No One Can Question C.J.'s Public Confession of Specific Sin - Really?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011 at 1:24PM Where do I begin?
Four weeks ago, today, I sent out "The Documents" (see sgmwikileaks) to all the pastors in Sovereign Grace Ministries. Since then I've been watching and waiting. It is now time for comment on what I've observed. Hence this blog.
I've also begun Aletheia Ministries - a separate Facebook page and website is in the works. I don't plan to use Aletheia, which is the Greek word for truth, in order to address personal issues or individuals within Sovereign Grace Ministries. I will do that on this blog. More on Aletheia Ministries in the future.
I want my posts to be focused and of limited length. Therefore, I don't plan to make or develop too many points at one time. At least I'll try not to. Instead, I'll attempt to develop the point(s) I make and bring home its implications. I'll build new points upon previous points. I plan to write two or three times a week. Sign up to receive posts automatically under the "Connect" section using "Subscribe in a reader" or "Subscribe to BrentDetwiler by Email." I also want to use language that is accessible (you know, understandable) to the average reader.
Well, that's enough of an introduction. I'll tell you how nice a guy I am later. Let's get going.
Yesterday, Dave Harvey, interim President of Sovereign Grace Ministries, posted the preliminary findings of a three man panel on the SGM blog. The panel was asked "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."
Today, I am going to deal with one part of one statement in their finding. That is, "No one can question that C.J. Mahaney has specifically confessed his sins, both publicly and privately."
A few brief observations.
- "No one" - this is a categorical statement, a universal negative, not a single person.
- "can question" - the evidence is so overwhelming it cannot be questioned, end of debate, it is a shut and closed case, no further examination is necessary.
- "that C.J. Mahaney has specifically confessed his sins." - this is an assertion with no proof, the panel provides no information regarding the specific sins C.J. has confessed, the reader is left to research the matter for himself, very unhelpful.
- "both publicly and privately" - the panel claims C.J.'s confession of specific sins has unquestionably occurred in private and in public, that's obvious to them.
I want to address the last part of this authoritative assertion regarding C.J.'s public confession.
There have been two occasions when C.J. "confessed" his sin in public. The first time in a Sovereign Grace blog on July 6, 2011 entitled, "Why I am taking a leave of absence." The second in person on July 10, 2011 at Covenant Life Church (CLC). In my next two blog posts, I will provide detailed comments on those "specific" confessions according to DeYoung, Ortlund and Trueman. For now, let me summate my findings in contrast to their findings.
- Nothing in C.J.'s July 6 blog is specific and it hardly qualifies as a confession. It is a vague acknowledgement of unspecified "sins" and "deficiencies." Read it closely.
- Little in C.J.'s July 10 confession is specific and those comments are confined to Dave and me back in 2003-2004. Otherwise, C.J.'s comments to CLC are vague, general, and non-descript. For example, he says, "in a particular phone conversation I sought to coerce Larry...my public announcement of his departure was self-righteous in attitude and critical of Larry." He doesn't go into any detail. He provides little background. He doesn't share particulars (for that kind of information you must read Part 3: Concluding Remarks, pages 131-179 at sgmwikileaks). At the end of his comments, C.J. says to CLC, "I want to ask for your forgiveness for these sins and their effects on you." What does he mean specifically? What sins against CLC is he talking about? What adverse effects upon the church does he have in mind? He makes none of this clear.
I responded to Joshua's humble note and added my thoughts about the deficiencies of C.J.'s remarks.
Of course, C.J. has not returned to CLC since July 10. He has not been to any Sunday morning meetings or any subsequent Sunday evening Member's Meetings.
Okay, let me wrap things up. DeYoung, Ortlund and Trueman concluded their findings with this statement.
"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."
Here's the stunner! I totally agree with their conclusion! Based on C.J.'s publicly "confessed sins" he is not disqualified. Why? Because he acknowledged next to nothing and nothing specific except for his treatment of Dave and me eight to nine years ago! So based upon his public confessions, the three man panel is correct - C.J. is "still fit to be a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a pastor to others." Thanks Kevin, Ray and Carl for making that clear to all of us.
Reader Comments (51)
Brent,
CJ may have been the Emperor but you where Darth Vader for sure.
[Jack. Well at least Darth Vader came around in the end. Brent]
I agree with others, Brent, that blatant sarcasm can take away from the seriousness of it all, though we are always amused when Jesus Himself did use some sarcasm with the religious leaders! They wanted to literally, "kill him"! I notice that the SGMSurvivors & SGMRefuge creators (and others) often resort to sarcasm and that can cause some readers to potentially dismiss the current commentaries, though I well appreciate that long-suffering leads to many mixed emotions. I know, and have dialogued with, many SGM folks who go all the way back to TAG and PDI and some totally ignore the blogs and your documents due to fear, ignorance or both, while others deliberately avoid the longtime serious issues of SGM's flawed leadership and frequently sinful methods of leading. THERE IS A PATTERN OF SIN! Some might simply blame the way the SGM Pastor's College teaches and turns out such young impressionable men who desire to quickly lead and support a growing family, but we know it goes a lot deeper than that. It seems to me a tiny minority have tried to prayerfully and sincerely look at as much of the evidence as time allows. I am reading through the 600 pages, but most of my acquaintances and friends are not bothering, because their pastors are playing it down, or they see it as, "Oh, that's CJ just being CJ." The tendency appears to be for SGM to gloss over and cover up any wrongs done by them and even when pastors apologize publicly with tears, it comes long after the damage has been done. Many sheep are still blindly believing that everything they are being fed is good for them and there is a huge cult of CJ and SGC love. Without you following Matthew 18, this would have gone on until another man spoke up, so a deep, heartfelt thank-you. You have a long history of close participation, faithful service and valid observation, but sadly you will still be dismissed by SGM and former friends! I don't see REAL heart change happening for them as a whole, just intense and subtle damage control. Unfortunately, deep down they haven't learned a thing and the ship will keep sailing on until another big storm. As they keep teaching their flocks, "GOD IS SOVEREIGN!" And how hard a spanking can they take?
I'm with Greg on the sarcasm (which I think also applies to the documents) and Oscar on the possibility of other material. I don't want things like that to get in the way of what could be a very good process for everyone.
Brent, Thank you for shining the light of truth on things that have been hidden for years. That is a good thing. Without you, I strongly believe these things would still be hidden. I'm praying that God will help you to not become weary in doing good.
For what it's worth I must respectfully disagree with the poster above and say that sarcasm use appropriately often makes one's point understandable to people who would otherwise have trouble discerning the gist of the complex topic Brent is taking on.
In addition, the more I read and think about it the more I think that the Kangaroo court SGM has set up for C.J. Mahaney deserves to be ridiculed via sarcasm rather than dignified with serious responses.
When SGM gives 6-figure paid "seasons of reflection" to all the pastors that C.J. Mahany has "de-gifted" or perhaps even black-mailed under what their moderator Andrew now calls a "broken system" for pastoral discipline, I'll take the idea that sarcasm is not an appropriate means of pointing out the SGM leadership's hypocrisy.
I'm tempted at times to comment on the lifestyles of those in leadership but, I won't. I just "reflect" upon what Paul and the rest of the Apostles thoughts would be. Nuff said.
Hello Brent, Oscar pointed out something I have a question about too.
I was understanding that the 3 panel is not talking about the documents, but the non specific confessed sins of CJ and what they had read regarding the members meeting. Do we know what documentation was made available to them for certain?
thanks
Patti
Travis K asked Brent if he sought/received Joshua Harris's permission to post what Travis characterized as a "private" communication. Not sure of Travis' intent with this question however I am interested in his intentions with this question. It could be construed as having behind it a hidden agenda but I am not certain and it would be wrong to conclude anything untoward or even diisingenous with the question. Two points. Email or letters are not considered private unless the writer specifically asks that to be the case. Letters or email correspondence become the "property" of the recipient (unless they are work related and done on company equipment letterhead etc). The recipient is free to do as they see fit with personal correspondence (unless the sender requets otherwise). This is a general rule and not hard and fast.
One other salient point. I think it is safe to say that since Brent has already posted much of his correspondence with SGM regarding the issues involved (with their knowledge but not their approval or permission) and even some of Josh Harris' as well, that Josh would have been aware of the probability of Brent posting this correspondence and could have asked Brent to keep it private if he wanted to. Regardless of all this, I think the question is well questionable. Here's a conundrum for you Travis. Even though you posted
your question on an forum that is moderated (in other words it does not post automatically, did you give specific instructions to Brent regarding posting it or not. You could have but did not and that led Brent to presume you wanted it posted. In essence you implied you wanted it posted by not saying you did not want it posted. I think Josh's correspondence implied the same thing lacking any directives otherwise.
@Travis K I'm in complete agreement with Steve Zahm's comment only adding this:
Brent's stated purpose for publishing "The Documents" has been to bring the specific charges that, first he (Brent), then the other witnesses (Dave Harvey, Steve Shank, Joshua Harris, Grant Laymen, Kenneth Maresco, and Bob Kauflin) have made against C.J., to the church according to Matt. 18:15-17. These charges were not intended for "public consumption" but rather, specifically, brought to the church so that the church may also act as witnesses aginst C.J. Our commision, according to Matt. 18:17 is to do the exact same thing as the first witness (Brent) has done, which is to: #1. go to C.J. and tell him his sins(as documented by Brent and confirmed by his witnesses), #2. be a corporate witness as to whether C.J. has confessed and repented of those sins which have been established for the purpose of #3. restoring C.J. in the spirit of meekness (Gal. 6:1). This process is a "trial" and all relevant information, documentation and evidence as pertains to the trial is relevant and necessary for the church to judge righteous judgement. I don't percieve anything that would indicate that anyone is on a "witch hunt", we just want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in whatever form(s) that takes.
Brent,
I understand that you and others have been hurt, and have read the comments that your blog seems to be appreciated by many. However, I am struggling to see this as a necessary means.
We all sin, yeah? How many times has my sin, or your sin been broadcast on the internet, and then our apologies dissected? I understand that people in leadership are going to be held more accountable than others, but are we trying to help this man, or are we venting our frustration? It seems to me like we are "casting stones" here. CJ is flawed like everyone else. While he has made mistakes, clearly his intentions are to lead people to Jesus and spread the wonderful Gospel. Anyone who can't see that, is blinded by their unwillingness to forgive. I do not intend to minimize the hurt that he may have caused anyone reading this, but too often we get caught up in the minute details of Christianity instead of focusing on the main point...Jesus Christ died for our sins. And even better, he forgave our sins. That is the main point. Lets all get back to basics.
Jared
[Jared. We have been trying to help C.J. not vent It is not a matter of casting stones or an unwillingness to forgive. That misses the point. I love to forgive but the problems in SGM are serious. It begins with C.J. changing so the movement can change. Not holding him accoubtable is an act of hatred not love. Brent]
Hey Patti,
Sorry I can't help. I don’t know what documents were provided to DeYoung, Ortlund or Truemen. In fact, I didn’t know who was on the panel until their findings were posted this week. I was never contacted by any of them.
At a loss,
Brent
Brent, I am sure that DeYoung, Ortlund and Truemen will be in contact with you to get your side, since they are the impartial team called in by SGM. (Not sure if that is sarcasm, and I wrote it.)
Regarding Steve Z post above......In general, professional/corporate e-mail correspondence is confidential to the extent of whom it it is addressed to. Steve, surely you don't believe your private e-mail correspondence should be posted for the world to see....do you? If so, post your e-mail log-in info so we can all have a look...LOL. And posting to a blog is not private e-mail correspondence as the post-er is aware the writings are for public consumption. C'mon, Steve, you must be joking!!!! Posting private e-mail can violate any number of laws depending on the content and distribution.
I find it an extraordinary demonstration of Josh's love and respect for Brent that he even would consider responding back via e-mail knowing Brent's propensity for publishing confidential correspondence. Now, I think the next wave of SGM criticism will be "SGM board & Pastors are not responding to Brent's e-mails.....must be some kind of a "cover up" rather than these men have a genuine concern for breach of trust issues.
AND.....Brent, please know that I am deeply concerned about the way you were treated based on the information you posted. I don't know you personally but I have been involved in a SGM church for over 25 years so I've seen you preach and have been blessed by your gift of teaching many times over. I pray God would bring restoration (in whatever form He chooses) in this very difficult time and that He might provide an abundance of daily bread for you. I am grateful for your years service with PDI/SGM.
A Call to Confession and Repentance
By
The Church
The Holy and Royal Priesthood of God
In obedience to and for the glory of our Savior
Jesus Christ
According to His Holy Word
The Gospel according to Matthew
An Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ
To
C.J. Mahaney
Pastor of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Churches
Matthew Chapter 18:15-17
“Moreover if your brother shall sin against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But, if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but, if he neglect to hear the church, let him be as a gentile man and a tax collector.”
We, the church, by the affixing of our names to this document, stand together as one man, acting as solemn witnesses to acknowledge and agree that:
According to the testimony of Brent Detwiler as chronicled in “The Documents”, he came to you and between you and him alone, charged you with specific sins, which are:
pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment and hypocrisy.
Brent has also testified, that you did not repent of these sins.
Pg. 1 of 2
We, the church, also stand together as one man and solemn witnesses, to acknowledge and agree that:
According to the testimonies of Dave Harvey, Steve Shank, Joshua Harris, Grant Laymen, Kenneth Maresco, and Bob Kauflin, as recorded in “The Documents”, the sins that Brent has accused you of, have all been established and you have neglected to repent to them as well.
Furthermore, we stand together as one man and solemn witnesses, to acknowledge and agree that:
Brent, in obedience to Matt. 18:17, has now brought the matter of the aforementioned sins you have commited, to the church. To our knowledge, you have not confessed or repented of the charges of sin against you. Therefore:
We the church, in the spirit of meekness; considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted and in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, call upon you, C.J. Mahaney, to specifically and publicly, confess and repent of these sins before God and His church as a testimony of His grace and mercy.
In conclusion C.J., we are honored to serve the Lord in this matter and beseech you in all humility and gentleness, as co-heirs of the kindom of God, to hear what the Spirit is saying to you. Jesus said “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will lead you into all truth”. If you will confess and repent of these sins, we have faith to believe that He will, by His mercy, restore the years that the locust, cankerworm, caterpiller and palmerworm have eaten.
By His grace and in His love,
__________________________________ __________________________________
Signature Printed Name
__________________________________ __________________________________
__________________________________ __________________________________
__________________________________ __________________________________
Pg. 2 of 2
Dave Harvey, while referring to C.J.'s leave of absence, wrote in his August 5 blog entry, "Jeff, Josh, and I (the old board) all thought that C.J.’s leave would 'walk the high road' because it removed his potential influence over the evaluation process and allowed him to engage more fully with the evaluation."
Removing C.J.'s potential influence is a good idea but it appears the "old board" minus Josh Harris will be spending a lot of time together this weekend ministering in the Dominican Republic. http://porsucausa.org/
Are we to believe they will not be talking about the evaluation process while traveling and being together? Perhaps C.J. has declined the invitation in order to maintain the integrity of the process, but then again, his being declared fit for ministry may have overridden this concern.
Justan said "I find it an extraordinary demonstration of Josh's love and respect for Brent that he even would consider responding back via e-mail knowing Brent's propensity for publishing confidential correspondence."
I appreciate your comments. A little more background may help. Joshua's email confession was "private" but the issue he addressed "public." After the August 20, 2004 meeting, C.J. took over the process and turned Joshua, Grant, Kenneth and Bob against me. I addressed this in the documents. Joshua acknowledged as much in general terms at the recent Covenant Life Member's Meeting on July 10, 2011.
I experienced real abuse after the August 20 meeting. Like everthing else, I brought this to their attention in private but without success. I raised it again in the documents without success. These four men need to make a specific and clear confession of sin to the movement also. They took up C.J.'s offenses and sinful judgments of me and harshly rebuked me (e.g. see RRF&D, pp. 67-68) for the concerns I was raising for C.J. They now agree with many of those concerns. At a later time, I'll write a blog on this topic.
I would just like to point out that CJ's messages have revolutionized my entire family's walk with God and a sovereign grace church has been responsible (humanly speaking) for nearly all my adult christian growth, as well as the salvation of almost all of my friends. I am still filtering through the long documents (1chor13 anyone?), and I am trying to be balanced. But please understand though his leadership may be flawed, he has still been used by God for good in the lives of thousands.
I find it interesting that Brent seems not to have any sin to come clean with in this dispute. Wisdom is not sinlessness, but confession and repentance. Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
This following statement I believe was written by Justin in an earlier post:
" I think the next wave of SGM criticism will be "SGM board & Pastors are not responding to Brent's
e-mails.....must be some kind of a "cover up" rather than these men have a
genuine concern for breach of trust issues".
I have to disagree with the thought behind this statement. You are coming from a starting point of believing these men are genuinely concerned with trust issues. The pastors do not consider any emails coming to them as personal emails to the addressee alone. They forward them anywhere they choose. Care group leaders forward emails to their pastors and pastors to each other. When I questioned them about that, the response is "We are trying to care for you the best way we can". I believe that could be the same response to these emails being posted. Sometimes care comes in many different ways.
Justan:
Interesting claim you make without a shred of support. Please post the applicable laws that says making public someone's email or other correspondence is illegal. I technically "own" any correspondence sent to me in any form and I can decide to do with what I will unless I am asked otherwise by the sender and then and only then does it become a violation, not of law, but of ethics.
The only possible issue is one of copyright and that usually (almost always) refers to the possible commercial value of the contents of the email, i.e., someone emailed you the lyrics to a song they wrote.
Here is a good web site that discusses this issue.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
"They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honor.
:-) I'm right and you're wrong ha ha ha (this is meant to be humorous in case anybody misinterpret.
Steve Z.
I want to second what Mark said above. Yes, SGM has significant flaws-- and they are more fully expressed in some churches than others. And yes, I have been hurt by those flaws, so I don't come at this from a position of adulatory naivete. However, my church has been an avenue of great grace (haha, do you like my SGM-speak?) and I have no inclination to leave it. God does work through sinners.