JOSH HARRIS ON A POSSIBLE SPLIT WITH SGM


Our Main Focus Tonight

But now let’s turn our attention to our primary focus tonight. Let’s talk about the issue of our church’s participation in Sovereign Grace Ministries. And let me state again, this was not influenced by the lawsuit or its allegations. We came to a place of clarity and unity as a pastoral team before we knew anything about the lawsuit.

We believe the healthiest thing we can do as a church is to stay focused on our mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ built on the word, empowered by the spirit and going with the gospel.

And that’s the main reason why we think it’s important for us to press ahead tonight and bring you into the thinking of the pastoral team about our relationship with SGM. We believe that bringing clarity to this relationship is a vital part of our church moving forward and staying on mission.

Before we begin, I want to read a Scripture and pray. God’s Word in James 1:2-5 says this:

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that
the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in
nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all
without reproach, and it will be given him.”

Our church has certainly encountered “trials of various kinds” in the last two years. “Various kinds” is an interesting way of putting it, isn’t it?

The period we’ve been walking through has affected us all differently. For some, this has been a confusing and troubling time in the life of our church. Others may feel less affected and wonder what all the stir is about. Regardless of our particular response, this has been a time of trial, and we have needed the Lord’s help every step of the way. None of us have walked perfectly. I think most of us would say there’s been ample temptation to sin in our words and attitudes all along the way. God has surely gotten our attention, and maybe not in a way we might have preferred or prescribed. But he has ordained this time of trial for us to walk through together, and he determines the boundaries. God is testing the genuineness of our faith and working his good purposes in us; he is with us in this difficult season.

God calls us to count a time like this all joy. Not to complain. Not look for an easier path. Not to doubt God. But to thank him and trust that this testing of our faith is producing steadfastness in us. Let’s pray to that end…

PRAY

As we begin I would ask you to remember that the issues surrounding our relationship with SGM are for many very personal and emotional. Keep in mind that the person sitting next to you may have a different perspective than you. Let’s remember that our unity because of the gospel is bigger than our differences about these matters. So regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what I share tonight, I want to ask you to refrain from expressing yourself. Please don’t clap or say “amen!” And I’d be grateful if you don’t boo. Let’s seek to maintain the unity we have in the Spirit.

At our last Members Meeting in June I told you that when it came to our relationship with SGM, your pastors would not simply “hand down” a decision to you. We would engage you in our thinking and then get your feedback and counsel before making a final decision.

And this is exactly what we want to do tonight. We are not announcing a decision. We are putting forward the direction we believe God is giving us. We have clarity and unity as a pastoral team in this direction. But we want to process this with you.

The result of our times of prayer and discussion over the past several months, and culminating with our pastors retreat last month, is a clear sense that God is leading us on a diverging path from SGM.

For some of you this may come as a surprise. We’ve told you in the last year our confidence in SGM has been shaken and that there are mutual disappointments. But you might have assumed these differences would be worked out in the polity process. What we have seen more clearly in the last few months is that the differences we have with SGM go beyond issues of polity.

Over the past year there has been a growing clarity for our pastoral team that we think about and approach leadership differently than SGM. Our pastoral team has a different perspective on organizational behavior, aspects of the history of our movement, the most appropriate response to the weaknesses of our movement, and how decisions should have been made and communicated in the past year. The cumulative effect of all of these concerns is a lack of confidence in the organization and a lack of faith for ongoing participation. We have a fundamental difference on how leadership and pastoral ministry should be practiced and applied.

We had planned to make a final decision about our participation in SGM after the polity process was finished (we’ve learned this will be sometime potentially in March). But there is a growing consensus on our team that it may be in the best interest of our church to make this decision sooner rather than later.

Here’s the bottom line for us: In light of our fundamental differences, we think remaining a member church in SGM would be a distraction both for our mission and the people of our church. We believe our first priority and commitment must be to the mission God has given us to proclaim the gospel and make disciples here in our community.

I’d like to take time now to fill out some background on this direction and hopefully answer a few questions I anticipate you might have…

Why We’ve Waited

Some of you may feel we should have made this decision a long time ago. You may be wondering why we’ve waited so long to come to this conclusion.

Several reasons: First, we made a commitment to each other and the church not to rush this significant decision, We wanted to give ample time to process and understand the viewpoint of SGM and to see what unfolded under the tenure of a new Board. We wanted to take time to communicate with the new Board and understand their perspective. We felt it was important to have the July 6 meeting with the Board where we could share our thoughts in person.
We thought it would be wise to wait for the Board to write to the movement about the meeting. These events played out over the course of the summer months, and we have taken time to process them.

Why We Believe It’s Time To Act Now

Some of you may have a different question: “Why are you acting now instead of waiting till all the issues with polity are finalized? Haven’t you said a number of times that you planned to wait until SGM redefined itself?”

The answer again is a growing realization that the primary differences are not matters of polity and will not be resolved by polity changes. Yes, now that we have seen the polity proposal, we have points of disagreement that we will touch on briefly tonight. But we believe the issues we’ll be walking you through tonight are bigger than polity.

Several events in the past few months have helped inform our thinking on this important decision. They include: Communication leading up to our July 6 meeting with the new Board, the meeting itself, the two letters from the Board that followed the meeting, and subsequent communications from SGM. The September letter from SGM’s Board in which they shared their view on six key decisions of the past year was particularly clarifying for us. It helped confirm our perspective that while SGM has made some changes they are not significantly changing their prior course and approach to leadership. All of these events have provided additional data and helped shape our thinking.

Again, our pastoral team is united; we believe that we should step back from our partnership with SGM now rather than extending the process in a way that will likely distract both our church and SGM as we move forward.

Is This About Unresolved Relational Issues?

Another question that we’ve heard from some of you is whether leaving SGM is really about unresolved personal issues. This is an important question for us. Part of the reason we’ve gone slowly in our decision-making process is because we wanted to be confident that we have been thorough and have honored the Lord in how we relate to our friends with whom we’ve disagreed.

Over the last 15 months, I’ve sought to be very clear that there has been mutual disappointment and disagreement. And this has strained relationships. But as we’ve prayed and asked the Lord to search our hearts, we don’t believe the state of our personal relationships is directing our course. Where we can we have sought to ask forgiveness of our friends. Where they have asked forgiveness we have forgiven them. And we take them at their word when they say they have no personal offense toward us. We have continued to pray for our brothers and express affection for them in conversation and in written communication. And we will continue to pursue them and love them in the days to come.

So, to the best of our ability to know our hearts before God, the answer is “no” —unresolved personal relationships are not the driver for this decision. What’s driving the decision is areas of principled disagreement with SGM leadership, and our goal tonight is to explain these differences as well as we can.

I’ve heard some speak of Covenant Life separating from SGM as a divorce. And I can understand why people can feel this way. Those of us who have been here longer have good reason to take the events of last July and all that has followed pretty hard.

But I’d like to share why I don’t think a divorce analogy is accurate or appropriate. First, we understand that marriage is a sacred bond established by God. This is why Scripture tells us God hates divorce. But church association is not the same as marriage—it’s not in the same category.
It’s not a sacred covenant. And so it’s not inherently sinful to end an association between churches. We have this freedom as a local church and body of believers. And gospel unity does not mean that we must remain in the same church association.

I want you to know that when we think of withdrawing our membership in SGM, it doesn’t mean discontinuing friendships or deserting gospel unity. We remain friends with the leaders in SGM.
We love these men. We are brothers in Christ and that doesn’t change. We want them to succeed and thrive and they’ve expressed the same desire for us. And we’re going to continue to pray and work toward stronger relationships.

Our Reasons for Departing

I want to take time now to elaborate on the reasons we believe it’s the right step to part ways with SGM. The first four points primarily look back, the last three look forward to our future as a local church on a mission. As a pastoral team, we’re hesitant to go into an abundance of detail about our concerns about the past. We do not want to offend brothers and sisters, whatever their opinions on these matters, and we don’t want our church family business to become the subject of continued public debate. But we believe you, the members of Covenant Life, deserve the opportunity to understand and interact with our reasoning. Making a decision of this level of importance without a good explanation could leave our church vulnerable to rumors and speculation based on inaccurate information. We believe talking through this is an important part of building unity and trust for our future together

We want to give clear categories. So let me begin with four concerns— four main categories that we believe speak to the wisdom of remaining in formal association with SGM:

1. Differences over the appropriate way to acknowledge and turn from past failures.

As a pastoral team, we believe the best way for us to move forward is by repenting of our past sins and owning where any patterns and practices have hurt people—both leaders and church members. Good steps have been taken by SGM; however, the primary accent, from our perspective, has been on downplaying and minimizing the seriousness of the issues of the past.

I know this perspective may be difficult for some to understand, since the congregation has not been the recipient of direct communication from SGM leadership other than what has been made available publicly. The pastoral team has been in a position to interact with SGM leadership through a variety of channels throughout this time of crisis, and we continue to see things as we have from early on:

We believe the painful circumstances of the past 15 months have been Gods loving discipline for our church. We believe these trials are an expression of his love for the greater Sovereign Grace movement. We believe God has given us a wonderful opportunity to humble ourselves, to learn and to acknowledge where our leadership practices have fallen short.
But this view has consistently put us at odds with the leadership of SGM. We think this difference over interpreting our shared history and the seriousness of the issues revealed adversely affects our ability to move forward into a shared future.

2. Differences over how to handle principled disagreement.

In situations where our team has brought us a perspective that disagrees with SGM leadership’s norms or existing practices, our input has often been perceived as disloyalty. Connected with this, there has been a tendency to separate from and marginalize those who disagree.

We don’t think that complete-across-the-board agreement between ministry partners is a necessary requirement for association. To the contrary, disagreement is a healthy thing that comes up in any relationship; in his grace God uses it to help sharpen and mature us. Proverbs 27:17 says. “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” But, again, we have found that our expressions of disagreement, before and after July 2011, have often been met with correction and relational separation.

So for example, our signing of the “Fairfax Letter” (also signed by 19 other churches) which asked the Interim Board to slow down its process of seating a new Board was viewed as being disloyal and divisive. We were disappointed that no pastors who signed this letter or publicly criticized decisions by SGM were invited to sit on the new Board or the polity committee.

Another example that troubled us is that in January of this year, the SGM Leadership Team began to actively pursue planting a new church in our area. They communicated that this new church would be for people who had left Covenant Life and who wanted a church like “Covenant Life used to be.” The feeling was that even if Covenant Life stayed in SGM, we would not be as strongly supportive of SGM as this group of people would desire.

We objected to this church plant because we were still a Sovereign Grace church in close proximity to the proposed plant’s location. Eventually, after we expressed considerable concern along with other pastors in SG, the board asked the leadership team to table this idea. But the situation is indicative of this tendency to withdraw from those who disagree.

Essentially, we’ve observed a continuing pattern of relational withdrawal (both personal and organizational) when there is disagreement with leadership. This heightens our concern about the health of the organization and our ability to experience genuine partnership in it.

3. Differences in Leadership Culture: Decision Making and Communication.

Our third concern is for what we perceive to be an approach to decision-making and communication that doesn’t honor the role of elders of the local churches in SGM. This is probably our biggest concern. And it has to do with the leadership culture of the movement. It’s hard to describe this, but we’re concerned that there is an unhealthy leadership culture, where significant decisions are located in a few men without the input and involvement of SGM pastors.

The new polity is a good step bringing about change, but because there hasn’t been a willingness to acknowledge this pattern we’re concerned that even in a new polity it will take some time for this change to take hold.

One of the most significant examples of this relates to the decision to move the SGM headquarters and Pastors College to Louisville. I want to be clear, we’re not addressing the planting of a church in that city. We’re specifically addressing the relocation of the Pastors College.
Our perspective is that this was by far the most far reaching of the decisions made over the past year. We didn’t immediately understand all the implications when the decision was first announced. But the location of the Pastors College has a significant impact on how future pastors in our movement will be trained and what model of ministry they will observe.

And yet this decision was not one that the pastors of SGM were invited to participate in at all. It was made before a new polity was established. And it was the first decision made by the new Board in their first meeting after being seated. While there may be good economic reasons for the relocation, we believe the way this decision was made—in a hurried manner by a small group of people without consulting the wider movement—illustrates one of our concerns with the SGM leadership culture.

While we’re talking about the Pastors College, I want to acknowledge that because of our differences with SGM regarding leadership practice and culture, we would not feel comfortable sending future pastors for training in the Pastors College. All of the men leading the college have expressed strong disagreement with our leadership. I’m sad to say this, but obviously this has significant ramifications for future partnership in SGM.

4. Differences In Polity.

Our final concern relates to the new polity that Sovereign Grace has just recently unveiled. As I mentioned earlier, the concerns we have transcend the issue of polity but polity is a factor and I want to briefly address it. Last Sunday the Sovereign Grace Ministries Polity Committee released its proposed Book of Church Order for SGM. You can read it yourself on the SGM website.

There is much in the proposal we are encouraged by, even as we recognize there are fundamental aspects of this proposal that are at odds with the position we have taken. Before focusing on those points of difference, I want to consider points of encouragement and give thanks to God.

This document is the fruit of many months of study, debate, and interaction among many SGM pastors, This process is one we believe has been a significant step forward for SGM in engaging and involving its pastors in evaluating theological positions and developing policies, one in which we gladly and thoroughly participated. We are sincerely grateful for the hard work of the committee, the other SG pastors who participated.

There are many points we’re encouraged by. For example, in this polity the authority is distributed. It will now be relocated from a small group of men to assemblies of elders. There are also clear policies for the removal of elders. And there is regionalization—governance, care and missional strategy will be relocated from a central headquarters to regions of local pastors.

But while there are several strengths about the polity to be encouraged by, at its foundation it is at odds with our stated position on polity. The SGM polity gives authority to an entity outside the local church, the regional assembly.

Now there is much to appreciate about having a regional assembly of elders. It is something we would very interested in, even excited about, if it served in an advisory capacity.
But as it is, the assembly controls the ordination and discipline of elders and determines key aspects of mission. These are authoritative functions that we believe must be handled within the governance of local churches.
We have laid out our processes for these matters in our church constitution and do not believe Scripture permits us to delegate this authority to the elders of other churches.

As a church we are excited about the partnerships we have with other churches—especially those in our region and hope to continue to deepen those partnerships. We are also grateful for the accountability structures established in our constitution both among the elders and with the congregation. We believe we can have this kind of vital connection without ceding the authority of local churches to outside assemblies.

So while it does represent a significant step forward and there is much we are very encouraged by, it is fundamentally at odds with our stated convictions on the nature of authority in the church and so we cannot support or adopt it.

Now, let me share three reasons why we believe ending our formal association with SGM is going to help us be more effective as a church.

1. We want our local church to take greater ownership of local and global missions.

For many years we have essentially outsourced our mission giving to SGM. We’re grateful for the many good ways this money was invested. But one of the unintended consequences that we’ve observed is that our pastoral team and membership has not been directly and actively engaged with thinking about and praying for global missions—someone else has been taking care of it for us. We are very excited to be involving members of our church in a missions task force and asking the Lord to give us a clear strategy and partnerships to help advance the gospel in our area through supporting church planting and around the world through global missions.

We believe as we build together as a church, God wants to mobilize us as a congregation—the people, the gifts in our midst, the resources— to take the gospel deeper into the Washington DC region and to the uttermost parts of the earth

2. We want to broaden our partnerships and associations with other gospel-centered

churches.

We believe that stepping away from SGM will encourage us to have a bigger Kingdom of God outlook on partnership. We want to look for ways to partner with and encourage other gospel-proclaiming churches in the Washington, D.C. region. My participation on the Gospel Coalition Council has given me a greater appreciation for the ways the Spirit is working among many different denominations and church planting movements. In some ways, I think our church has unnecessarily isolated itself from other ministries in our region. We want to change that. We want to look for ways to learn from, encourage and be a blessing to churches. We want to be a generous, outward looking church that is always looking for more opportunities to promote gospel ministry.

3. We want to dedicate ourselves to getting our own house in order as a local church.

Two years ago, after my mother passed away, I had an important season of soul searching and asking the Lord to speak to me about my calling and purpose in life. I believe he spoke very clearly to me: focus on being faithful at Covenant Life. I felt the Lord told me not to be distracted by speaking at conferences or pursuing national ministry or greater acclaim.
Instead I was to dedicate myself to growing and building and sharpening the mission of this church. I sensed the Lord say: “This is your post. Do not leave your post.” I had no idea at the time how much turmoil we would be facing, but I still believe that is God’s call on my life and for our pastoral team.

This pastoral team’s heart is to shepherd this flock. We love you. We are for you. Despite our weaknesses and failures, we believe God has a good future for our church, a future full of grace.

We do not believe it’s wise for us to be caught up in advocating for reform in a national movement at this time. It seems likely that significant upheaval and leadership change in SGM will occur in the next few years, and we would like to avoid the significant distraction from our primary mission that our continued involvement would entail.

Our local church needs attention. We want to create a process for non-staff pastors to be trained and set in. We want to train and deploy deacons. We want to find ways to build on the strengths and improve our small groups. We want to increase the study of God’s Word and train people to be disciple makers. We want to improve how we teach children on Sunday mornings. We want to push more ministry into the community and better engage the poor, the addicted and the disenfranchised. By God’s grace, we want to help plant dozens of churches in our region. We have work to do, and we’re ready and willing to devote ourselves to it.

Why We’re Full of Faith For The Future

I want to take a few minutes to talk more about the vision God has given us as a church. We don’t simply believe God is calling us to leave something. We believe he is calling us forward to a renewed commitment to be a local church consumed with a passion for the glory of Jesus Christ.

God has given us resources of skilled people, experienced leaders, a large-multi-purpose building and finances that position us to have a massive impact for the gospel in our community. He has strategically placed Covenant Lite Church in our nation’s capital—an area to which God has literally brought the nations. God is focusing our vision for where he warns to take us.

First, we want to be a Multiplying Church—multiplying disciples, multiplying small groups and multiplying new churches. We think God wants us to focus our efforts on this incredible harvest field. To focus on proclaiming the gospel in the greater D.C. region and through this region to touch the world. We have incredible opportunities to train leaders, partner with other churches to plant churches and send missionaries around the world.

I’m encouraged to see how, even in this season, the Holy Spirit is propelling us forward in mission. On our pastors retreat we came to a place of faith to actively explore planting a new church in Mt. Airy, Maryland with Matt and Elisabeth Maka. We still have to work through many details of timing and finding someone to fill Matt’s role here. But want to involve you in the process of praying and seeking God for this new venture.
And this is just the beginning. We not only want to directly plant churches we want to help play a part in the establishment of hundreds of gospel-centered churches from different denominations in the D.C. region.

Second, we want to be a Caring Church, one that reaches out to the despised and rejected, those in our community caught in the cycle of sin—to reach them with the gospel, and see them reconciled to God.
2 Corinthians 5:18-19 teaches us that Christ has reconciled us to himself and entrusted to us the message and ministry of reconciliation.

Third, we want to be a Relational Church—a true community centered on Jesus and his gospel where we can walk together in the joys and sorrows of life, sharing one another’s joys and bearing one another’s burdens. A community in which “speaking the truth in love, we … grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ…” (Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV)

Fourth, we want to be an Equipping Church where every member is a disciple-maker-—every member is participating in our mission and being equipped and inspired to walk in the good works our Father has planned for them. We want to ‘equip the saints for the work of ministry” and sec every member engaged in serving and ministry within the church and outside it.

Finally, we want to be a Multigenerational Church where older Christians walk together with younger Christians to help us grow in wisdom, while we maintain our zeal! Regardless of your age, there is a place for you in Covenant Life Church. Psalm 145:4 says. One generation shall commend your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts.”

Now let me transition to outlining What This Does Not Mean

As I shared earlier, I realize that, especially for those of you who have been here many years. The idea of leaving SGM may be very sad and bring conflicting emotions to the surface. I understand those feelings. We’ve processed those feelings individually and as a pastoral team. But I think it will help and encourage us if we take a moment to look at what stepping away from our formal association with SGM does not mean.

1. It does not mean that we don’t love the leaders of SGM, the pastors of SGM churches and the members of these churches. They are brothers and sisters and partners in the gospel, and we thank God for them. We also pray for them and ask for God’s ongoing blessing in their lives and work. This change does not sever our fellowship in Christ.

2. It does not mean that we will cease to benefit from aspects of SGM’s teaching, as well as its resources and songs. Just as we benefit from relationships with various denominations church planting networks, and parachurch ministries, we will continue to benefit from SGM.

3. It does not mean that we are, in any way, abandoning the core values of our church. We still celebrate and want to build on the many good characteristics that have defined SGM over the years.

We are still gospel-centered in our doctrine and preaching, reformed in our understanding of God‘s work in salvation, charismatic in our understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, complimentarian in our view of leadership in the church and home, committed to pursuing holiness and dedicated to planting churches.

4. It does not mean that we are ending friendships with SGM churches or church members. We will still look for ways to bless and encourage SGM churches as we would any other gospel-preaching churches.

We’ve communicated to our brothers at the Spanish speaking SGM church that uses our facility that nothing has changed in our desire to partner with them and bless them. That applies to all the SGM churches in our region.

5. It does not mean that we are discounting or forgetting the numerous ways that C.J. and SGM have helped us and blessed us over the years. Our differences do not negate the many blessings we’ve received from these relationships.

6. It does not mean that we will be an isolated local church. As I said earlier, we believe this step will actually encourage more and more diverse partnerships that will help build this church for God’s glory. That being said, we don’t anticipate diving into any kind formal association in the near term. No rebound relationships’ Instead we will pursue vital partnership with many other gospel-proclaiming churches in our region and across the country.

We are speaking to leaders in other SGM churches in our region and exploring ways we might pursue mission together. We are grateful for these historic friendships.

How We Will Process This Decision With You

Let me close by talking about how we see this decision being finalized. As I said earlier, we are not handing down a decision. We really want to hear from you and interact with you. We understand that some of you may disagree. We want to talk with you. We welcome your questions.

We will be having two “Coffee & Conversation” meetings on Nov. 11 and 18th to answer questions. We’d also be happy to meet with your small group or with you individually as we’re able to. What I want you to hear is that we want to talk!

In two weeks after we’ve held both of our Coffee & Conversation meetings we will use an online form to allow the congregation to vote on this decision. The question will simply be ‘Do you support the pastors in the decision to end our formal association with Sovereign Grace Ministries?” Each member will have the chance to say “yes” or “no.” We’ll allow several weeks for voting to take place.

In accord with our future constitution, we will only proceed with this decision if there is at least 51% support from the congregation. And we will be transparent regarding the feedback. We will share how many people voted to affirm the decision and how many people did not support it. Lord willing, if there is sufficient support we will finalize the decision sometime in the middle of December.

I realize this is a new way for us to process a decision as a church. But I hope you see it as an expression of your pastors to see us move forward together. I also want to very specifically ask you to support your pastors in this course. We have sought the Lord together over a long period of time.
We have waited for the Lord to bsring us to a place of unity us a team. God has given us both clarity and unity. We believe that taking this step is in the best interest of our Local church.

We believe that moving now to bring closure to our relationship with SGM will serve SGM and enable us to press forward as a local church.

Some of you will agree with this direction and be eager to move forward. Others of you may struggle with this course.
In the coming weeks before we officially take a vote of affirmation, we welcome and invite discussion with you. Please come to us and dialogue with us as pastors. We want to care for you and process this with you. If you are struggling in any way, we want to hear from you. We will not perceive disagreement as a lack of love or support.

Now as we prepare to take time to pray, I want to take the opportunity to exhort us all and remind us of this truth from God’s word. Colossians 3:12-13 says. “Put on then, as Gods chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness. humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.”

Scripture commands us to put on these qualities of deference and meekness toward one another, to make it our goal to build one another up and to give grace to one another through our words. Let’s ask for his help in these things.

HOW SGM LEADERS USE A CRISIS TO CREATE A FALSE IMAGE AND MANIPULATE PEOPLE


While yes, we can look back and shake our heads at our gullibility and stupidity for not seeing things for what they were, I also think that it’s easy to be lured into the SGM mindset. I think SGM leaders are very good at marketing themselves and their teachings, to the point where it’s easy to succumb and buy into what they sell.

Years and years ago, CJ and his followers created a culture that used their own apparently successful lives as a product. It was no secret that CJ wanted SGMers to have the “best” marriages and the “best” families. So SGM pastors placed a great deal of emphasis on how to do this. CJ and his henchmen wrote (and sold) books. They held classes. And they used the totalist methods and social structure to institute their ideas quickly, across the board.

One piece of their marketing strategy involved responding to -- or seeming to respond to -- a crisis. People are always a lot more pliable and willing to be led during a crisis. So as CJ was building his empire in the 1980s, a lot of the marriage and family principles and strategies that came out back then were in response to the crisis -- real or imagined or a mixture of the two -- of the disintegrating family.

And that crisis, that message, resonated with a lot of the people who were attracted to SGM churches in the first place. I know it bugs some people when I make sweeping generalizations, but it nonetheless seems to me that a significant majority of early SGMers came to their SGM churches because they were dissatisfied with what the status quo had to offer. They were disillusioned with church as usual, or whatever their families of origin had given them. Many (most?) early SGMers also came out of dysfunctional families, where they were desperate to avoid the mistakes their own parents had made. They were desperate to do things “right.”

Enter CJ and his henchmen, with their wives (who’d all been trained to gaze adoringly at them) and their instantly obedient children. Naturally they had a ready-made platform from which to dictate ideas and procedures for how to have the “best” families and marriages. They all looked like they were doing it exactly right.

Kris
SGM Survivors

HOW I DISCOVERED C.J. MAHANEY AND THE SGM CONTROVERSIES


In late June 2011, I happened to watch a video of a conference that had recently taken place. I cannot remember which conference it was…one of the big ones. It was a q/a session with Mahaney and perhaps 5 others, iirc.

I did not know who Mahaney was. I noticed a man who was acting rather oddly, imo. He kept interrupting the others. He was making jokes when the others were speaking. He laughed very loudly when the others were not. He kept himself bent over in his chair while the others were sitting up straight. He kept nodding his head and making what I thought were exaggerated movements corresponding to his agreement or disagreement with what was being said. I thought to myself--my goodness…what is wrong with this person? You may think that is superficial of me to notice that. But his actions alone gave me an uneasy feeling.

I asked a pastor friend of ours who he was. He told me his name, but that was all he told me. I did not think much more about it other than how strangely this person acted in public. It reminded me of someone who needed to draw attention to himself…to be the center of it all. It seemed, to me, bizarre behavior for a pastor or leader or whatever he claims he is.

A couple of weeks later I was browsing Christian News Headlines and saw that Mahaney has stepped down from SGM amidst controversy. I remembered that name and read the article. I thought what a coincidence--I had just seen that man in that video!

I googled SGM and found sgmsurvivors and sgmrefuge. I remember reading non-stop for weeks-Brent’s documents as well. The stories of abuse were/are compelling and heartbreaking.

The more I read about Mahaney- who he was, his history, the roots and history of SGM (shepherding) and about how many professing Christian leaders respected and promoted him, the more I was intrigued. Why? Why are they enamored with him? That part affected me because the pastor of the church we had been attending at the time promoted Mahaney and SGM. To find out he had written a book about humility was funny to me. I have not read it. I am sure there are some good insights in the book. Considering how he acted in the video I watched (and continues to act on stage) leads me to my conclusion that those who can--do…those who can’t--teach (or write).

Sovereign Grace Ministries statement sees First Amendment threat in lawsuit over sexual abuse
Courier Journal
November 27, 2012
by Peter Smith



Sovereign Grace Ministries — a church network that moved its headquarters to Louisville earlier this year — says in a recent statement that First Amendment religious-liberty protections would be threatened if a lawsuit succeeds in “allowing courts to second guess pastoral guidance.”

The church’s statement comes in response to a lawsuit filed Oct. 17 in Maryland — where the denomination was based for its first three decades until this year — on behalf of three plaintiffs the suit describes as victims of sexual abuse by members of Sovereign Grace churches in Virginia and Maryland.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of other victims, citing “a culture in which sexual predators were protected from accountability and victims were silenced.” It alleges elders at Gaithersburg, Md., and Fairfax, Va., churches intervened in cases in which members sexually abused minors. It alleges the pastors sought to minimize criminal penalties against the abusers and pressured victims to forgive their perpetrators.

The Sovereign Grace statement, issued by Director of Administration Tommy Hill, notes that no pastors are accused of abuse in the lawsuits and that the abuse did not take place on church property. At issue is how the church elders responded.

“SGM leaders provided biblical and spiritual direction to those who requested this guidance,” the church said. “This care was sought confidentially, as is a right under the First Amendment. We are saddened that lawyers are now, in essence, seeking to violate those rights by asking judges and juries, years after such pastoral assistance was sought, to dictate what sort of biblical counsel they think should have been provided.”

The church said that “allowing courts to second guess pastoral guidance would represent a blow to the First Amendment, that would hinder, not help, families seeking spiritual direction among other resources in dealing with the trauma related to any sin including child sexual abuse.”

It added that “child sexual abuse is reprehensible in any circumstance, and a violation of fundamental human dignity. We grieve deeply for any child who has been a victim of abuse.”

The statement said Sovereign Grace lawyers are preparing a formal response. “It appears the complaint contains a number of misleading allegations, as well as considerable mischaracterizations of intent,” it said.

Washington lawyer Susan Burke, representing the plaintiffs, declined to comment. The lawsuit alleges there were other cases of mishandled abuse besides those involving the three plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are young women who are not identified by name in the lawsuit. The lawsuit says two of the plaintiffs were sexually abused as young girls and that the third was shunned by her church, as was her family, for refusing to seek leniency for her sister’s assailant.

An advocate for victims of clergy sexual abuse contended that Sovereign Grace’s defense on First Amendment grounds is built on “sinking sand.”

Christa Brown of StopBaptistPredators.org, which primarily focuses on abuse in Baptist churches, said courts often give only narrow protections to clergy-penitent confidentiality in cases involving child sexual abuse.

“The courts typically consider that civil society has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children,” she said. “So, even if the counseling provided by Sovereign Grace Ministries were religiously motivated, the privilege would still not be absolute.”

She added: “Merely because something may be legally possible doesn’t make it morally right.”

Sovereign Grace’ headquarters — which has about 90 churches worldwide, most in Atlantic coast states — and its longtime president, C.J. Mahaney, came to Louisville after more than a year of controversies that are still playing out in the denomination. Critics, including former pastors, have accused the ministry leaders of probing into members’ personal lives and shaming and sometimes ostracizing them for real or perceived sins while those at the top avoided accountability.

Sovereign Grace also launched its first congregation in Louisville, meeting at Christian Academy’s English Station campus.

Mahaney has been prominent in the New Calvinist movement, popular in some Southern Baptist circles and other denominations. Mahaney and Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville – itself an epicenter of the Calvinist movement — have regularly shared podiums at conferences linked to the movement. The movement emphasizes God’s all-powerful role in human events, including determining who is saved. Other emphases of the movement include male authority in homes and churches and tightly disciplined congregations where preaching is central.

Sovereign Grace leaders said one reason for moving to Louisville was to strengthen its bonds with the seminary, and on Nov. 14 Sovereign Grace announced a cooperative agreement in which its pastors-in-training can apply some credits from the denomination’s own Pastor’s College, which also moved to Louisville, toward a master’s of divinity degree from Southern.

Earlier this year, a report by the independent conflict-resolution group Ambassadors of Reconciliation said that while many had benefited from involvement in Sovereign Grace churches, others had been hurt by the movement’s focus on correcting members’ sinfulness.

Estranged members saw an “over-emphasis of the teaching about sin without the balance of God’s grace,” leading some to be overly judgmental or despondent, the report said.

The lawsuit alleges that abuse was able to occur in an insular and authoritarian church culture in which members submitted to pastors’ instructions in how to parent and where to work and live. It was in that submissive environment, the lawsuit said, that that parents would turn to church elders for help when they learned their children were being sexually abused.

The lawsuit alleges the church taught “members to fear and distrust all secular authorities, and expressly directed members not to contact law enforcement to report sexual assaults.”

One of the churches identified in the lawsuit — Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Md. — is the former flagship church of the denomination. Mahaney and his successor and one-time protege, Joshua Harris, have acknowledged a growing distance between them during the controversies, and Covenant Life spokesman Don Nalle said it has been evaluating its relationship with Sovereign Grace in a confidential, internal process.


[blogs.courier-journal.com]

ALBERT MOHLER, C.J. MAHANEY, AND SINGLENESS



"There are of course, a few singles’ households at CLC but, they do not follow the same system as those in the 80s with all the rules. Back then the households that were established even named them names, like “House of Jubilee”. Some were filled with grace and others were more legalistic in nature.

Not long before he fled the area, CJ made an interesting statement about singles’ ministries being ‘unbiblical’. His opinion was that every eligible adult should be married and make singles’ ministries obsolete. In fact, in about 20004, every single guy at NEXT was asked to stand-up and vow to get married as soon as possible. Not sure how that panned-out."

Persona
SGM Survivors


........................................



"Don’t even get me started on that line of thinking about singles. CJ got that straight from Mohler. “There is no biblical category for enduring singleness.” That was the BS phrase Mohler used. I guess we should just throw out the entire passage on singleness that Paulw rote for the convenience of Mohler and Mahaney. My brother confronted CJ (I was with him) about letting Mohler speak on the subject after the 1st Lousiville NA conference. CJ admitted that he thought Mohler went overboard and that he and Josh had tried to get Mohler to tone it down the night before but overall he thought for the good of the group (at the expense of older singles) Mohler’s message should be heard. CJ tried to deflect my brother to Mohler, but my brother told CJ Mohler wasn’t responsible for SGM, CJ was. Mahaney would hear none of it.

Andy Farmer led a community group for the “older singles” after the session and he spent the whole time doing damage control and from what I understood, the damage control continued at the local churches for quite a while after that.

I remember a PDI where singles were exhorted to glorify God as they uniquely could as singles. After CJ became pals with Mohler that message was out the window, marriage and family became idols, and singles became second class citizens in SGM."

Jenn Grover
SGM Survivors

............................




"Oh man, do I remember that NA conference in Louisville. That was the one and only NA conference I went to. Kudos to your brother for his efforts.

Initially, I found myself agreeing with Mohler, because you are there wanting to be “taught” the Word of God. But, it didn’t take long after we got back home for me to mull that one over in my head and realize how crazy some of that stuff was.

I remember Mohler basically saying that young men get themselves involved in an extended adolescence by delaying marriage (failure to launch, playing video games, etc.), and that you don’t need to have all of your ducks in a row before marriage. We live in a society where we want to have everything “just so” before getting married. Afterall, going to college first, and getting some financial footing first, etc.—before marriage—is a new, modern day phenomenon, and it is not necessarily “biblical.”

Well, it isn’t NOT biblical either.

Of course, it was a “one size does NOT fit all” message being passed off as a “one size DOES fit all message.”

Square Peg
SGM Surviors

SGM LEADERS DEMAND SACRIFICE, LIVE IS LUXURY

"For many of us it is hard to dismiss the appearance of grandeur and Martha Stewart perfection (because that costs money to have as well). When you live under a system where you gave and sacrificed so much money, including where you live and including even being able to update your home so that you can give large amounts to the mission fund, then yes, when it all comes toppling down 18 months ago with Brent’s documents, there will be those of us who are seriously pissed. We’ve watched them have amazing vacations in places the rest of us could not afford. We’ve watched them have all the newest electronic gadgets before many of us could even purchase them. It’s hearing them preach to give in light of eternity and not know what amount they gave and not see any tangible sacrifice on their part. It’s having them hold up examples of people who gave incredible amounts, giving up so much and to our discredit, buy into it and try to model the examples. That’s why I balk at how they live. They allowed and encouraged people to give so sacrificially and thus personally benefited from it."

CoraSusie
SGM Survivors

SGM PASTORS AND THE HOURS THEY KEEP

"Regarding SGM pastors and the hours they keep………For my time at CLC, which ended recently, my CLC pastor would never meet with us when it was convenient for us. Every time we met with him, it meant my spouse had to take off from work. And when the clock said 5pm, the CLC/SGM pastor was always in a mighty big rush to wrap up and hit the road for his 10 minute commute…..

My CLC/SGM pastor was never in my home, never knew my children’s names, never asked about our jobs.

It seemed clear that our time wasn’t as important as his……

In contrast, I had a lovely meal recently at the home of my *new* (non-sgm) pastor. Before we even arrived, he knew the name of everyone in my family, knew our jobs and where we celebrated Thanksgiving…. Now THAT felt good. :)"

yellowisahappycolor
SGM Survivors

COVENANT LIFE CHURCH ANNOUNCES DEPARTURE FROM SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES



For the past 18 months, Covenant Life Church has been going through a time of testing which we see as an expression of the Father’s loving discipline. Various circumstances have led us to evaluate ourselves and consider how God is calling us to grow. While we can already see ways in which God has used this experience to teach and help us as a church, it has not come without pain and loss. It has been challenging in many ways. One of the most difficult aspects of this time has been realizing we find ourselves going in a different direction from that of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), the organization that was launched within our church and whose leaders have played a foundational role in the life of our church.

Over the past year there has been a growing clarity for our pastoral team that our differences with the leadership of SGM make it difficult for us to remain as a member church. After much prayer and sober consideration, the pastoral team presented their perspective and proposed disassociation from SGM to the members of Covenant Life Church at a members meeting on November 4. On December 12, 2012, the members of Covenant Life Church affirmed the pastors’ decision to end our formal association with SGM.

As we close this chapter on our church’s history, we are saddened that we cannot remain in formal association with leaders and churches we dearly love and have counted as close partners for many years. Yet we are grateful that our unity goes far deeper than institutional association. We are united by faith in the same Lord, a bond that is not and cannot be broken. We are sincerely thankful for the vital role the leadership and churches of SGM have played in helping us be a church that treasures the gospel. We will be ever grateful to those leaders of SGM who played a foundational role in establishing and building this local church. They will remain dear to us as brothers in gospel ministry, and we anticipate cooperating in future ministry endeavors, even though the nature of our partnership has changed. We pray that this next season in ministry for SGM and Covenant Life Church will be as fruitful as ever as we press forward in the mission God has called us to in the days ahead.

—The Pastors of Covenant Life Church

DAVE HARVEY STEPS DOWN FROM THE SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES LEADERSHIP TEAM


I have some news that is now sprinkling our holiday season with an unexpected grace and I’m eager to share it with you.

As I’ve been experiencing the care of the elders and reflecting on the way forward, it’s become clear that the connection to my local church, my team, and my family should be prioritized in this next season. However, I don’t see how a more singular focus on these things would be possible with the extra-local responsibilities I’ve been carrying. So, after discussion with the elders and with their support, I believe we’ve found a way to bring that emphasis. I am stepping off the Sovereign Grace Leadership Team, largely eliminating my ministry travel, and resuming my role as a full-time elder at Covenant Fellowship through August 2013. Let me shoot straight with you - this has not been an easy decision. But Kimm and I now have a growing faith for what God intends to do as we take these steps.

Now, just so there is no misunderstanding: this step does not reflect any lack of confidence in Sovereign Grace, our direction, or our leadership. Actually, I’m quite excited over our mission to plant churches and serve pastors. I think our new polity, if ratified, will help us do this even better. It’s really my confidence in God’s grace already working so evidently through this family of churches that emboldens me to step away from the Leadership Team role I have occupied for the last 17 years. Nope, the story on this is not about what Sovereign Grace lacks but what one pastor needs right now. Also, this transition back to Covenant Fellowship is not being initiated by Sovereign Grace; it’s a step I have voluntarily taken with the counsel of the elders – I’m grateful for the way they have walked with us through this decision. It’s one of those times where local and family needs must take priority over extra-local relationships/ministry. I want time in the church that I love and more connection to the men I have served with, some for over two decades. I need to continue to receive their friendship and counsel. And I want to be a part of what God is doing here.

So, my friends, this is good news for Kimm and I and I hope it hits you that way as well. As to how I’ll be serving in Covenant Fellowship, I leave that to our elders – I’ll serve wherever they want. As to what I’ll be doing beyond August 2013, I leave that to the Lord, confident that he’ll make it clear to us all. As to our hopes for this season, …well, maybe some refreshment, some reconnection, some additional growth, and maybe lots of good fruit. So please pray - pray for lots of good fruit.

Thanks for being the kind of church that makes a place for pastors, whether they’re young or old, green or weathered, fresh or embattled. Because for us, drawing into Covenant Fellowship means coming home.




Covenant Fellowship Elders Statement:

Dave’s decision is one we fully support and believe represents the Lord’s direction for him and his family, as well as our church. We are grateful for Dave's willingness to follow the elders in this process. In making this decision, he embodies the collection of values that guide the elders called the Pastoral Team Affirmations: the values of devotion, humility, honesty, integrity, accountability, faithfulness, and unity. These include receiving the assessment of those who serve with us and trusting God to work through the leadership and care of the elders. How Dave has sought to walk with the team during this past difficult year and the decision he’s come to both reflect his deep commitment to these values. Even more so, they demonstrate a faith in God that deeply affects us.

We are eager and expectant for God’s grace and blessing in and through these steps, and we are full of faith for the good fruit that will come from them. We love and respect Dave and Kimm for walking this path with us. Our hope is that this upcoming season will result in a platform of even greater strength, in the home and in ministry, that will afford decades of local and extra-local fruitfulness. To God be the glory!

FORMER FLAGSHIP CHURCH BREAKS FROM SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES
Louisville Courier Journal
December 20th, 2012
by Peter Smith


A Maryland megachurch, which was the cradle and flagship of Sovereign Grace Ministries for almost three decades, has become the latest to leave the Louisville-based denomination amid conflicts over its leadership and direction.

The decision, approved by 93 percent of voting members of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Md., was announced Sunday.

It’s the latest milepost in 11/2 years of conflict involving Sovereign Grace Ministries. Seven smaller congregations have left the denomination in recent months.

Even before Covenant Life left, leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries relocated its offices and pastor-training program from the Gaithersburg church’s building to Louisville. It also has launched a new pastor-training program in cooperation with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Sovereign Grace and its president, C.J. Mahaney, are prominent in the multidenominational New Calvinist movement, as is Southern Seminary. The movement emphasizes God’s grace over human free will in saving sinners, as well as church discipline, strong pastoral authority and male leadership in homes and churches.

But former members have criticized Sovereign Grace Ministries for what they call an unhealthy emphasis on sin and heavy-handed control of members’ lives.

In a public statement, Covenant Life pastors did not specify their disagreements but cited a “growing clarity” in the past year that “our differences with the leadership of SGM make it difficult for us to remain as a member church.”

But both Covenant Life and Sovereign Grace officials said they wished each other well and cited the pain of severing once-seemingly inseparable entities and people.

“We are grateful to Covenant Life Church for their significant contribution to the mission of Sovereign Grace Ministries for the past three decades and are indebted to them for the role they played in the founding of SGM, for hosting our Pastors College the past 14 years and for the many ways we have partnered together in our common mission,” Sovereign Grace Ministries spokesman Tommy Hill said in a statemenT.

“We believe this gospel partnership has been extraordinarily fruitful, which makes it all the more difficult to see it end,” Hill added. “Though no longer in formal association as we would prefer, we nevertheless remain inseparably linked together in the same gospel mission for the glory of God and pray for continued fruitfulness for both as we pursue this mission in the days ahead.”

Covenant Life Church pastors’ statement echoed the sentiment:

“We are united by faith in the same Lord, a bond that is not and cannot be broken. We are sincerely thankful for the vital role the leadership and churches of SGM have played in helping us be a church that treasures the gospel. “

Covenant Life officials have declined to comment at length publicly, saying they wanted to keep the deliberations among church members.

But blogs that monitor Sovereign Grace have posted a transcript of a November talk by Covenant Life pastor Joshua Harris in which he said denominational leaders viewed challenges as signs of disloyalty, made major decisions without consulting churches and had a pattern of “minimizing the seriousness of the issues of the past” rather than repenting and reforming.

In all, Covenant Life Church claims 3,965 members.

Mahaney was a founder of Covenant Life in 1982 and later groomed Harris to succeed him — a relationship they once compared with that of the biblical apostle Paul and the younger Timothy.

Sovereign Grace and Covenant Life leaders began to diverge publicly after the July 2011 release of documents compiled by a former colleague of Mahaney, alleging dictatorial and unaccountable leadership by Mahaney.

Mahaney disputed many of the claims but stepped aside for several months until the denomination found him fit to return to ministry. An outside group of mediators reported this year that, while some people value their experiences in Sovereign Grace churches, others had been hurt by a harsh emphasis on sin.

Both the church and the denomination have also been implicated in a lawsuit filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries in October in Maryland that alleges the church created a culture of fear and unquestioning obedience that allowed sexual abuse by members to persist.

Before the recent departures, the denomination claimed about 28,000 members in about 90 churches worldwide, most in Atlantic coastal states.

Mahaney is also leading the denomination’s first congregation in Kentucky, Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville.

The congregation began meeting at Christian Academy of Louisville’s English Station campus this year and announced it will begin meeting at the Louisville Marriott East in January.

“We believe this gospel partnership has been extraordinarily fruitful, which makes it all the more difficult to see it end,” Hill added. “Though no longer in formal association as we would prefer, we nevertheless remain inseparably linked together in the same gospel mission for the glory of God and pray for continued fruitfulness for both as we pursue this mission in the days ahead.”

Covenant Life Church pastors’ statement echoed the sentiment:

“We are united by faith in the same Lord, a bond that is not and cannot be broken. We are sincerely thankful for the vital role the leadership and churches of SGM have played in helping us be a church that treasures the gospel. “

Covenant Life officials have declined to comment at length publicly, saying they wanted to keep the deliberations among church members.

But blogs that monitor Sovereign Grace have posted a transcript of a November talk by Covenant Life pastor Joshua Harris in which he said denominational leaders viewed challenges as signs of disloyalty, made major decisions without consulting churches and had a pattern of “minimizing the seriousness of the issues of the past” rather than repenting and reforming.

In all, Covenant Life Church claims 3,965 members.

Mahaney was a founder of Covenant Life in 1982 and later groomed Harris to succeed him — a relationship they once compared with that of the biblical apostle Paul and the younger Timothy.

Sovereign Grace and Covenant Life leaders began to diverge publicly after the July 2011 release of documents compiled by a former colleague of Mahaney, alleging dictatorial and unaccountable leadership by Mahaney.

Mahaney disputed many of the claims but stepped aside for several months until the denomination found him fit to return to ministry. An outside group of mediators reported this year that, while some people value their experiences in Sovereign Grace churches, others had been hurt by a harsh emphasis on sin.

Both the church and the denomination have also been implicated in a lawsuit filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries in October in Maryland that alleges the church created a culture of fear and unquestioning obedience that allowed sexual abuse by members to persist.

Before the recent departures, the denomination claimed about 28,000 members in about 90 churches worldwide, most in Atlantic coastal states.

Mahaney is also leading the denomination’s first congregation in Kentucky, Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville.

The congregation began meeting at Christian Academy of Louisville’s English Station campus this year and announced it will begin meeting at the Louisville Marriott East in January.