the terms and conditions with Ken for this thorough going evaluation of SGM and its agents.
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.

Then on October 24, 2011, they turned down my appeal to reinstate the adjudication hearing proposed by Ambassadors of Reconciliation whereby all charges against C.J. and SGM would be heard by one Board member and four pastors. (See “Get Out of Jail Free Card for C.J. – No Adjudication Hearing,” October 29, 2011). They came up with outrageous excuses for this disingenuous decision.

Finally, the Board revealed the three panel approach on November 28, 2011. It was shot through with sin. Truth and justice got murdered in a back alley. (See “Why the 3 Panel Approach is a Sham,” October 29, 2011; “Sovereign Grace Panels Are of Little Worth In Determining C.J.’s Fitness for Ministry,” November 28, 2011; “We Are Taking Brent Detwiler’s Allegations Seriously,” November 28, 2011; “Try This Twelve Step Program on for Size,” January 26, 2012; “Whitewashed Tombs,” January 28, 2012)

What have they done? CJ Mahaney confessed and acknowledged sins to Brent in 2 separate emails and appealed to Brent to meet with him about it. Brent refused. The SGM board appealed to Brent to meet and he refused. Jesus said:

This paragraph is completely misleading. C.J. promised to address the questions, concerns, and illustrations I raised with him in “Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine” and “A Final Appeal.” He did not do so. He broke his word for the first time and the Board did not hold him accountable. Instead he confessed some of his sins but avoided the majority of my most serious charges.

Then I send him, “Concluding Remarks.” I pointed out how he failed to live up to his promise. In response, he pledged to provide a “more detailed confession.” He did not do so. He broke his word for the second time. His second confession contain nothing new. It was primarily a rebuttal and defense.

Finally C.J. promised “a more thorough response” to my documents on June 24, 2011. He broke his word for a third time. I’m still waiting to receive his response.

I eagerly desired to meet with C.J. from the beginning (see “The Five Resolutions – July 13, 2011,” January 13, 2012) but he refused to address the contents of my documents in violation of his word on three different occasions (see “The Confessions of Saint C.J. (Part 1),” February 4, 2012; “The Confessions of Saint C.J. (Part 2),” February 5, 2012) and he acknowledged no need for any kind of public confession. Those were my two conditions for meeting. Honesty and humility. I refused to meet because C.J. refused to fulfill his word. I wrote the following to the SGM Board.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Jeff Purswell; C.J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ken Sande; Larry Tomczak
Subject: Framing the Issues & Me

Stop the manipulation! Stop trying to frame me! Your machination to tell the world I have refused to talk to anyone, including Ken Sande, President of Peacemakers, is obvious. I have said a million times, I will meet with you [C.J.] and the Board but not until you respond in writing to the issues, questions, and illustrations I have raised. You promised to do this very thing but then broke your word to me. Time after time, you and the Board have refused to be open and honest. I am not talking with anyone unless they first communicate with me in writing. I have been on the receiving end of deceitful scheming far too many times…

Not meeting with C.J. had nothing to do with him not confessing things in writing to my satisfaction. It was about not responding to my documents. I asked him to refute me, correct me, defend himself, etc. I just wanted him to be open, honest and accountable. He promised but repeatedly broke his word. I was not going into a meeting without knowing his thoughts which included his disagreements. I was open, honest and accountable in print. He refused to be the same.

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24)

It seems like CJ tried to do this. Did he do it right away? Did he do it perfectly? Maybe not. But I haven’t always gone to someone immediately when I knew they had something against me. CJ also confessed sins in a public meeting at Covenant Life Church. He also went to Larry Tomczak, his wife and child and confessed sin and asked forgiveness. Have I always seen my own sin clearly and confessed it as thoroughly as I should have? I’ve attempted to but I’m sure I could always do a much better job.

I formally began raising issues of sin against me and others with C.J. starting in December 2000 (see RRF&D, pp. 5-6). It took a decade before he left his altar and asked my forgiveness for anything. Why? Because he disagreed with me (and others) on every account. All those years he insisted I sinned against him but he did not sin against me. For ten years, I suffered under his sinful reactions and sinful judgments. Finally, nine months after I wrote RRF&D in March 2010, and two months after I wrote AFA in October 2010, he left his altar and wrote a limited confession in December 2010.

C.J. blackmailed the Tomczak’s and ruined Larry’s reputation before Covenant Life Church in 1997. It took five years before he asked the child’s forgiveness. It took 13 years before he asked Larry and Doris’ forgiveness. Why? As in my case, he insisted Larry sinned against him and not vice versa. In C.J.’s mind there was no need to ask forgiveness. Let’s be clear, C.J. made no effort to leave his gift at the altar. Reconciliation in both cases was only due to Larry’s persistence. Otherwise, there is no indication C.J. would ever have asked forgiveness of anyone. It took five years of pressing by Larry before C.J. admitted he sinned against their child. It took 13 years of pressing by Larry before C.J. admitted he sinned against Larry and Doris. Finally, C.J.’s confession to Covenant Life Church was woefully inadequate. It didn’t begin to address the depth or extent of his sins.

One principle we should try to keep in mind is: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

I’m trying to keep this in mind as I try to sort through all this - How would I want to be treated if I were in CJ’s place? How would I want to be treated if I were on the board?

If would be nice if you added, “How would I want to be treated if I were Brent?” or a host of former pastors. C.J. has been treated with kindness and mercy like no one else in the history of Sovereign Grace Ministries. In fact, this “kindness and mercy” has often crossed over into “partiality and favoritism.” Many men wish to God they were treated for one day the way C.J. has been treated these last 7 years. There has been incredible concern and care for the “victimizer” (and his agents) but not his “victims.“

Should CJ be temporarily restored as president of SGM? We understand the recommendations of the panels and the thinking of the Board. We can also see the concerns and questions of those who disagree. We have questions, but do not want to make a hasty, premature decision. We have a history here and many relationships across SGM. For those who are concerned, SGM has no authority over our church. They exist to help and encourage us but cannot come in and remove leaders or dictate policies.

You can’t straddle the fence forever. You may await the AOR report but it will not address the matter of C.J.’s qualifications. It will be of no help in that regard. Here’s what is obvious. The SGM Board has rejected the teaching of God’s Word. C.J. should not be the temporary President of SGM and he should not be making plans to start a church.

Some have asked about our giving to SGM. Although this is not related directly to the SGM issues, we are not currently financially giving to SGM for 2012. The primary reason is because of adjusting to the expenses of the new building and an increased overall operating budget. We made this decision with the counsel of the Financial Team.

I resigned from the SGM Board in 2007 after 25 years of service. Throughout my tenure each of us were committed to sharing our salaries and benefits with anyone who asked. In July 2011, I asked C.J. what his salary was. He promised to answer but broke his word and the SGM Board quickly changed their policy. This kind of financial information is now kept from the public. For this reason, and many others, no one should give to SGM. (See “The Need for an Independent Board of Directors & Financial Accountability,” August 8, 2011)

As we mentioned last week, Sovereign Grace Church is our number 1 priority. We want to do what will most honor the Lord and be right and best for you.

That will involve pulling out of SGM and becoming part of something new that is characterized by humility, integrity and godly accountability.

We desire to continue to partner with SGM. Our partnership doesn’t mean we would blindly follow anyone or not make our own decisions. We want to see what the outcome of the Ambassadors of Reconciliation Group Reconciliation process is. SGM has begun to work on changing its structures and putting new policies in place. Mark Prater told me that the interim board wants to wrap up its work as soon as it can and get a new permanent board in place. They haven’t figured out exactly how to do that, but that’s their goal.

I don’t think the AOR report with deal with ethics violations by C.J., Dave, the SGM Board or others. I doubt they will cite specific infractions, call anyone to account or ask for the investigation of particular individuals. In all probability their recommendations with deal with polity and general guidelines to avoid future scandals.

We believe that by God’s grace and mercy, SGM will be a lot stronger in the future, with a new board and president, as it irons out its structures and policies that have been deficient.

SGM can’t move forward with God’s blessing without dealing with the past. Better structures and policies are helpful but not the answer. A new President and Board must start over in dealing with C.J., Dave, Bob Kauflin, Steve Shank, Mickey Connolly, Gene Emerson, et al. Otherwise, they are continuing down the same road of compromise and corruption. They will need to dig up the past, not bury it. If they are unwilling, they should not be followed into the future.

This may take a few months, so we want to be patient before making any major directional changes for our church, and we appeal to you to be patient as well. Please continue to give us your thoughts, ask any questions you want to, express any disagreements, and help us see this from every angle. Also, please continue to pray!

The AOR report will not address issues of personal sin, character or ethics. It may not even reference patterns of sin in SGM (e.g., lying, deceit, favoritism, abuse of authority, etc.) It will be bland in comparison to people’s hopes and expectations.

...The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit. (James 5:16-18)

We know that God will respond mightily and powerfully to our prayers.

Here’s a great promise from Scripture:

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. (Psalm 32:8)

We believe the Lord will counsel us with his eye upon us. He will teach us in the way we should go. He cares more about this issue than we do. James tells us: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” (James 1:5) God promises to give us wisdom when we ask him for it. So let’s keep asking for wisdom.

James continues, “[6] But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. [7] For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; [8] he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”

We may ask for wisdom but that doesn’t guarantee we will receive it. Or we may receive wisdom but then refuse to act upon it. I believe Scripture speaks unambiguously to the present crisis in SGM and provides clear guidance. The problem is not a lack of wisdom, it is a lack of courage. Too many leaders are double minded when they should be single minded in knowing precisely what to do. For example, do real hearings that are genuinely impartial and thorough and insist that the SGM Board step down.

This situation is not unclear to God. He’s not confused or perplexed. He has ordained it and is controlling, directing and working it for our good.

Thanks again for your patience and perseverance!

The Pastors

The Confessions of Saint C.J. (Part 2)

2012-02-05T12:49:48Z

Confession 7 (Well Almost)

Just before I sent out my documents to the SGM pastors last July, C.J. came close to confessing some of his most serious sins to me. He jumped ship at the last moment. It was his almost confession.

Here’s the story. It’s important.

C.J.’s December 16, 2010 confession (#3 above) failed to address my most serious charges in RRF&D and AFA. I wrote C.J. about this purposeful omission.

January 21, 2011

C.J.,

Before we meet, I must understand far more clearly how you view my assessment. For instance, in what you’ve written [in your Dec 16, 2010 confession] you acknowledge no lack of integrity, no deceit or hypocrisy, no concealment or cover-up, no damage control, spin or manipulation, no partiality or favoritism, no abuse of authority or lording, no need for a confession to the movement or the leaders, no wrong doing by others, no realization of how your sinful judgments negatively influenced many others, etc.

Brent

On March 11, 2011, C.J. sent me a second confession (#4 above). Once again he ignored my most serious charges. I wrote him a second time.

June 8, 2011

C.J.,

In the paragraph above I mentioned 15 areas of concern for you and the movement. You denied [in your March 11, 2011 confession] any lack of integrity, deceit, or hypocrisy (with one exception) in your own life; expressed no need for a public confession, and failed to see how your sinful judgments negatively influenced anyone). You left the remaining 10 areas of concern (i.e., concealment, cover-up, damage control, spin, manipulation, partiality, favoritism, abuse of authority, lording, wrong-doing by others) entirely unaddressed.

I specifically and intentionally asked to address these 15 critical issues. Instead you ignored ten of them [in your March 11, 2011 confession]. You don’t even reference them. So much for the greater detail you promised to supply. In addition, you left unaddressed considerable portions of material inRRF&D and AFA. I’ve gone back to these documents and added [409] endnotes to indicate the many critical points and illustrations you passed over without comment or insufficient comment. The moral of the story – you skipped over large amounts of material and added almost nothing as it pertained to areas or occasions of sin.

Brent

Two weeks later I followed up with C.J. a third time.

June 23, 2011

Dear C.J.,

I ask the following questions with grace and tenderness of heart. Have you had a change of heart and mind? If so, are you willing to provide me a complete and thorough response to RRF&D, AFA, and CR in preparation for a meeting between us? And are you willing to walk in the light by publicly confessing the sins I’ve addressed?

I mean you no harm. These are redemptive requests designed to serve you and the movement you lead. Please provide me a response in the next day or two.

With sincere affection,

Brent

After 15 months of appeals and 521 pages of evidence, I finally received this encouraging response from C.J. It contained two crucial promises. First, C.J. committed to making a public confession to all theSGM pastors and anticipated making a wider confession to the general public. Second, he planned to “give particular attention to the 15 areas of concern/sin.” He wanted me to know “I take your charges seriously and I want to do all I can to convince you of this.” This was great news.

From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:04 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Cc: Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Tommy Hill; Tony Reinke; Ken Sande; John Loftness; BobKauflin; Gary Ricucci; Carolyn Mahaney; Chad Mahaney
Subject: FW: Change of Heart?

Brent,

Thank you for your affection and care. I trust you know I feel the same toward you.

In answer to your question, yes, I am changing my mind in regard to your request to give a more thorough response to your documents. At the same time, I am committed to making a public confession, as detailed below.

The men around have challenged me to go back again and seek to dig deeper into the issues you’ve brought… Brent, I know my sin has deeply hurt you and others and I want to more clearly acknowledge this wherever I can. I want to benefit from all God has for me in your documents…. Please pray that God would give me the gift of sight as I continue to examine your documents and my heart.

So here is how I plan to proceed. In attempting to give a more thorough response to the three documents, my plan was to give particular attention to the 15 areas of concern/sin you think I have yet to perceive or acknowledge. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this approach…. As a result of these steps, my plan is to provide you with my response to your documents that specifically addresses your primary areas of concern.

I also plan to make a public confession to the Sovereign Grace pastors. My hope is to do this at our November conference although it’s possible this could take place at an earlier date. I want my confession to be as fully informed as possible, so I’d like to get the benefit of the independent review process before making it. It’s also my preference to make this confession in person with the pastors rather than by e-mail. I want these men to hear my confession and hopefully perceive my conviction/sorrow as well as ask their forgiveness…. And once God has given me a clear understanding of my sin and its impact on others, I anticipate that it will be beneficial for me to make a wider confession to the general public about God’s correction and refinement in my life.

So it is my determined intention to continue to pursue a rigorous evaluation of my heart, involving those inside Sovereign Grace as well as those outside Sovereign Grace who do not have history with me. I take your charges seriously and I want to do all I can to convince you of this. Most importantly I want to please and glorify God by walking humbly before him by his grace. Thanks for helping me to do this.

In His grace,

C.J.

The next day, C.J. sent me a follow up note. He was perceiving “a couple of areas of sin” presumably related to the tens areas of sin he ignored (i.e., concealment, cover-up, damage control, spin, manipulation, partiality, favoritism, abuse of authority, lording, wrong-doing by others).

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 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 week went by with no word so I followed up with C.J.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 8:29 PM
To: C.J. Mahaney
Subject: Answersl

When will I receive your detailed response to me? I look forward to hearing about your additional illumination.

Thanks

Brent

At this point, things took a horrible turn for the worse. The SGM Board demanded that C.J. cut off allinteraction with me. They also delayed an “updated confession” until after his evaluation by the independent panel which never took place. C.J. claims he made this delay “clear in a previous e mail” but that is untrue. He never wrote me about a postponed response.

The Board hid C.J. under their skirt. There would be no response to the ten areas of sin he ignored, no response to the many illustrations he left unaddressed, no independent evaluation and no public confession to the SGM pastors or general public. All of these promises were broken. All part of a grand cover up. C.J. contended he was “not reluctant to respond to [my] questions” but that was a meaningless boast. He has never responded to the overwhelming majority of charges I’vedocumented. Almost all have been brushed under the rug in C.J.’s office.

But even worse, the SGM Board decided to go on the attack. Two weeks later, they trumped up false charges against me and repeatedly lied in their July 13, 2011 blog post. (see “The Five Resolutions” from January 13, 2012 at BrentDetwiler.com). This pattern of deception has continued over the last six months including their approach to the three panel “evaluation” recently concluded. These panels were rigged from the beginning with a bogus selection process including board members, pathetic questions, and rules that favored C.J. The actual reports covered up far more than they revealed. I willprove this in the days to come.

From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: FW: Answers - Deadline 12 Noon

…I am not reluctant to respond to your questions. But I am submitted to the SGM Board and now this independent evaluation panel, and the Board wants me to cease interacting with you directly and devote my energy instead to cooperating with the independent review…

Am I qualified to lead SGM? That is for others to determine, not me.

And as for the updated confession I think I’ve made clear in a previous e mail that you will get that after my evaluation by the independent panel. And I have also asked Mark Dever and David Powlison to personally counsel me after reading your documents. So I am enlisting as much help as possible in order to discern my sin and its effects on others.

C.J.’s High View of Himself

C.J.’s confessions above make clear his sins are egregious, long term, pervasive, and adverse. They have harmed many leaders and people over the last 30 years. I could not disagree more with the conclusion of Kevin DeYoung, Ray Ortlund Jr., and Carl Trueman.

“We do not believe C.J. Mahaney’s confessed sins have disqualified him from Christian ministry…. We do not see a pattern of egregious sins which would dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ should C.J.Mahaney continue to minister…. To reiterate: nothing to which he has confessed would appear to us to require his stepping aside…we affirm that C.J. Mahaney has not disqualified himself from ministry.” (DeYoung, Ortlund, Trueman, July 27, 2011)

C.J. has repeatedly asked for “the gift of sight” but his vision has only deteriorated. He is almost blind now. His most recent “confession” at the SGM Pastors Conference on November 9, 2011 reveals his true condition of heart.

“It does appear that some assumed or concluded that I agree with Brent’s narrative, his accusations and interpretations and judgments of my motives and this simply wouldn’t be true and it never has been true. Brent’s documents construct a narrative that I disagree with…. I don’t believe my sins are uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying. I have never believed that since the day the first document [RRF&D] arrived.

“So I was grateful for the findings and rulings of the first panel [DeYoung, Ortlund, Trueman] in this regard and their agreement with that assessment… One member of the first panel said this to me - quote: ‘I respect CJ how seriously you take the respectable sins but you left the impression that you did something scandalous. But nothing you confessed reached the level of public scandal requiring a public confession. Your sins are routine and common’.… Another member of the panel said this: ‘I think you made a genuine effort to be humble. You overstate the level of offense and you confuse those outside of Sovereign Grace.’ I happen to think that is an accurate critique. I didn’t just confuse those outside SG, I confused those inside SG as well. I over stated [my sin]…

“I think it might also be helpful to say something about the confession statement to Covenant Life [#6 above] and to you [SGM pastors] via a letter [#5 above]…. My communication in some ways create speculation that left me vulnerable to interpretation, that left me vulnerable to exploitation. I left the wrong impression of my sin. In that confession [#5] I was trying to convey that I take my sins seriously but I regret that my language conveyed that my sins were unusually serious. I do not think that I have never thought that. I didn’t distinguish my sins from Brent’s accusations, judgments, narrative and I should have.”

C.J. Is Disqualified If Scripture Is Your Guide

Here’s the question. Is C.J. above reproach and blameless judged by his own confessions? If you use the Bible the answer is evident! No. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And this doesn’t take into account the ton of evidence that has been buried in the SGM landfill.

The three outside ministers said, “We do not see a pattern of egregious sins which would dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ should C.J. Mahaney continue to minister.” Egregious means “conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible.” I think C.J.’s sins are egregious for the President of a medium sized evangelical organization but that is not the point.

The Bible doesn’t teach that a pastor is disqualified only if there are patterns of outstanding and extraordinary sin. No the Bible says a pastor must be above reproach and blameless. The meaning of those words are filled out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

Instead the SGM Board has adopted the DeYoung, Ortlund, Trueman standard for ministry – no egregious habits of sin. That’s why C.J. is back as President. But this is hocus pocus. The SGM Board has magically set aside the Bible and replaced it with humanistic standards.

This is an affront to every man removed from ministry in SGM. With one exception, C.J.’s sins are greater than all his predecessors who have been disciplined in the movement. If the SGM Board is using this standard then every pastor removed from ministry must be restored to ministry at the expenses of Sovereign Grace Ministries. A class action lawsuit could rightfully be filed against SGM for violations of civil law.

A friend recently wrote me to ask about the meaning of “above reproach” and how SGM was applying it in the case of C.J. and other leaders like Mickey Connolly. I gave him the biblical definition and the dumb down definition of SGM.

From: [Friend]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:26 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: [Above Reproach]

Brent,

Part of this whole thing, especially since the 3-panel report came out, is the concept of above reproach. 1 Timothy 3:2 says that overseers are to be above reproach. I am not versed in the depths of this verse, but you are versed in the depths of it and how it is interpreted in SGM. At what point does this verse play into evaluating a leader? What exactly does “above reproach” mean these days? I know you are busy but I would appreciate your thoughts.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:23 AM
To: [Friend]
Subject: [RE: Above Reproach]

“Above reproach” in SGM nowadays means you haven’t murdered anyone, stolen tons of church money, or committed adultery multiple times. Otherwise, you’re allowed to do most anything else. You can also see the attached [“Part 7: Is C.J. Above Reproach” at BrentDetwiler.com under Files]. Here are some [biblical] definitions.

1 Tim 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach. The word (Gr., anepileptos) literally means “not apprehended, that cannot be laid hold of; hence that cannot be reprehended, not open to censure, irreproachable,” “blameless,” “irreprehensible, unassailable.” It bespeaks of irreproachable conduct and it also means “not only of good report but deservedly so!”

Titus 1:5-6 …appoint elders in every city as I directed you, [6] namely, if any man is above reproach. The word (Gr. anengkletos) literally means “that cannot be called to account, unreprovable, unaccused, blameless.”

What I told C.J. seven months ago is true today. Even more so given the increase of sin. His greatest sin of recent is his denial of disqualifying sin at the Pastors Conference. Here is the problem. The SGMBoard and many SGM pastors are not submitted to the authority of Scripture in the case of C.J. He continues to be treated with partiality and shown favoritism. The three panel approach confirms this obvious conclusion.

The Board has overturned the clear verdict of Scripture with trickery and deceit. No outside evaluation of C.J. and SGM as promised. No inside adjudication of my charges against C.J. and SGM as promised. Just three kangaroo courts incapable of doing justice. They have replace truth with falsity and justice with injustice.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:09 PM
To: C.J. Mahaney
Subject: Resignation as President of SGM

…I say the following with no joy in my heart, satisfaction in my soul, or retribution in my mind. It is time for your resignation as President of Sovereign Grace Ministries. This should be obvious to you by now. No one should have to ask for your resignation. There is no need for any further assessment. It is clear – you are not above reproach. You should not be overseeing Sovereign Grace Ministries.

In your case, there has been no conspiracy, betrayal, rush to judgment, piling on or false witnesses. Everyone has been merciful, patient, long suffering, and forgiving. You have been afforded a degree of kindnesses no one in the ministry has ever been extended. So if the Bible has a normative and causative authority in your life in the matter of qualifications for leadership, you will resign immediately

The Confessions of Saint C.J. (Part 1)

2012-02-04T22:32:05Z

The Confessions of Saint Augustine is an autobiography of great import. Augustine lived in the Fourth Century and has been called the father of evangelical theology. Martin Luther and John Calvin were indebted to this early church father from Hippo in North Africa. His writings contributed to the Reformation and a theology of grace in the Sixteenth Century. The “Confessions” are a must read for students of church history.

So too C.J.’s confessions in this current climate of revisionist history!

Last week Dave Harvey posted the following regarding C.J.’s six confessions and one “almost” confession.

“We commissioned three outside ministers [DeYoung, Ortlund, Trueman] to review Brent’s documents in light of C.J.’s confessions and render their judgment on his fitness to serve in ministry. In light of their evaluation, they found him to be completely fit to serve…. Months ago [July], an outside panel representing the perspectives of three denominations reviewed the sins C.J. confessed—which includes the most serious allegation against him—and advised that they were not grounds for removal from ministry.”

These “three outside ministers” posted their evaluation of C.J.’s confessions last July.

“Our responsibility, as we understand it, is to offer non-binding advice on the narrow question as to whether C.J. Mahaney is presently fit for ministry based on those sins to which he has already confessed. Our remarks should be seen in that light… Having said all that, here is our conclusion:We do not believe C.J. Mahaney’s confessed sins have disqualified him from Christian ministry. Or to put it positively, from all that we have seen, heard, and read, we believe C.J. Mahaney is, at this moment in time and based on those sins which he has acknowledged, still fit to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a pastor to others…. None of the sins to which he has confessed constitutes public scandal; nor does he confess anything that is not the everyday experience of a Christian in a fallen world…. We do not see a pattern of egregious sins which would dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ should C.J. Mahaney continue to minister. We believe his Christian walk, though flawed (as is the case with all Christians), is still a model for others to follow…. To reiterate: nothing to which he has confessed would appear to us to require his stepping aside…we affirm that C.J.Mahaney has not disqualified himself from ministry.” (Kevin DeYoung, Ray Ortlund Jr., and CarlTrueman, July 27, 2011)

The moral of the story. No one has taken C.J.’s confessions seriously! If they did he would be out of ministry. Confessions 1 and 2 never appeared. Numbers 2 and 3 were not taken seriously. Confessions 4 and 5 were expunged from the SGM website. Number 7 almost appeared but then disappeared forever.

I have excerpted some of these confessions for brevity but cite nothing out of context. Keep in mind, confession and repentance are not the same thing. C.J. acknowledges many serious sins but there is little or no evidence he has turned from those sins.

Confession 1 – August 10, 2004

People have not seen these first two confessions. I’ve held back on releasing them until now. This evidence shows what we were dealing with in 2004 and what I have been dealing with ever since. Nothing has changed. Just like the “three outside ministers,” Dave says C.J. is “completely fit to serve” in spite of the sins revealed in his confessions.

This confession by C.J. was sent to us before the August 20, 2004 meeting with the Covenant Life Church pastors (see RRF&D, pp. 16-28). It was provided for our “critique and evaluation” which never happened because C.J. prevented us from discussing it with him or the CLC pastors. He repeatedly refused to engage us in discussion despite many appeals and promises he would do so. He never asked our forgiveness for any of the illustrations we shared or their adverse effect upon us.

This confession serves as the most enlightening self portrait of his besetting sins. Notice how these are deeply ingrained patterns of sin that occurred in relation to anyone speaking into C.J.’s life and are “far from exhaustive.” Yet, C.J., the SGM Board, and the three man panel, claim none of these sins are serious including “the pronounced and pervasive presence of pride in my heart” and blatant hypocrisy.

C.J. emphatically stated at the Pastors Conference last November that “I don’t believe my sins are uncommon or scandalous or disqualifying.” In context, that included these first two confessions from 2004.

From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:04 AM
To: Brent Detwiler; Dave Harvey; Steve Shank; Pat Ennis; Joshua Harris; Grant Layman; KennethMaresco; Bob Kauflin
Subject: Confidential

My friends,

Below is my confession in this form for your critique and evaluation.

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” Hebrews 12:5-6

I am presently experiencing the discipline and chastisement of God as yet another expression of His love for me. How merciful of God to reveal my sin and how kind of you men to be a means of discipline through your correction (Ps 141:5). Though painful this discipline is a loud statement of His love and yours. I trust you feel my gratefulness for your friendship.

I am convinced this discipline was necessary because of the pronounced and pervasive presence of pride in my heart. And I am convinced that my perception of this pride is limited and that we are only beginning the process of discerning and weakening pride in my life. But I am also convinced that with the help of the Holy Spirit, as well as my wife and friends, that I will gradually perceive more of this pride and hopefully grow in humility.

In recent history this arrogance has been evident in the following ways:

On numerous occasions I have not been easy to entreat or correct.
I have arrogantly assumed the superiority of my discernment when corrected.
I can be quick to disagree when I am being corrected.
I have disagreed with those correcting me before I have sufficiently understood the nature and content of their correction.
Too often I have failed to humbly ask questions and draw out the one correcting me.
I have not consistently made the individual correcting me comfortable by inviting and encouraging their correction.
I have failed to discern the effect of my disagreement upon the one correcting me.
I can be quick to find fault with the one correcting me thus revealing my self- righteousness.
I have not sufficiently perceived the effect of my words and decisions upon individuals.
There has been a pattern of sinful judgment toward those who are correcting me.
I have not communicated the correction of the team to the CLC men, arrogantly assuming the inaccuracy of their correction and wrongly assuming the agreement of the CLC team with my perspective.

The above list is far from exhaustive. It is merely representative and there are many expressions of pride that can be listed under each one and sadly no lack of illustrations for each one. These numerous expressions of pride are offensive to God and particularly serious because of my position. In my position and because of my position I should be an example of humility and very easy to correct. To my shame there have been many occasions in recent history where my arrogance has been pronouncedand I have not been easy to entreat. That is unacceptable for a Christian and even more for a leader. So there it is as I presently perceive my sins. This is just a beginning and I am sure it is inadequate…

And I would like to express my deep gratefulness to Brent, Dave and Steve for their kindness and patience. I think these sins have been most evident to you and sadly manifested the most toward you men. I am so deeply grieved by this. And yet your response to my many sins has been forbearance and forgiveness. I am unworthy of your friendship and you certainly deserve better leadership than I have provided.

And finally thanks to Josh, Kenneth and Bob. Your example of humility is the most compelling I have observed up close and personal. You men are exemplary in the way you consistently and precisely confess your sin, aggressively pursue correction, welcome correction and respond to correction. I should have followed your example but to my shame I have only admired your example. How kind of the Lord to providentially place me with you men (and now Grant and Pat). In whatever remaining years I have left to serve I hope to resemble your example to some small degree. I have no excuse if I do not…

Confession 2 – October 13, 2004

C.J. is more reserved in this confession when he uses the words “at times” to qualify each of his statements. The love of reputation was a major category I brought to C.J. before, during and after the August 20, 2004 meeting. In his October confession, he was finally beginning to acknowledge the problem in small increments.

C.J. never discussed this confession with us either. He was obsessed with his reputation then just like he is now. That is why he becomes so angry when he feels judged, sinned against or misrepresented by people like Larry Tomczak. In Larry’s case he resorted to public condemnations and private blackmail. Furthermore, C.J. can’t help but put himself in a favorable light because he thinks so highly of himself. Love of reputation and self-preservation are the two major idols I address in my documents. The lying, deceit, spin, and cover up are owing to these functional gods.

From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:30 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Dave Harvey; Steve Shank; Pat Ennis; Joshua Harris; Grant Layman; KennethMaresco; Bob Kauflin
Subject: Confidential

My friends,

Here are the latest sins I have been graciously convicted of by God and with your help:

I have at times been sinfully concerned about my reputation revealing the presence of pride.
I have at times put myself forward in a favorable light regarding accountability, more favorable than the facts support revealing the presence of more pride.
I have at times been easily condemned and discouraged revealing a love of reputation.
I have at times thought highly of myself and compared myself favorably to others yet another manifestation of pride.

Thanks so much for your care, correction and patience.

Confession 3 – December 16, 2010

I sent C.J. “Response Regarding Friendship and Doctrine” on March 17, 2010. It was 128 pages. I sent him “A Final Appeal” on October 8, 2010. It was 168 pages. C.J. finally responded with this confession.

He acknowledges how little of his sin he understood back in 2004 and how little he still perceives in 2010. He says he is “only beginning to perceive the depth and the pervasiveness of my sin.” He refers to his high view of himself and low view of others as a “pronounced and persistent pattern of sin” that he did not begin to recognize until November 2010.

C.J. also acknowledges as true the serious habits of sin pointed out by Dave and me. These sin summaries are not specific to Dave and me. C.J. affirms they are true in general. That is, “to correct C.J, or to challenge his own self-perception, was to experience a [sinful] reaction...” because C.J. “can become resentful, distrustful or withdraw…judge or prematurely come to conclusions…communicate…too strongly or categorically…lack gentleness…be difficult to correct…”

December 16, 2010

Dear Brent,

Let me begin with what seems to me to be the only appropriate place to begin, by thanking you for your friendship and your desire to serve me by providing me with these two documents [i.e., “Response Regarding Friendship & Doctrine,” “A Final Appeal”] that express your perspective, concerns, correction and care for me. I am deeply grateful for your friendship over the years and this particular expression of your friendship has helped me to perceive my sin more clearly, experience conviction of sin more deeply and comprehend the effects of my sin more specifically...

And I am certain I am only beginning to perceive the depth and the pervasiveness of my sin. So from the outset I want you to be aware that I have no doubt this written response is both limited and deficient…. My perception of my sin and progress in fighting my sin seems to be so very slow and I often wonder if I am growing at all. But I am resolved to pursue correction and fight my sin in its many forms and I am grateful for this evidence of grace in my heart for I know that apart from the grace of God this resolve would not exist. And I am grateful for your help in fighting my sin. So thank you…

I am looking forward to going through your documents with you personally. So in anticipation of these future helpful conversations exploring my sin and pursuing reconciliation I want to express my gratefulness in advance. So once again thank you…

As for my sin it seems to me that PRIDE is THE sin and the primary category so much of my sin fits under (although other sins are most definitely present as well). So the following are simply headings that I hope capture what I perceive to date as my sin and as I have already stated, I am sure my perception of my sin remains limited and faulty. But I am grateful to God for the gift of sight in relation to the following sins:

I have been arrogantly confident in my perception of my own heart and my discernment in relation to others. As I look back this is a pronounced and persistent pattern of sin that I did not even begin to perceive until the end of this season of correction. I vividly remember the meeting with a few of the CLC pastors [this meeting included Joshua Harris, Grant Laymen, KennethMaresco, Corby Megorden, Bob Kauflin, Jeff Purswell, Dave Harvey, Pat Ennis, Steve Shank, Tommy Hill, and John Loftness on November 17, 2010] where I began to perceive what I know was obvious to you and others. I proudly trusted my own discernment and consistently disagreed with your correction, dismissed your correction, and, blinded by my pride, failed to inform the CLC guys about your correction in specific and appropriate ways even after assuring you men I would. And I failed to inform you of ways they were correcting me as well…. Too often I have been the one to determine whether someone’s correction of me was accurate or not, and therefore whether it’s worthy of passing on to others. Too often I have been wise in my own eyes, and viewed others with haughty eyes. (Proverbs 12:15; 21:2; 26:12). So you and Davewere accurate in the following assessment of me: “To correct CJ, or to challenge his own self-perception, was to experience a reaction through e-mails, consistent disagreement (without seeking to sufficiently understand), a lack of sufficient follow up and occasionally, relational withdrawal. Along with this, CJ was poor in volunteering areas of sin, temptation or weakness in himself.”
I was not easy to entreat…. When you and Dave corrected me I would often question your motives, or take exception to your wording or a particular illustration you referenced…. I proudly presumed to address specks in your eyes with logs protruding from my own eyes. This was quite obviously a serious evidence of pride. I wouldn’t have perceived it then. To some degree I do now.
I often sinfully judged you. I would assume that you were offended with me or conclude that your correction was motivated by an offense without humbly exploring this possibility with you…. By holding a high view of myself and failing to be adequately suspicious of my own heart, my response in the face of an evaluation I disagreed with was to be critical of the one bringing the evaluation.
My confession of sin to you men lacked specific illustrations of my sin. In my pride I thought acknowledging my sins in general to you and Dave was sufficient. The email confessions I provided on August 10 and October 13 2004 would be examples of this. Often I didn’t agree with the illustrations you and Dave provided because of my confidence in my own discernment.… I was proudly dismissing your illustrations and not providing you with specific illustrations of my sin. This reflected my high view of myself and my failure to adequately allow the gospel to expose my heart, and remind me of just how great a sinner I am.
I would at times sinfully withdraw from you and Dave when you corrected me. This would be yet another manifestation of pride in my life. Not only did I consistently and proudly dismiss your correction but then I would distance myself from you and withdraw my affection…. It was both proud and selfish of me to withdraw from you at any time but particularly after you had expressed your care for me through correction.
Although I didn’t perceive it at the time, my pride was particularly revealed when you wouldquestion my integrity. I see that much more clearly now. So at different times (when dealing with topics like confession of sin, accountability; vacation time) I would sinfully react to your observations/concerns and sinfully judge you. Due to a high estimation of myself and my perceived integrity, I didn’t carefully consider your correction/concern. This was my pride both in having a high estimation of myself and in my desire that you share that estimation…. Regretfully, my response revealed my arrogance and this was a pattern when my integrity was questioned. Sadly, it still can be.
I failed to follow up on my confessions of August 10 and October 13, 2004 with you men. Although I think I was beginning to perceive certain sins within myself and that these confessions were sincere, my pride was still present in assuming these written confessions were sufficient. I should have followed up on these confessions and elaborated on them, providing you with specific illustrations of my sin and drawing you out about my sin.

All of the categories of sin [below] are described on page 10 of your first document [RRF&D]:

Can become resentful, distrustful or withdraw when he feels misunderstood, judged, or sinned against by others.
Can judge or prematurely come to conclusions about others based on limited or incomplete information.
When correcting or disagreeing can communicate his assessment or perspective too strongly or categorically.
Can lack gentleness and not perceive the unhelpful effect of his words, actions or decisions upon an individual.
Can be difficult to correct and help because he often disagrees with or has a different perspective on illustrations.
Infrequently makes us aware of specific sins or the correction others are bringing to him.

I agree with all of your observations. This was often what you and Dave experienced when you corrected me. And if had been more humble years ago I would have perceived them at the time. I regret I wasn’t and didn’t.

Brent, as I stated at the outset, the only thing I am certain of is that this would be just a portion of my sin…. I am eager to meet with you and hopefully this time ask you questions, draw you out, humbly listen and be easy to entreat as I should have been years ago in hope that I can still benefit from your correction and insight into my sin.

One of the issues you brought up was the need for me to confess my sins to a wider audience. I am eager to make a specific confession of my sin where necessary and appropriate. That’s why I am eager to meet with you, and that’s why I’ve already met with a number of leaders I work with—these meetings have included specific confession of my sin along the lines given above. And I thank God that these men have been gracious and forgiving.

I also want to acknowledge that confessing my sin does not end the process God is calling me to pursue in response to your letters. I want my confessions to be accompanied by appropriate repentance and ongoing and specific heart and life changes. And even though I did not fully hear your observations and concerns until now, I believe I did hear at least some of what you (and others) brought to my attention six years ago, and I hope that the men I’m accountable to would observe at least a degree of change in my life since then. I believe that change has only intensified over the past nine months.

Confession 4 – March 11, 2011

The SGM Board has made much of the fact that C.J. provided me two “detailed” confessions. C.J. promised “greater detail” in the second one but didn’t deliver. This confession added almost nothing new. It was primarily a rebuttal and a defense (see CR, pp. 82-96).

One notable development occurred however. C.J. explicitly states “I agree with the observations about my character failings that were brought to me in that [August 20, 2004] meeting.” That’s significant because C.J. and his agents like Bob Kauflin (see RRF&D, pp. 67-68) fought me tooth and nail over those observations for more than a year. I was roundly condemned and confronted. That included four hours of correction from C.J. on one occasion (see RRF&D, pp. 38-39) and harsh treatment to follow for years (e.g., see RRF&D, pp. 68-69).

March 11, 2011

Dear Brent,

I’m writing at your request for greater detail in responding to your two documents. I write with the hope that this will lead to our getting together to dialogue about these things personally. I continue to hold out the hope that meeting together with an objective third party will enable us to resolve the various issues that separate us and be reconciled…

So on to the specifics.

You and Dave expressed a concern that I wasn’t passing on your correction of me to the CLC pastors or my primary context for fellowship. You identified that as “hypocrisy” and “managing information.” As I said in my first response, my trust in my own discernment and my disagreement with your correction—in short, my pride—contributed to me not informing the CLC guys about your correction in specific and appropriate ways. I have no doubt I was being proud and was blinded by my pride. Was I beinghypocritical? In one sense I was, given that my actions did not live up to what I believe and teach…

Brent, if I might step back from the specifics of your document for a moment and look back over this difficult season for us as a team, I think there were, at least for me, four primary factors (I don’t assume this is exhaustive) that contributed to how I was relating to and leading the team. First and foremost would be my pride in its various forms, which I didn’t fully perceive then and I’m sure I don’t fully perceive now. This was the focus of my first response to your documents. Second was my assumptionthat the correction I was receiving from you and Dave was in some way influenced by offenses I perceived in you men toward me because of certain decisions I made that affected your respective roles and service in Sovereign Grace. Again, as I noted in my first response, this involved sinful judgment on my part…

Back to the documents, and specifically pp. 5-28. Much of the material on these pages leads up to the August 20, 2004 meeting. As I said in my last letter, I agree with the observations about my character failings that were brought to me in that meeting. I believe that I perceived some of them that day, although I perceive far more about my sin now. And let me stress again what I sought to detail in my first response to your documents: my confession of sin was sadly inadequate. It lacked specific illustrations, I failed to humbly explore the illustrations you provided, and I failed to follow up my confession with specific illustrations and questions for you men about my sin and its effects on you.

But let me be clear: I should have followed up with you, Dave, and Steve after the August 20 [2004] meeting. You were the ones who brought these concerns, and I should have insured that you heard not only from the local guys, but from me as well. There is simply no excuse for my not doing so. I can understand how this tempted you, how this brought into question the previous confessions I made, and how this undermined your trust in me…

However, in looking back I now realize that I didn’t bring appropriate resolution with you and Dave regarding the issues you had been bringing to my attention. I wrongly assumed that my written confessions—which I now know were deficient—were sufficient. As I noted in my first response, I should have followed up on these confessions, elaborating on their content, supplying specific illustrations, and drawing you men out about my sin…

During this period, you also state that I said, “I never want anyone else to go through what I went through.” I did indeed say this, and this is an expression of self-pity and an evidence of pride in my life. I wouldn’t have perceived that then. But by the grace of God, I do now. I should have been more concerned about my own sin and its effects upon others than I was about how I perceived I was being treated…

Confession 5 – July 6, 2011

This confession and the next one were removed from the SGM website on November 23, 2011. C.J. now laments making these confessions. Dave now laments posting them. So much for transparency.

In this one C.J. refers to “former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace [who] have made charges against me and informed me about offenses…. With the guidance of the SGM board, I would also hope to pursue reconciliation with former pastors of Sovereign Grace during this leave…. Please pray that God would give me the gift of sight where I have been blinded by my sin and others have been adversely affected by my sin.… For the past 5 years or so I have become increasingly aware of…the number of former Sovereign Grace pastors who are offended with me/SGM. I have met with some and by God’s grace there has been reconciliation with men like Larry Tomczak.”

I am in contact with many of the “former pastors and leaders” C.J. alludes to above. Some met withhim. Others talked to him or wrote him. All are disappointed with him and none claim to be reconciled with him and SGM. Moreover, they have all been appalled by the actions of C.J. and the SGM Board over the past seven months.

C.J. cites how important it is to secure “the help of a third-party ministry that has no history of relationship with SGM” so there can be an objective evaluation of charges. We all know this promise was flagrantly broken.

At the end of the confession C.J. says, “My soul can be easily overwhelmed as I contemplate my sin and its effects on others” which seems to “include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy.”

Why I'm Taking a Leave of Absence

July 6, 2011 by C.J. Mahaney

With a few potential exceptions, I will be taking a break from updating this blog for a while, and I want to share with you the reasons why and entreat you for your prayers while I am on leave.

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. These charges are serious and they have been very grieving to read. These charges are not related to any immorality or financial impropriety, but this doesn’t minimize their serious nature, which include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy.

I believe God is kindly disciplining me through this. I believe I have by the grace of God perceived adegree of my sin, and I have been grieved by my sin and its effects on others. I have had the opportunity to confess my sin to some of those affected in various ways by my sin. And I am so very grateful for their forgiveness. But I want to perceive and confess any and all sin I have committed. Although my experience of conviction has already started—and this is an evidence of God’s mercy—I’m sure there is more for me to perceive and acknowledge. Even with the charges I disagree with it has been beneficial to examine my soul and ask for the observation of others. And I am resolved to take responsibility for my sin and every way my leadership has been deficient, and this would include making any appropriate confessions, public or private. Most importantly I want to please God during this season of examination and evaluation.

So here is what I am going to do. I’ve asked to take a leave of absence in order to give time to considering these charges, examine my heart, and receive the appropriate help from others. With the guidance of the SGM board, I would also hope to pursue reconciliation with former pastors of Sovereign Grace during this leave. I have stepped off the board and I will not be the President of Sovereign Grace Ministries during this period of examination and evaluation. In order for me to receive an objective evaluation in relation to these charges the board is securing the help of a third-party ministry that hasno history of relationship with SGM. With counsel from that ministry, the board will determine the appropriate steps I should take going forward. After processing these findings, the board willdetermine the appropriate steps I should take going forward. This leave of absence will also help remove any impediment to the panel’s exploration that could potentially arise if I remained in my current position, and it will enable me to fully cooperate in the process.

Just so you’ll know, I have also contacted David Powlison and Mark Dever and asked them to review the charges and provide me with their counsel and correction. I have enlisted them to serve me personally during this time and to ensure this process of examining my heart and life is as thorough as possible. And for the past year I have been the recipient of Ken Sande’s correction, counsel and care. That, I am grateful to say, will continue. And as you would expect I will continue to meet with the appropriate men on the board of Sovereign Grace and benefit from their correction, counsel, and care as well. I am deeply moved as I reflect on how rich I am relationally and I am humbled by the time these men are willing to spend serving me and Sovereign Grace.

My friends, I would greatly appreciate your prayers as I continue to walk through this process. Please pray that God would give me the gift of sight where I have been blinded by my sin and others have been adversely affected by my sin. Pray that I will be convicted and experience godly sorrow resulting in reconciliation where necessary and adjustments to my heart and leadership. Thank you for praying in this way for me.

One more thing. For the past 5 years or so I have become increasingly aware of certain deficiencies in my leadership that have contributed to deficiencies in Sovereign Grace Ministries’ structure and governance, the lack of a clear and consistent process of conflict resolution and pastoral evaluation, andthe number of former Sovereign Grace pastors who are offended with me/SGM. I have met with some and by God’s grace there has been reconciliation with men like Larry Tomczak (I wish I had recognized and repented of my sin against him years ago). This brings great joy to my soul. In other cases, appeals for mediation have thus far been declined, but I’m hopeful this process will facilitate further reconciliation. But beyond this, there are still issues that need to be addressed and fixed in our family of churches. And I bear a primary responsibility because it has happened on my watch and under my leadership. I have resolved that I and the Sovereign Grace team can’t effectively lead us into the future without evaluating the past, addressing these deficiencies, improving our structure, and as much as possible pursuing reconciliation with former pastors. So during this leave of absence I will not only devote all the appropriate and necessary time to the independent panel and the charges but also to doing what I can to identify where I have failed to lead us effectively in relation to pastoral evaluation and conflict resolution.

My friends, though my soul can be easily overwhelmed as I contemplate my sin and its effects on others, I am also resolved to examine my heart, address the past, and play my role in preparing SGM for a future of planting and serving churches. And given the mercy of God portrayed in the gospel my heart is filled with hope that his good purpose for us will come to pass and cannot be frustrated. I trust there will be much grace to tell you of at the end of this process.

Confession 6 – July 10, 2011

This confession is narrow in scope. C.J. shares “a few of the ways I believe I have sinned.” Nevertheless, it is important because C.J. acknowledges for the first time what he refused to acknowledge to Dave and me for the past seven years and Larry Tomczak for the past 14 years.

He also states again in passing, “A few years ago I started to realize that there were a number of former SGM pastors who had offenses with SGM and/or me.” He doesn’t go any further. The way C.J. treated Dave and me in 2003-2004 is typical. This has been acknowledged by the SGM Board and theCLC pastors.

“When the SGM board, the CLC governing board, and other involved parties met with CJ in November [2010], he asked the 12 of us who know him best to identify in our own experience the things that you communicated in your documents. All of us could see his tendencies to withdraw when disagreed with, to make correction difficult, to be unduly confident in his own judgments (including his judgments of the motives of others), and to give insufficient attention to process in his leadership…. Brent, this is not an exhaustive accounting of our areas of agreement with your documents, but we hope it is sufficient to communicate general areas of agreement and our sorrow over these sins and failures.” (Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, Joshua Harris, and Pat Ennis, March 11, 2011)

C.J. refers to this day in November.

“I spent a day together with these men in November of 2010 where I could hear evaluation from each of them. It was a sad and painful day for me to recognize that Brent was not the only one to experience the effects of my sin, but to various degrees many of the other men in the room had as well.”

He also refers to other examples indicating the widespread nature of his sin.

“There are certainly other examples I could give of these sin categories [e.g. unentreatable, sinful judging, superior discernment, favorable comparisons, resentful]: examples that have hurt others, hindered my leadership, gone against what I’ve taught, and—most significantly—dishonored God.”

In this confession, C.J. makes numerous comments about me that were untrue. I was very willing to meet but not until C.J. fulfilled his promise to provide me a thorough response to my documents. He promised to do this on three separate occasions. He broke his word each time.

C.J. Mahaney's Comments at Covenant Life Church

July 10, 2011

Because of my history with this church and my love for this church, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you. I want to thank Josh and the pastoral team for giving me this time.

I am sure for the vast majority here, what you heard the past week about the charges made against me has come as a complete shock. I understand and I am so very sorry. Let me clarify at the outset that your pastors are not the primary object of these accusations—the accusations are primarily directed at me in the context of Sovereign Grace Ministries. This is about me, not your pastors. It is my hope that your relationship with the pastoral team will be strengthened, not weakened, through this. Please provide them with your support at this time. And if you are angry, I understand. But please direct that anger toward me.

My intention tonight is to share with you a few of the ways I believe I have sinned and some of the failures in my leadership, and help you understand to some degree how we have arrived where we find ourselves this evening.

A few years ago I started to realize that there were a number of former SGM pastors who had offenses with SGM and/or me. So I began to pursue some of them for the purpose of reconciliation. In January of 2010 I sent Brent Detwiler an email asking if he had any offense with me, communicating my desire to meet with him and hear him out. In 2009 Brent had been pastoring a church in North Carolina and leftSGM.

When Brent responded to my email, he informed me that he was not willing to meet with me but that he would interact with me through email and written documents. Two months later I received a 130-page document from him outlining his perspective about my sins and failures as a leader in SGM.

I need to tell you up front that after reading this document [RRF&D] and ones that followed [AFA,CR], I don’t agree with a number of Brent’s charges and conclusions, nor the manner with which he has presented his offenses. However, my purpose this evening is not to criticize Brent or defend myself, but to inform you about various ways I have sinned and failed at different points in my ministry.

The central focus of Brent’s initial document was how I processed, responded to, and led through a relational conflict we had in 2003-2004. This conflict began when Brent and Dave Harvey brought to me correction related to certain character deficiencies and deficiencies in my leadership of the team. Rather than humbly listening to their critique and examining my heart, I reacted sinfully to what I perceived as their deficient manner of presentation, and this began a season where I was resistant to their correction.

Here is what they experienced from me:

I was difficult to entreat.
I sinfully judged their motives.
I was arrogantly confident in my perception.
I compared myself favorably to them.
I was offended by what I thought to be a lack of appreciation from them for all I had done for them, and a lack of care for me in a season of trials.

And though we continued to work together, I gradually withdrew from them in my soul. And added to this I arrogantly dismissed their critique and did not inform others of their critique even after I agreed to do so. So I was in effect confirming the accuracy of their correction by how I was behaving.

In 2004 at the end of a lengthy process of correcting me and with the help of my small group I began to perceive some of these sins and ask forgiveness for those sins, and those in my small group were able to affirm some evidences of conviction, repentance, and growth. But in looking back my perception of my sin, my confession of sin, and my follow up with those I sinned against was woefully inadequate. Inever circled back around to Brent or Dave to convey to them where they were right or the changes I was pursuing. And I neglected to inform Josh [Harris], Grant [Layman], and Kenneth [Maresco] about the specifics of Dave and Brent’s concerns.

When I received Brent’s first document, I sent it to a group of men who could help me evaluate the content of the document and these offenses from 2004. God used Brent’s document ]RRF&D] and the correction of my friends to help me see the sins I already mentioned much more clearly; and not just the sins, but the effects of those sins upon those I was called to serve with.

Let me introduce you to another failure of my leadership. I have been poor at establishing a process for resolving conflict and I have at times sought to manage the process on my own. In light of Brent’s offenses I should have immediately asked the SGM leadership team to lead the evaluation process and not attempted to manage the process on my own.

Brent was unwilling to meet with me personally. He insisted that my response be in written form to his satisfaction before he would meet with me personally and for months I let the process drift. I was reluctant to comply with him and thought it best to pursue reconciliation in person. Months passed. I’m sure the time delay [9 months] tempted Brent and I am sorry for this.

In the fall Brent sent a second document [AFA], this one 165 pages in length. In this document Brent further illustrated failures he had observed in my leadership. He pointed out how defensive I could become when my integrity was questioned—which was accurate—and added further illustrations of the sins I already noted. Brent also detailed how he believed my sinful patterns ultimately contributed to his dismissal as a pastor from his church in 2009.

After receiving the second document, I sent it to the SGM leadership team, eight Covenant Life Church elders, and some friends [Steve Shank, John Loftness, ] who have known me and worked with me for many years. I asked them to read the documents and provide me with their honest evaluation of me not only in relation to the documents but any sins or leadership failures they would have observed apart from these documents in their own experience with me.

I spent a day together with these men in November of 2010 where I could hear evaluation from each of them. It was a sad and painful day for me to recognize that Brent was not the only one to experience the effects of my sin, but to various degrees many of the other men in the room had as well. At the end of the day I asked the men to forgive me. I then circled back around to a number of them privately to ask forgiveness more specifically. I then proceeded to write Brent a letter of confession [December 16, 2010] for the sins I was perceiving and appealed for mediation so that we could receive help in being reconciled through an impartial third party. Brent wrote back and informed me my confession was not specific enough and asked that I review the documents again.

At this time, the SGM board assumed full responsibility for the process and I recused myself from any discussion or decisions regarding Brent’s complaint. They asked me to respond to Brent with a more detailed confession, so I asked my friend John Loftness to catalogue all of Brent’s charges and to spend a day going over each one with me so I could respond to Brent with a greater degree of specificity. With the help of John and the board, I then crafted a second confession of about ten pages. It saddens me to report to you that Brent did not find this confession adequate.

Throughout this time I was also benefitting from the counsel of Ken Sande of Peacemaker Ministries. Ken reached out to Brent and proposed a process of mediation that Brent declined. We then began to discuss involving an outside panel to evaluate Brent’s charges even if Brent declined to participate.

Last month Brent sent a third document [CR], this one 200 pages in length. In this document Brent pointed out my leadership failures in 1997 when Larry Tomczak left SGM after relocating to Atlanta to plant a church. During this time Larry and I had a conflict over how we would describe his leaving SGM. It grieves me to report to you that in a particular phone conversation I sought to coerce Larry to present his leaving as I thought was right. (And by the way none of your current pastors would haveknown this. It involved SGM not CLC.) And when Larry did leave, my public announcement of his departure was self-righteous in attitude and critical of Larry at a very vulnerable time in his life. I highlighted his sin alone, and I was blind to my own. I’m deeply grieved by this.

But I am happy to report that seven months before Brent’s third document arrived, a letter arrived on my desk from Larry Tomczak asking if we could be reconciled. By the grace of God I agreed and this led to a series of meetings we had in Nashville. I am humbled and delighted to report to you that when I confessed my sins to Larry and Doris they freely, immediately, and graciously forgave me. If memory serves me that was in December last year.

Larry and I stood side by side and cofounded CLC. We stood side by side and cofounded SGM. Sin separated us, but I will have the sweet joy to stand side by side with him again in November when he joins us as a special guest at our Pastors Conference. I hope to do the same at CLC to welcome him back. Actually when we do this I think it would be appropriate if I stand off to the side. Larry has been a wonderful example of extending forgiveness.

There are certainly other examples I could give of these sin categories: examples that have hurt others, hindered my leadership, gone against what I’ve taught, and—most significantly—dishonored God. But the past year and a half has helped me see these things and forced me to confront these things in amuch more thorough way than I ever have before. And so, in a way typical of our gracious God, these difficult months have quite obviously been for my good. I believe through these things God is disciplining me for my sin and leadership failures and I am very grateful for this discipline. Hebrews 12 tells how I should respond to this discipline: don’t be indifferent to it, and don’t be overwhelmed by it.

I bear a unique and primary responsibility for all that took place in 1997, 2004, and on other occasionsas well. I am grateful to God that I am perceiving my sins and leadership failures. I’m aware that I am a sinner in need of grace and I am grateful for the forgiveness that Jesus purchased for my sins.

There is however an element in Brent’s storyline that I do not agree with. He asserts that my sins and leadership failures contributed directly to his removal from his church and SGM. I don’t believe I havethe final word on this, nor should I, and I have welcomed the recommendation of the SGM board that we establish a panel of respected leaders outside SGM to study these charges and give us their evaluation of me and the ministry as a whole.

I asked the board for a leave of absence from my position as President so I can have no position of influence in this process or its outcome, and so that every charge can be thoroughly evaluated. The evaluation of the panel will be made public and communicated to you.

But this evening I want to communicate my sorrow for my sin and leadership failures and their effects on others; in particular you, the church I love the most. I want to ask for your forgiveness for these sins and their effects on you.

Please pray for me, but let me give you my greater burden: please pray for SGM. I want to do all I can do to spread the gospel. I want to protect your relationship with your pastors. I want to protect the pastors and churches of SGM. And above all I want to please and glorify God whatever this requires of me. Not surprisingly there are matters of policy and practice that need correction. I bear primary responsibility for this since these deficiencies have been revealed on my watch. Please don’t misunderstand, this is not a blanket assessment of SGM churches or pastors. But we need to make some changes in:

Our polity and structures of accountability for pastors. We have been hard at work on this one for two years and that needs to continue.
How we evaluate pastors. In some instances, the way we have evaluated pastors in the past has been inconsistent and, some cases, flawed.
How pastors correct one another. Again, this is not applicable to every pastor or pastoral team, but where appropriate we want to grow here.
How we resolve conflict.

Please also pray that Brent and I would be reconciled. We were once good friends. I pray that because of the gospel that friendship would be restored.

Most importantly, pray that God would be glorified through all of this by reconciling broken relationships wherever they may exist in our churches, and by bringing about the fruit and effect of the gospel that has so graciously saved each of us.

Open Letter Upon Release of SGM Panel Report on Tomczak Departure - 7 Concerns by Larry & Doris Tomczak

2012-02-01T19:23:08Z

Later this week I'll be providing my own critique of the panel report put out regarding the Tomczak's.

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.

1. BIAS

The hope of onlookers regarding the panel was for an unbiased 3^rd party to assess a few of the critical issues and offer their wisdom. Unfortunately, the examination was basically handled “in house” by sincere men who had a definite stake in the outcome – namely their livelihood and the preservation of the ministry image.

The SGM board member and two SGM senior pastors who wrote the report are to be commended for their hard work. This was an unenviable task because of their longstanding close association with SGM leaders, direct involvement in the ministry, and their families’ ties with many church members. Would they “get in trouble” if they stated things contrary to what other senior leaders desired in the outcome?

When President Clinton was being accused of immoral and unethical behavior, an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, was brought in with his team to investigate matters for Congress and the American people. If something similar happened to our current President, you would not think it wise to have fellow Democrats, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid leading the panel! Yet this was the approach chosen by the SGM board. And while others objected, we felt it was important to participate despite our misgivings and trust God to work through a less than ideal process.

2. BLACKMAIL

On October 14, 1997 our journal entry records the following: “Larry and our child talked by phone with a lawyer. He advised Larry to tell the Team (the board) to ‘not even think of using our child’s confessed sins to blackmail Larry.’ ‘It’s blackmail and punishable by jail, prosecuted in every state – no exceptions. It’s a breach of penitent/counselor confidentiality.’”

When Ted Kober, the President of Ambassadors of Reconciliation heard the tape recording of what was said to us repeatedly by the Team he dropped his head in dismay while his associate literally wiped away tears.

The panel report says, “CJ allowed for the possibility of making known their child’s sin if Larry communicated that he was leaving SGM over doctrinal disagreement.” This minimizes CJ’s sin and describes it far too mildly. He made a direct, emphatic and unethical threat. He was not allowing for the possibility, he was promising to expose our child. In our conversation, we confronted him three times with the word “blackmail” to describe his threats. His exact words back to us were “I’m stating it!” He threatened us with blackmail!

At the first mention of the threat, Doris called CJ on it: “That’s blackmail!”
In two subsequent taped conversations with other SGM leaders we again labeled it “blackmail.”
An attorney from whom we sought counsel defined it as “blackmail.”
National leaders who heard the tape recordings referred to it as “blackmail.”

I read the following words to CJ in Nashville from Webster’s dictionary:

"Blackmail: extortion (the act of obtaining from a person by force or undue or illegal power or ingenuity) by threats especially of public exposure."

Webster’s dictionary defines what it is and, as they say, “It is what it is!” Why soft-pedal this coercive threat that was used to obtain our silence? Plus we have the recordings to prove it and have requested on several occasions that the SGM board and others that were involved listen with us to themselves on the tapes before there’s asking of forgiveness. To date they have dismissed our request.

While CJ, and the SGM board and the panel report acknowledge what happened was “coercive, wrong and sinful,” they all stop short of being specific about the most egregious offense which is immoral, illegal and unethical. It was premeditated, repeated and agreed upon by all the leadership team. (The report makes this clear.)

Departed board members Paul Palmer and Brent Detwiler both cited “blackmail” when they asked forgiveness – the former over 8 years ago! Yet when Dave Harvey called us the week before the report’s release, he (like CJ, Steve Shank and Larry Malament) hedged on using the accurate and serious designation.

Isn’t it time to once and for all stop any “spin,” man up, and confess it for what it is? And an addendum...if CJ and Steve have a “vague recollection” (as stated in the report) of CJ supposedly calling us within a few days to “withdraw the threat” so it really didn’t “hang over” us for over a decade, why when CJ and Steve called our child years later to finally ask forgiveness for some of the areas of offense did they still refuse to call and ask forgiveness of Doris and me even when our child asked them to? Why would it take 14 years before CJ and Steve would finally confess the injustice and even then “tone it down” with softer terminology? These are real questions that warrant real answers. By the way, they have a “vague recollection” of some call. WE HAVE NO RECOLLECTION of any such call! We wouldn’t have forgotten it or failed to put it in our journal of those events!!

3. BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY

The vow of confidentiality that CJ made to our child is sacrosanct and inviolable. Tragically, CJ broke this vow by divulging details to a person who is trustworthy and who came forward with the specifics. The report said, “CJ has no recollection of this conversation,” and then moved on. A serious ethics violation of this magnitude cannot be brushed off as seemingly insignificant. A man of sterling character who described in detail what was said to him by CJ in violation of a clergy/penitent vow has to be given weighty consideration. It should be considered alongside of other sinful conduct surfacing in a leader who is under investigation. More is needed here. In addition to this event, Larry Malament also revealed confidential details to other members of the SGM Team and local leaders in a conference call we were a part of on October 8, 1997. Later, a Team member relayed that Larry M. also did this on another occasion and stands ready to testify accordingly.

4. BREAKING THE MATT. 18 ETHIC IN A PUBLIC ASSEMBLY

At Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland (a church that we co-founded in our apartment and in which we invested 15 years of our lives), CJ stood before over 1,000 people (with guests and unbelievers present) and branded me a “liar.” He admits he instructed technicians to “turn off the tape” and did say, “I’d rather be dead than do what Larry Tomczak is doing.” In spite of several witnesses (for example, one teenage boy told us he confronted CJ to his face a few days later) and having been confronted with his exact words in print for over a decade, the report says, “CJ does not recall saying anything along these lines.” We do not believe this is sufficient reason for dismissing the charge.

Last year at Covenant Life Church, CJ acknowledged some of his sinful attitudes in the above episode. Many believe his confession was incomplete; he minimized the severity of public slander in violation of Matthew 18:15-17; and still needs to make amends for debasing in a single moment a leader’s reputation built upon 25 years of Christian ministry.

5. BANISHMENT

Over the years one of the most common accusations brought against SGM is one where former members are shunned or banished after disagreement with leaders or simply choosing to leave the church. The report confirmed this to be our experience, with which multitudes identify.

The panel cited CJ’s public criticisms “was the death of Larry’s reputation at CLC...church members stopped interacting with them.” We would add these included close relatives for many years. CJ sent a letter to pastors asking them “not to engage in casual conversation or pursue fellowship with Larry.” He penned a letter to thousands of folks throughout the movement of churches suggesting I was under “church discipline” when I never was. This manipulated people into shunning us by confusing them. Friendships built for years were shattered overnight. The panel members were courageous in allowing this material to be included. What needs to be underscored is how, under CJ’s leadership, instruction, and personal example, this un-Christlike treatment of us and many others of God’s precious sheep was allowed to flourish. Some SGM board members, local pastors and church members are guilty of blindly following his lead.

Our experience brings this to the surface and should not be ignored. We turned over to the panel the names of over 105 leadership couples who experienced spiritual abuse in SGM. Imagine how many other church members have also been victims.

Families have been devastated, close friendships destroyed and children have turned away from the Lord and church involvement in the wake of this uncharitable practice. Our own extended family was divided and still feels the painful effects of this ungodly treatment until this very day.

Where this has happened, may leaders humbly repent and change their ways to allow a new season of blessing and favor for SGM. The report says this is not “systemic.” The reality is, it has been a pattern that has devastated our immediate and extended families plus scores of God’s people across the country. It must be acknowledged, confessed and renounced. Our situation brings it into the light so changes can be made to avert future hurt and relational devastation.

6. BETRAYAL

When I consented to take a leave of absence to deal with family matters, I had every intention of returning to my leadership position in our local church and in SGM. This is very significant to grasp! In the months preceding the blackmail, our entire family experienced “lording over, abuse of authority, manipulation and control” (which CJ confessed and asked forgiveness for in our December, 2010 Nashville reconciliation). This treatment brought us to the point where it was untenable and as a matter of conscience, we had to leave SGM. We literally felt as an entire family we were under “house arrest” with our every action, word and motive scrutinized and questioned. The legalism became unbearable. The report also acknowledges I was “stuck,” left without any process of appeal.

The report cited how I initially “gave agreement” to Reformed doctrinal tenets, but later changed my mind. There is truth to this but two points need to be made: 1) I, like many former SGM leaders who had also left over the doctrinal changes, was wavering and reluctant to comply. I finally mustered the courage to speak up, die to “fear of man” and express my true sentiments regarding differences of doctrine. 2) My major battle was with the fear of man in an atmosphere of intimidation and man-pleasing. I remember sitting in a “Team” meeting where it was said, “Mark Altrogee and Benny Phillips (SGM senior pastors viewed as suspect at the time) may have to be let go if they don’t agree with the Reformed Doctrine.” I thought, “Larry, be careful – will I be next?” I should have spoken up and suffered the potential consequences. I confess my former cowardice.

What wasn’t made clear in the panel’s report are related and significant points revealing the depth of betrayal I encountered.

Criteria established by SGM leaders for returning to my former role as senior pastor made it an impossibility unless I embraced certain Reformed doctrinal tenets which in my conscience I could not do.
People nationwide were deliberately misled. An example would be, “It was always our intention to see Larry restored as senior pastor.” Numerous disingenuous public statements and letters went out to SGM churches and nationwide which misrepresented what actually happened.
My “7 Reasons for Departing PDI” (SGM) were not conveyed to people as I requested. My “confession” letter was the result of intimidation which forced me to use loaded terms, affirm SGM leaders and insert material with which I was uncomfortable, but required to include.
At a public church meeting, CJ instructed me to nod in agreement with what he would say while I appealed that I couldn’t do it in good conscience.
Three former SGM board members, two former administrators and three of the Atlanta leaders in the church at that time (who have all left SGM) cite “abuse of spiritual authority, over lording, and deceitful conduct” in their experience. This is tragic.

Scripture calls us to “restore” struggling Christians in a “spirit of gentleness” (Gal.6:1). Although most of the leaders have come forward to repent and ask forgiveness for what

was done to us (as the report reveals), what needs to be understood are the aspects of betrayal and levels of deceit that forced our departure from a ministry we co-founded and never intended to leave.

“Did you leave without the leaders’ blessing?”

Yes – we believe we had no alternative.

“Did you honor your commitment to not return to public ministry for ‘at least 6 months’?”

Yes – on the exact date the 6 month season expired, I spoke for the first time on a Sunday to an inner city church gathering at the invitation of a dear friend.

7. BAD THEOLOGY

This point can be made briefly. Over the years SGM has experienced “bad fruit” from “bad theology” and, thank God, begun to make changes. The panel stated the obvious, uncharitable treatment we endured, the lack of compassionate care in a difficult family situation, the “over emphasis on indwelling sin,” etc., etc.

A number of the same SGM board members and pastors who attacked us judgmentally have now experienced their own family “issues” which tempered them and drove them to confess their sinful, self-righteousness to us, several of them in genuine tears.

The report highlighted how “misguided” it was to believe the idea that “good pastors = good kids” and admitted “that there was too much of a link made between Larry’s parenting and his child’s sin.”

Other areas could be cited but our point here is that CJ and SGM leaders should be more forthright in their public repentance through public statements addressing where they veered off course theologically. Multitudes believe there still is too much “spin” and “self vindication” among top-tier leaders.

A nationally known leader and frequent speaker at SGM churches and conferences told me something months ago that I can’t forget. For close to two decades this man has provided counsel and instruction to SGM and has intimate knowledge of the inner workings and problems of the ministry. Here’s his observation:

"The number one problem with many of the Sovereign Grace Ministry leaders is their propensity for self-vindication."

We suggest you pause here and reread this leader’s observation.

May this panel’s report, our two published statements, as well as constructive criticism to SGM from numerous places (see the email at the end of this document from a former long-time SGM pastor) in this “time of discipline” for Sovereign Grace Ministry and its primary leaders, help these men to address unbiblical positions and practices to honor the Lord, heal wounds, and regain favor as an overall ministry.

POST SCRIPT: BLAMELESS AND ABOVE REPROACH

In order to be faithful to criteria for Biblical leadership, SGM must steer clear of the sin of favoritism and partiality starting with CJ, and be consistent with what was expected of former SGM leaders. The question still remains: should the SGM senior leaders step own for a season to be retooled for ministry according to 1 Pet. 5:1-5; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim.3:1-7; and 1 Tim. 5:17-24? Perhaps the best way to answer this is the following: “If the things in the panel’s report, in our two statements, and in the accompanying email came to light regarding your pastor, would you give him a “pass?” Would you deem him fit for ministry according to the qualifications of Scripture?

“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be blameless...” 1 Tim 3:1-2

BELOW IS A LETTER (E-MAIL) WE RECEIVED FROM A FORMER, LONGTIME SGM PASTOR. WE READ IT AFTER WE COMPLETED OUR “OPEN LETTER” AND FOUND THE OBSERVATIONS TIMELY, ACCURATE AND ILLUMINATING. WHEN GROUPS OF SGM LEADERS ARE MENTIONED, WE’D OFFER THAT THERE ARE DEGREES OF CULPABILITY. REMEMBER PAUL PALMER AND BRENT DETWILER, DEPARTED SGM LEADERS, CONFESSED AND REPENTED OF BLACKMAIL WHILE WE STILL AWAIT THAT RESPONSE FROM THE OTHER SGM LEADERS. HERE IS THE LETTER:

Friends,

First of all, I believe that the panel was inappropriately tasked to ask the Wrong Questions. He who frames the questions controls the debate, and I believe that’s exactly what the SGM Board attempted to do. Given the gravity of the situation, I don’t think three questions were nearly enough. But given the three, here’s my opinion of what they should have been:

1. Not - “Was CJ’s participation in fellowship in keeping with the teachings of scripture?”

Rather – “Did CJ violate the standards of fellowship, confession and repentance that he imposed on other SGM pastors & leaders? Did CJ behave in a manner that would not have been tolerated by any other SGM pastors under his authority? (Broaden the scope of the question to consider any wider patterns of double-standard hypocrisy. For example, did CJ’s own son act out in ways that would have, and did, get other SGM pastors fired from their jobs? Are there any other “high-status” leaders in SGM, whose teenagers experienced behavioral troubles, but they and their jobs were “protected” –unlike other SGM pastors before them?) In other words: Was CJ giving himself the benefit of living by different standards than he espoused and enforced?”

2. Not - “Did CJ wrongly influence the process of Brent’s dismissal from Mooresville?”

Rather – “Did CJ demonstrate a historical pattern of marginalizing and disposing of SGM leaders that did not meet up to his subjective, extra-biblical standards? Did he “shun” them and teach others to do so by his example? Was Brent already a “dead-man walking” before he even started at Mooresville because CJ had already punished him, for self-serving reasons, with the loss of status & ministry? Did CJ preside over and infuse an entire SGM culture with an extra-biblical pattern of dismissing & casting aside some of its own pastor/leaders in an unloving and unreasonable manner?”

3. Not - “Was Larry Tomczak’s departure from SGM handled properly?”

Rather – “Did CJ attempt to blackmail Larry Tomczak by means of thoroughly unethical threats against his family? Did other members of the SGM board do the same? Was it a “heat-of-the-moment” threat made out of emotion & quickly regretted, or was it a coldblooded” & purposeful act, only rejected 11 days later after severe rebuke from a respected lawyer. (In other words, did CJ & others back off by reason of moral repentance or functional impracticality? It seems clear that they did not immediately express any sorrowful repentance to Larry and his family.) Is attempted blackmail an “ordinary” sin or a “scandalous” one?

On a secondary note, if the panels wish to address the legitimate question of whether Larry Tomczak’s departure was handled properly, they needed to dig back a little further. Larry’s departure began much earlier with his systematic marginalization from SGM ministry. After CJ assumed primary leadership of the organization, he acted to steadily limit Larry’s influence and opportunities there. He greatly limited Larry’s involvement in CLC, a church he had co-founded. He greatly limited his role as a speaker at SGM conferences and events. Larry had to move his church membership to Fairfax in an attempt to find meaningful involvement. Similar to Brent’s experience many years later, Larry had to move on to new territory, in Atlanta, to attempt a new church plant in order to satisfy his God-given desires to serve in ministry. The handling of the departure of Larry Tomczak from SGM began years before the blackmail. The whole process of fault-finding, leading to marginalization and more fault-finding, leading to removal and eventually active shunning needs to be examined. Especially in light of the widespread impression that this represents a pattern that was repeated with many other leaders in SGM.

Further questions:

Why does the panel lean so heavily on quoting Larry’s letter of resignation & repentance as a defense for CJ, seeming to implicate SGM’s partial justification in light of Larry’s admitted faults? That letter is actually “Exhibit A” in a very serious suggestion of abuse-of-power and manipulative practice by SGM. Many other deposed SGM pastors have been required to write similar self-incriminating letters against themselves. It’s a wonderful CYA tool for SGM, and is being used as such right before our very eyes. The problem is that these letters are frequently coerced and highly influenced by SGM. They are frequently edited to make sure they come out the way SGM wants them to sound. Larry, and other pastors in similar positions, was under enormous pressure to go along with the program and write what would satisfy those who wielded the power over his life and future. Think in terms of communist Chinese re-education camp confessions. That letter of Larry’s represents a shameful exercise in SGM bullying, manipulation, intimidation and abuse. They should be ashamed of using it against him now.
The report cites the board’s appeal for Larry to continue with their program of rehabilitation rather than leave prematurely. They so wanted him not to leave for the wrong reasons. They claimed this was a matter of integrity. And they so wanted to be able to commend him after a successful restoration process. The problem with this line of reasoning is that THERE WAS NO PROGRAM OR PROCESS OF RESTORATION!!!!! Just ask the other 100-150 pastors who have been cut loose by SGM. What is the recidivism rate for SGM pastors who have been deposed? Between 1-2%? Stick around for restoration? Really? SGM has no history of restoring pastors. SGM has a lot of explaining to do about its pattern of “throw-away” pastors.
The “ironic” integrity apparently sought by the SGM leaders, in dictating Larry’s departure terms, seemed to revolve around the proper portrayal of Larry’s disqualification as a poor parent. People who have been around Larry’s family know that is patently unfair! (Again I am reminded of the extra-biblical standards which were used as a cudgel on former pastors with teenage kids but which were no longer applied in later years to CJ and other “high status” SGM leaders.) Bear in mind the situation at the heart of the coercion. It involved a 17-18 year old young man who was not caught in his sin. Rather, he had taken personal initiative to expose his own failings by seeking out and confessing to spiritual leaders in the vain hope of finding help to experience the grace of God. Question: Did these highly-placed SGM leaders represent God well as conduits of His grace? This is the fuller context of the blackmail.
In the panel’s attempt to minimize the seriousness of the blackmail, (i.e. It did not continue for a decade like Larry intimated… CJ & Dave & Brent & Steve were motivated by their desire to “protect” the movement of churches… They wanted to frame Larry’s departure with “ironic” integrity... They never acted to follow through on their empty threat...), the panel members overlooked an important point. The threat of blackmail actually worked!! By their own admission, Larry did NOT mention doctrinal differences in his departure explanations, even though he clearly wanted to. The coercion was effective!! CJ and the board were saved from the legal liabilities of applying blackmail, but they ended up achieving the desired goal.
If CJ had truly repented of his offenses towards Larry, why didn’t he act expeditiously to bring Larry back to CLC to publicly redress his public slander of Larry before the church? He publicly called Larry a liar and said that, “I’d rather be dead than do what Larry’s doing.” CJ actively destroyed much of Larry’s reputation and many of his long-time relationships at CLC and beyond, but was grossly inadequate in taking measures to publicly restore him.

Closing thought: I found it very disturbing that the panel overseeing the Tomczak blackmail repeatedly claimed to present findings in a way that was slanted against CJ. It seemed absolutely the opposite to me. I thought they took every opportunity to place Larry in a negative light in order to minimize the culpability of CJ & the gang. They repeatedly highlighted mitigating circumstances that took the edge off the crime perpetrated by CJ, Dave, Brent & Steve. And then, the SGM board has the audacity to refer to the panel’s report as “objective.” Objective?!?!?!? That was never even a remote possibility given the make-up of the panels. Please don’t insult our intelligence by anointing them with “objectivity.” In fact, the SGM Board should make known the criteria by which the panel members were selected. The original process of selecting “jurists” was supposed to have some aspects of randomness. Can the Board unequivocally assure us that they did NOT hand pick the panelists of their choice and rule out the pastors that they didn’t want? Please defend the integrity of the process.

And now we wait for the AoR report. But that has already been re-framed for us as merely a catalogue of local grievances presented without corroborating witnesses or cross-examination. Something to learn from and use for making changes and addressing deficiencies. But apparently having no bearing on any evaluation of the qualifications of senior SGM leadership

Whitewashed Tombs

2012-01-28T21:43:16Z

Jesus pronounced a “woe” of judgment over the religious leaders of his day for their hypocrisy and wickedness of heart. They were like whitewashed tombs. Beautiful on the outside but full of death on the inside. Nevertheless, these two faced leaders deceived their followers by outward shows of righteousness. People throughout Judaism revered these Bible teachers (i.e. teachers of the law) and “set apart” or “holy ones” (i.e., Pharisees) even though they were corrupt.

The religious establishment was exceeding adept at promoting an image of which there was no substance. They were cunning and intimidating. Their outward show of holiness impressive. By all appearances they were godly. Only Jesus and a few others like John the Baptist saw through their repulsive deceit and had the courage to confront it.

This was especially true of the Sanhedrin. It was comprised of a chief priest (cf. the President), vice chief priest (cf. the Vice President) and 69 general members. For the most part these 71 “Board Members” were cons artists and master manipulators with a few exceptions for men like Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and Joseph of Arimathea.

The Sanhedrin could also be violent. They’d do anything to preserve their positions of power and prestige. They unrelentingly attacked the credibility of our Lord Jesus. They discredited everything he said and did. They entrapped him with devious questions. They bribed false witnesses. They lied about his motives and intentions. They distorted his teaching. They set up a Kangaroo Court to try him. Ultimately, they killed him!

Matthew 23:27-28 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which looks beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. [28] In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Ten verses later Jesus prophesies the desolation of Jerusalem. They did not listen to a long line of prophets, the greatest of which was Jesus. He wanted to care for them like a hen does her chicks. Instead he pronounced a furious judgment because their hypocrisy, deceit and pride were so great.

Matthew 23:37-38 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. [38] Look, your house is left to you desolate.”

The woe Jesus pronounced in A.D. 30 came to pass in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was viciously attacked by General Titus (a future Emperor) and his Roman legions. The city was plundered and the Temple destroyed. Everything these hypocrites (i.e., whitewashed tombs) tried to protect, Jesus obliterated! It all came to an end. Something analogous is happening with Sovereign Grace Ministries and for the same reasons.

The outward show of righteousness by C.J., Dave, and the SGM Board in the three panel approach is nothing but a whitewashed tomb full of dead bones. It is “full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” They too are conning the masses like the Sanhedrin and the list of accomplices joining their grand cover up grows each day. Please hear me out!

Here is what C.J. promised Covenant Life Church. His word means nothing. He has broken promise after promise. So has the SGM Board.

“I have welcomed the recommendation of the SGM board that we establish a panel of respected leaders outside SGM to study these [Brent’s] charges and give us their evaluation of me and the ministry as a whole. I asked the board for a leave of absence from my position as President so I can have no position of influence in this process or its outcome, and so that every charge can be thoroughly evaluated. The evaluation of the panel will be made public and communicated to you.” (C.J. Mahaney, July 2011)

Here is what Dave and the Board promised everyone in Sovereign Grace Ministries. It has not happened and it will never happen. Hell will freeze over before “the outstanding charges against C.J.” are evaluated by anyone let alone an independent panel.

“A second panel will commence work concurrent with the first. It will consist of members of an independent conciliation ministry [AOR] with no ties to Sovereign Grace. This panel will create a process for examination of the outstanding charges against Mahaney and create and lead a process for a fair hearing of those charges to determine if they are true or false.” (Dave Harvey, July 13, 2011)

Here is what Dave said on Wednesday of this week.

“As described in our October 28 blog post, we created three panels to review Brent’s allegations and report their findings to us, after which we would determine if C.J. was to continue in his role as President.” (Dave Harvey, “An announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney,” January 25, 2012)

This is the biggest con of all. The King Kong of cons. The three panels did not “review Brent’s allegations.” They did nothing of the sort. This is pure spin. Dave is lying through his teeth. But if he lies often enough, people will believe his lies and accept them as the truth. In principal, it is no different than the insidious propaganda put out by homosexual activists and abortionists for the last 40 years. Millions of people have believed their lies and see nothing wrong with homosexually in the name of “sexual orientation” or the murder of preborn children in the name of “women’s rights.” It is insane.

I’ve made hundreds of serious allegations in my documents and on my blog. With one exception, none of them have been taken seriously by the panels. The question related to the blackmail of Larry Tomczak comes the closest but Larry and Doris cannot be happy with the report. It is inadequate and does not answer to all the evidence against C.J., Steve Shank and Larry Malament in particular. There is no question the Tomczak’s were blackmailed but none of these men will admit it. Furthermore, it was premeditated. Something not noted in the report.

Furthermore, the report fails to connect the dots. The seriousness of C.J., Steve and Larry Malament’ s sin was unusual in degree but not atypical. C.J. has reacted to long a list of leaders and people with self-righteous anger that is abusive and intimidating. This pattern should have been highlighted in the report. Oops, I forgot. The question was designed so the panel only reported on his treatment of the Tomczaks. Silly me. We wouldn’t want people to know this is part of much bigger behavioral problem.

The two other questions assigned to the panels had no teeth. The one regarding “fellowship” was poorly worded and allowed for all kinds of loopholes. The question assigned to my panel was irrelevant. I never made a case that C.J. wrongly influenced the events surrounding my dismissal from ministry.

Incredulously, Warren, Ron and Mark took a hearing about C.J. and turned it into a hearing against me. You don’t need 18 witnesses to discover if C.J. “wrongly influenced the process of Brent Detwiler’s dismissal from his church in Mooresville, NC?” These witnesses had no knowledge of C.J.’s role. They should not have even been called for such a question.

This was about making a case against me behind my back. SGM planted an improvised explosive device (IED) under my feet without any warning or defense – a lethal tactic taken from the SGM School of Terror Manual. This has happened to me at least a dozen times over the last 7 years. Wonder why I was hesitant to meet with C.J.? Each time SGM agents blow me up into pieces with no forewarning (or opportunity for a fair fight or defense). Their surprise attacks are carried out with stealth. Their roadside bombs are concealed with great skill.

Here’s the harsh reality people must accept! The overwhelming vast majority of my charges have not been presented, heard or judged in a hearing by anyone. Like the O.J. Simpson trial, C.J. is getting away with murder (a little hyperbole folks). Here is what Dave promised two months ago.

“How is Sovereign Grace’s board handling the allegations that Brent Detwiler has brought against C.J. Mahaney? We know that you care about this a lot. We also care about this a lot, and we are taking Brent’s allegations seriously. We don’t want to ignore the many accusations that now sit in the public mind. We want to get this right. Brent’s documents require impartial examination and C.J. deserves a fair hearing.” (Dave Harvey, “What are we doing about the allegations against C.J.,” November 28, 2011)

Dave is full of it. The SGM Board has never taken my allegations seriously. No siree! They came up with the three panel approach so they could purposely ignore “the many accusations” I’ve documented in over 1,200 pages of evidence. This wasn’t a “fair hearing” for C.J. It was a rigged hearing. Soft ball questions. Biased jury. Misdemeanor charges for a felon. The suppression of evidence in the verdict. No cross examination. C.J. was not held accountable for his sins. Very little was investigated and all the terms and conditions were favorable to C.J. The three panel approach was an ostentatious show of righteousness - a pretense for justice. It was all image and no substance. People should be outraged.

This statement from Dave on Wednesday is also terribly deceptive.

“To further protect the integrity of the process, the interim Board sought the counsel and affirmation of an outside conciliation ministry, Ambassadors of Reconciliation (AOR). With C.J. on leave and AOR involved, the review process took the following form: We [the SGM Board and AOR] commissioned three outside ministers to review Brent’s documents in light of C.J.’s confessions and render their judgment on his fitness to serve in ministry. In light of their evaluation, they found him to be completely fit to serve. We [the SGM Board and AOR] then commissioned three panels—each consisting of three SGM pastors—to evaluate C.J.’s involvement in the three central events of Brent’s allegations.” (Dave Harvey, “An announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney,” January 25, 2012)

Dave says Ambassadors of Reconciliation “commissioned three panels-each consisting of three SGM pastors.” This is a lie! Three days ago, I talked to Ted Kober about this very subject in detail. I asked him if AOR helped create the three panel approach. He said no. I asked if he commended the approach. He said no. I asked him if he supported the approach. He said he never expressed support or a lack of support. He remained neutral because he did not feel it was his place to take a position since the SGM Board devised the plan entirely on their own.

Ted Kober did not help to create this plan and he did not in any way “commission” the three panel approach. This fabrication by Dave is just like his lie that Bryce Thomas came up with the questions for the three panels. SGM acted independent of AOR but the SGM Board wants you to believe otherwise. I hope Ted exposes this example of SGM spin in the AOR report coming out in March. Bryce also.

Here’s the truth.

The SGM Board broke their promise to secure an outside evaluation of all charges against C.J. and SGM by me and others on August 25, 2011.

The SGM Board shut down the adjudication hearing designed by AOR to examine all charges against C.J. and SGM by me and others using SGM pastors on October 24, 2011.

The SGM Board devised a plan that vanquished all their previous commitments on November 28, 2011. The hearing was limited to three supposed charges against C.J. from me. Just three and none of my charges against Dave, Bob, Gene, Mickey, et al. Furthermore, no charges of a similar nature from many others were heard against C.J. or SGM.

C.J., Dave and the SGM Board promised the world. Instead they delivered a whitewashed tomb full of hypocrisy and wickedness in the form of lies, broken promises, cover up, manipulation and deceit.

C.J. said, “I asked the board for a leave of absence from my position as President so I can have no position of influence in this process or its outcome, and so that every charge can be thoroughly evaluated.” He has returned as President but he has not been thoroughly evaluated. Far from it! C.J. is not a man of his word and his followers have treated him with partiality and favoritism.

Everyone in Sovereign Grace Ministries should take Jesus’ counsel seriously. It is not a time to stay. It is a time to leave and head for the hills.

Luke 21:20-23 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. [21] Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. [22] For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Other Important Quotes

Here is what Ken Sande told me.

“CJ has indicated his willingness to respond to your memos in writing, to submit himself to the review and correction of an independent panel of conciliators who would examine all of the issues you have raised, and to make whatever confessions that panel recommends.” (Ken Sande, Oct 14, 2010)

Here is what C.J. said

“I have asked Ken Sande for counsel on the best way to proceed…. I think Ken or someone else on his team (or even someone he could recommend) could help us agree to a process for moving forward, and find some independent mediators who could help us rigorously examine the concerns you raise. I would be eager to invite the conciliators to dig as deeply as they want into my life in order to fully address your concerns. I will take their counsel seriously, and I will confess my sins as widely as they recommend.” C.J. Mahaney, Oct 15, 2010)

Here is what Dave told all the SGM pastors.

“In order to ensure the most thorough and objective process possible, the board has decided to take the additional step of engaging an independent panel of mediators (external to SGM and our relational network) who are trained to evaluate such difficult situations, taking into account all relevant information [i.e. all my documents and writings], considering all perspectives, and providing objective feedback…. We will initiate the independent review process to evaluate every piece of information relevant to this situation as referenced above.” (Dave Harvey, June 11, 2011)

Here is what the SGM Board said.

“We (the Sovereign Grace board) wanted to follow up on your last e-mail to let you know what direction we’re planning to take in seeking a full resolution on the issues you’ve raised. Since you are at present still not willing to meet with an independent mediator, and because we nonetheless want to make sure that your concerns are thoroughly investigated, we are initiating a completely independent review of all the allegations you’ve raised concerning C.J. and the Sovereign Grace board’s response to those allegations. Our goal in this is to ensure the most thorough and objective process possible, and so we will seek to engage an independent panel of mediators who are spiritually mature, trained professionals who have no connection to Sovereign Grace. This panel will be able to review all of the written communications concerning this matter and interview any person, including yourself, whom they deem to have relevant information. The goal will be for them to provide an objective and detailed critique of C.J.’s and Sovereign Grace’s actions, as well as any appropriate evaluation of others involved in these various events. They will also provide specific recommendations for what remedial steps C.J. and Sovereign Grace should take in the future. (Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, Joshua Harris, June 14, 2011)

“Although our desire remains that you and C.J. could meet together personally with a mediator, we hope this step will be encouraging to you that your allegations and perspectives will receive a fair and impartial hearing.”

Here is a another statement from the SGM Board to all the pastors.

“As you know, the SGM board approved a leave of absence for C.J. Mahaney on June 30. This was done so that the board of directors, aided by the review of an independent panel, could lead him through a process of examining and appropriately responding to accusations that have been brought against him by former members and leaders [not just Brent] from our churches… As a reminder, we wanted to work with an independent organization to fully investigate the merit and potential consequences of these accusations.… You may also be wondering about our progress in securing the help of an independent organization to evaluate the accusations against C.J. and SGM. Please know those conversations are still ongoing and that we covet your prayers that we have success in this very soon. Both the board and C.J. are eager to commence this process.” (Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, Joshua Harris, July 9, 2011)

Dave sought to discredit me and disparage all my documents in his letter to the SGM pastors on June 11, 2011. He concluded the letter by assuring the pastors he had presented “a faithful narrative of a sad tale.” I became aware of this letter on July 5. What Dave and the Board did was unethical and sinful but I’ve been prevented from making this or any other “complaint” to anyone.

“Dear Brent,

“We’re sending along the attachments that you are requesting. We know this has upset you and we can understand why. We have struggled for months to know how to effectively communicate with you. If you believe our sending this letter was unethical or sinful, please submit that issue to the evaluation panel along with the other complaints you have against us. We welcome the opportunity to have objective eyes and minds examine all we’ve done so we can see our mistakes and make needed changes…. And the loudest statement of this was our decision to involve an independent panel.” (Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris, July 05, 2011)

Here is what Joshua Harris said to me while a SGM Board Member.

“To replace and remove [C.J.] without a godly process of evaluation would be to repeat the very mistakes now that we’re evaluating in the past. It has to be done in plurality, openly and as the result of a comprehensive review. That’s why I view this independent panel as such an important step for our movement. We need a comprehensive evaluation.” (Joshua Harris, June 29, 2011)

Here is another statement from the Board.

“Dear Brent,

“We are sorry but not surprised at how little trust you have in the SGM Board. We have made many mistakes in how we have sought to respond to your complaints, and we can understand why you have no confidence in our ability to provide objective guidance in resolving the issues you’ve raised. Your lack of trust in us, combined with our inexperience in handling a conflict of this complexity, heightens the necessity of seeking the assistance of godly and experienced men who can help us address these issues in a trustworthy manner…

“Wanting to move ahead with an independent panel as soon as possible, Tommy, Jeff, and John Loftiness had a telephone conference call with Ted Kober last week to explore the possibility of his organization serving us. Being aware of your concerns about secrecy and transparency, we tape recorded the entire conversation. We have informed Ted of all your concerns about secrecy, transparency, confidentiality, and accountability, and he is consulting with his colleagues on how they might handle your concerns. We will do all we can within the limits of their policies and guidance to make the process open and trustworthy, not only to you but to anyone else who wants to participate consistent with their guidelines…

“We pray that you will find AOR to be a trustworthy ministry and that you will join us in getting them as much information as possible as they seek to evaluate and suggest remedies to issues you have raised.” (Dave Harvey, Joshua Harris, Jeff Purswell, July 4, 2011)

One more from Dave.

“Because some of the charges move beyond C.J. to SGM, we also wanted to examine ourselves and our practices both past and current. To that end, we are in the process of securing help from an outside organization that can conduct a thorough and objective review of the charges being brought against C.J. and SGM. We are seeking to identify an organization that has no prior history with us and that has wide respect in Christian circles… However, given the numerous events, people, and perspectives involved, the work of an independent panel will be vital to fully examining these charges and arriving at an objective conclusion, especially on those charges with which the board does not agree…. Like C.J., we are committed to facilitate as thorough and objective a process as possible by an independent panel.” (Dave Harvey, “A note on C.J. Mahaney’s leave of absence,” July 7, 2011)

Here is a note from C.J. to me. He did none of the things promised.

“I am very eager to meet with the independent panel and hear their perspective and receive their correction as they study your documents and interview all the people involved. Since I haven’t any history with these folks I hope their objective evaluation will help them to perceive my sin more accurately and serve me as I hear their perspective and receive their correction…. As a result of these steps, my plan is to provide you with my response to your documents that specifically addresses your primary areas of concern…. I also plan to make a public confession to the Sovereign Grace pastors…. I anticipate that it will be beneficial for me to make a wider confession to the general public about God’s correction and refinement in my life.” (C.J. Mahaney, June 24, 2011)

This one is from Tommy Hill, the chief financial officer for SGM.

“Dear Brent,

“We wanted to update to you on some developing items relating to our efforts to secure an independent mediation and evaluation process…. Our potential objectives in engaging AoR would include:

“To evaluate charges and allegations against CJ and SGM leadership by Brent (and possibly others) and to recommend steps to remedy the wrongs identified.

“To understand how the wrongs done have affected our family of churches and to identify processes to protect against future wrongs.

“We also wanted you to know that in the next few days we’ll be making a public announcement that CJ is taking a leave of absence, that we are seeking a thorough evaluation from an independent panel.” (Tommy Hill, July 5, 2011)

Here is a relevant excerpt from my blog appealing to the CLC pastors. (see "The Need for Crisis Intervention by the Covenant Life Pastors," August 29, 2011)

To the Pastors of Covenant Life Church,

The SGM Board promised to search for and find outside arbitrators that would evaluate charges against C.J. and Sovereign Grace Ministries. This was “vital to fully examining these charges and arriving at an objective conclusion.” What was “vital” is now trivial and a serious betrayal of trust. Furthermore, the SGM Board has dropped all reference to the outside evaluation of the ministry [not just C.J.] they promised. They do not disclose this fact or provide any explanation for this omission. My charges, and those of others, are directed at other employees of Sovereign Grace Ministries in addition to C.J. These too were supposed to be investigated by an outside arbitrator…

If the SGM Board is genuinely interested in objectivity they will reverse course immediately. This is a moral issue, not simply a procedural issue. This is a major issue, not a minor one. If Sovereign Grace Ministries cannot be trusted to secure an unbiased panel of evaluators in keeping with their word, they cannot be trusted in anything. Please appeal to them to repent.

Finally, I’ve included two strenuously appeals to the SGM Board asking them to keep their promises.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:19 PM
To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; 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; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: Outside or Inside Evalution?

It has been over three weeks since I wrote you and I’ve heard nothing regarding how you intend to proceed regarding arbitration.

Are you willing to secure outside arbitrators as promised? Are you willing to evaluate C.J. as promised? Are you willing to evaluate others like Dave, Bob and Gene as promised? Are you willing to evaluate Sovereign Grace Ministries as promised? Are you willing to publish an open report on all these findings as promised?

Or are you proceeding to use in-house evaluators including one Board Member, limit their evaluation of C.J. to whether he should be a Board Member, Chairman or President of SGM, forbid them from evaluating others in SGM, not have them evaluate SGM in general, and provide no open report to the members of SGM churches?

I’ve appealed for your repentance. I’ve asked the CLC pastors to appeal for your repentance also. What have you decided?

I have made no decision regarding my participation in arbitration. That decision awaits answers from you to these questions.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:29 PM
To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; 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; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: Next Step

To the SGM Board of Directors,

I was promised the opportunity to make my case against C.J. and Sovereign Grace Ministries. I would like to proceed immediately.

As previously stated, I plan to call 25 people in witness again C.J. and SGM. I ask that all their travel expenses be covered by SGM.

I first expressed an interest in arbitration/adjudication on July 14 with Ted Kober. I’ve not heard from him since regarding this matter.

Like everyone else, I read about the recommendations of Ambassadors of Reconciliation when their Consultation Report was posted on the SGM website on August 25. I’ve not been part of any dialogue. On that post, Dave Harvey said, “We plan on following their recommendations in full.” I’ve also heard nothing from the SGM Board since the report was issued and accepted. That is almost 6 weeks ago.

This causes me to question your sincerity and wonder about your intentions. Therefore I must ask. Do you plan to follow through on all your promises to secure an open and thorough evaluation of Sovereign Grace Ministries by an outside, third party, no history with SGM, group of objective evaluators? Or do you plan to break your promises and impose a highly contained and minimalistic evaluation that is done by people belonging to SGM?

I am prepared to start my presentation today. I suspect it will take three weeks (or 120 hours) to present all my evidence in a condensed fashion. I’d plan on another three weeks to present evidence put forth by 25 other witnesses. Please don’t be negligent and let this drag out any further. We should schedule three weeks during October-December and three weeks during January-February.

I expect to hear back from you within the week.

Sincerely,

Brent

Post Script – February 6, 2012 8:03 AM

Dave Harvey emphatically stated that the SGM Board would “work with AOR…”to develop and launch an alternative process.” He also stated AOR “helped,” “recommended,” “affirmed,” and “endorsed” the entire three panel approach. Ted Kober denies all of these assertions.

“On October 13 we informed readers here that Brent Detwiler had declined participation in a formal adjudication to try his allegations against C.J. Mahaney. We also said that we would work with Ambassadors of Reconciliation, adjudication facilitator Bryce Thomas, and SGM pastors to develop and launch an alternative process. We’ve done that, and I’ll outline the plan [the three panel approach] in a moment.” (Dave Harvey, “Evaluating Brent Detwiler’s Allegations,” October 28, 2011)

“So with the help of Ted Kober from Ambassadors of Reconciliation and under the direction of an independent facilitator named Bryce Thomas, we’ve set up the following process…. Each committee is made up of two pastors from within SGM and one member of the SGM board. Both AOR and the facilitator recommended a panel of three and affirmed this composition…. Is this a perfect process? No, of course not. We never could come up with a perfect process. But we believe that this is a fair, impartial process. The fact that it has been endorsed by both the independent facilitator and the team from AOR gives us confidence that the questions before each panel will be answered fairly and judiciously.” (Dave Harvey, “What Are We Doing About the Allegations against C.J.,” November 28, 2011)