Tim Challies tries (via the Aquila Report) to guide us into thinking the right thoughts about C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries:
Obviously the situation carries far-reaching implications for Mahaney and forSGM. But there are implications for you and me as well. The Bible is clear that a distinguishing characteristic of Christians is to be our love for one another. John 13:35 says it plainly: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Love for other Christians is the great test of our commitment to Christ and our likeness to him. This love is put to the test in a unique way in the midst of trouble and disagreement.
This situation is unfolding before a watching world that loves nothing more than to see Christians in disunity, accusing one another, fighting one another, making a mockery of the gospel that brings peace. You and I are responsible to do well here, to be above reproach in our thoughts, words and actions. We are responsible to be marked by love whether evaluating a difficult situation or taking appropriate action. We can make the gospel look great or we can make it look insignificant.
Not to say that Challies’ point is without merit. But I’m not sure you want to impose standards more rigorous than what God applied to the history and materials included in Scripture. I mean, if the apostle Paul followed this advice, we wouldn’t have any of his epistles, would we?
Old Life 
Tim Challies: We can make the gospel look great or we can make it look insignificant.
RS: The Gospel itself can never look great or insignificant because it is about God rather than man. While Christians must love one another, that leaves us with at least two issues. One, what is true love. Two, some level of determination if the other parties are Christians. It is also true Christian love to practice church discipline. What does confessional thinking require one to think of SGM in terms of the Gospel?
LikeLike
In Reformed & Presbyterian Circles we would have a Classis & Presbytery to sort through something like this. In Evangelical “networks” there is no such body. When Patrick Edouard’s scandal erupted the Classis dealt with his ministerial credentials pretty rapidly, and if there was evidence that would have been available to support him it would have been fairly considered. In the world of evangelical clebrities, however, this all gets talked about in the media and on the internet instead. Evangalicals reject a church polity that extends beyond the individual congregation, but boy would it sure prove helpful when crises like this arise.
LikeLike
Joe Paterno
LikeLike
The first chapter on how the internet will affect Christianity isn’t written yet. I usually have given a wide berth to church watchbloggers and sites that seem to have been created by people with an axe to grind against one particular pastor and every stick is good enough to beat them with.
But the Mahaney case made me re-examine this policy (though the temptation to receive evil reports is still a danger). Sure he’s an ‘independent’ and so I might think that our policies and procedures are better.
When one “Reformed and Presbyterian” person counseled publicly “I would then encourage you to ignore the assaults of wounded people on attack websites and blogs” I was rather taken aback. “ignore the wounded?” really? This is a far more important “love” issue than worrying about how Mahaney is treated, no?
Jesus does warn us “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees,” he said. “They just pretend to be godly. Everything that is secret will be brought out into the open. Everything that is hidden will be uncovered. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight. What you have whispered to someone behind closed doors will be shouted from the rooftops.”
Ignoring the wounded seems like pretty bad policy.
LikeLike
Here’s the problem I have with Challies’ analysis of the situation:
I realize that he wants to place some distance between himself and Mahaney, stating that he is not a personal friend, and that they may have conversed briefly only once, as a means to make himself sound more objective. However, the problem is, Challies is a beneficiary of the same institutional structures (TGC, T4G, DGM, etc) as Mahaney, and it is unlikely that he would rock the boat in any way.
The fact of the matter, is Mahaney has been charged with some pretty damaging accusations, both to his ministerial character, and to how he botched a sex-abuse scandal in his church. Even if we lovingly gave Mahaney the benefit of the doubt and don’t presume guilt, we cannot afford naivete here. Christian leaders are held to a higher standard of accountability, and they cannot expect to reap the benefits of a good reputation when all is well, and then complain if their reputations are damaged when they have refused to live within the confines of reasonable accountability for their actions. Instead of stepping out of the spotlight until his legal disputes and ministerial ones had been settled, he continues to pursue a very public ministry with the endorsement of highly influential Christian leaders.
But, even beyond this, I think Challies, while well-intentioned, and seeking to avoid further damage to the public perception of the church and cultural receptivity to the gospel is running the serious danger of whitewashing the issue here. In terms of scandal, sadly the church will always have to deal with this in one form or another on this side of glory – and in terms of garnering respect from the outside world, I do not think the church has always done itself favors in its handling of scandal. Often the guilty are protected from all accusation, while the victims are subject to derision and scorn within the community – something that the public perceives rightly as unjust. If the church were more forthright and equitible in how it handled disputes and even scandal, it might be able to preserve respect instead of loose it unnecessarily. Furthermore, I think that Bret Detwiler expresses some legitimate concerns in an article linked by The Aquilla Report:
Over and beyond this, I am very concerned with how the propensity of some para-church organizations, especially ones that are claiming to be Reformed. They seem to me to run the high risk of basically being a platform for self-promotion amongst their leaders, that works to benefit a few individuals tremendously in terms of public perception, and financial gain, and not really benefiting the church in any demonstrable way at the ground level – in local congregations where ministry actually happens.
LikeLike
Ignoring the wounded seems like pretty bad policy.
Ding, Ding Ding!!! Well said Paul.
But we have Mahaney’s reputation to be worried about here, who really cares that there were 8 people claiming to be victims of sexual abuse under his ministerial care who have alleged 143 instances of abuse. If you go back and read the victims accounts, you will hear heart breaking stories of how they were basically run out of their church for not being forgiving of the alleged perps.
It is utterly beyond me how Piper, Mohler, and others have publicly circled the wagons for Mahaney. Given the seriousness of the allegations, maybe private counsel and friendship, but they should have been more willing to let this process play out instead of impugning the motives of Mahaney’s detractors.
LikeLike
I was baffled by the article as well. The notion that loving someone means overlooking major issues of sin seems antithetical to the Christian faith. Where were these types of articles during the Rob Bell kerfuffle? I didn’t see much “hope and optimism” and “believing of all things” from the YRR crowd towards Bell.
The bigger issue of Mahaney-gate, that the YRR crowd is missing, is that no matter who the person is, unchecked power corrupts. Whether it’s Mahaney, Driscoll, Hart, or your’s truly, giving anyone unchecked power and celebrity worship ruins a man. Yet the YRR crowd dives head long into multi site churches with one man on all the screens and then act surprised when the superstar isn’t so super.
The YRR crew seem to have adopted evangelicalism’s unbridled optimism towards the ability of man to be perfected rather than the Reformed suspicion of human nature. I think a required reading and understanding of Ecclesiastes would help restrain some of that unbridled optimism, but that’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
Jed’s comment, … a beneficiary of the same institutional structures (TGC, T4G, DGM, etc) as… highlights the ahistorical and abiblical nature of things among today’s Christians. Rather than the Christian having the church as his sole and divinely mandated corporate affiliation, which church has spiritual governing authority, we have any number of “christian” organizations that are joined with varying allegiances with the effect of diluting the centrality of Christ and the church as taught in Scripture. At a minimum it confuses and muddles what the believer ought to be about.
How’s this for a proposal: Quit all para-church organizations that are seeking to do the work that God has given to his Church.
LikeLike
You can perhaps find out a lot about someone and what they believe by who they hang out with and admire. It is clear that those who want to have credence, influence and respect in Reformed seminaries and churches should be denied entrance to any such places because of their admiration for and association for those like CJ Mahaney. One such celebrity is Kevin DeYoung who actually said in relation to this affair that he would like CJ to be his pastor, such is his respect for him!
Jack Miller summed up brilliantly what Jed has said with persuasive detail: quit all such parachurch organisations like GC. But GC and T4G have created a monster with book sales, expectations and a momentum which will be hard to stop. And what would Keller, Carson, Piper, DeYoung and all their peers be if it wasn’t for their places in the GC?
LikeLike
The problem with all this is not the failure to understand love on the rebuking party, but the failure to understand grace on the non-rebuking party.
The mind-blowing truth of the gospel that those in the The Gospel Coalition (of all places) seem to be missing is that there is grace even for those who sin in leadership. It’s not like Paul told Peter “Hey knucklehead, you can’t be an apostle anymore.”
Challies invokes 1 Cor 13:7 that we hope and bear all things, stating of C.J. “This means that I owe it to C.J. Mahaney, to SGM and to those who have levelled allegations to believe the best about them, to hope all things for them.“. What I think is missing here is that we don’t hope and believe in people themselves (since we’re all a bunch of wretched sinners who can hardly understand our own actions, cf. Rom 7) but that we have hope that even if someone like CJ (or myself) who fails and needs to be rebuked sternly (whether publicly or privately) that the discipline of the rebuke is not the end. We have hope that God will sustain a believer even through rebuke.
And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“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.”
We can rebuke (and strongly) because stronger than the rebuke is the grace on the other side of repentance.
For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:11 ESV)
I can’t comment on CJ and the validity of allegations there but the posture of of those affiliated with SGM and Mahaney has continually been in defense of CJ instead of simply stating that the truth needs to be sought by those associated with SGM and if evidence warrants a rebuke then do so, and if not, then issue a public dismissal saying that the evidence was lacking.
LikeLike
Stupid wounded. They aren’t going to draw anyone to a conference or help sell your book.
LikeLike
The difference between flame and fame is an “L” but they both burn when you get too close.
LikeLike
Lewis – “The bigger issue of Mahaney-gate, that the YRR crowd is missing, is that no matter who the person is, unchecked power corrupts. Whether it’s Mahaney, Driscoll, Hart, or your’s truly, giving anyone unchecked power and celebrity worship ruins a man.”
Me – Don’t worry. Hart has a board of oddballs & derelicts at Old Life keeping him in line. If his bowtie gets crooked or his cat starts puking on the carpet, we’ll be the first to tell him.
LikeLike
Brad – Stupid wounded. They aren’t going to draw anyone to a conference or help sell your book
Me – Nice. Well said, well spoken.
LikeLike
The Old Life Board:
LikeLike
… and the Chairman of the Old Life Board:
LikeLike
To piggyback on Jack and Paul (UK)’s comments. I think that parachurch organizations need to take a deep, scrutinizing look at whether or not their organizations detract from or further enable the work of the church. To be certain, some do provide very necessary services to the church – such as publishing, hosting blogs where theology, and church issues can be discussed in an open forum, or seminaries that educate our ministers and theologians. Are any of these organizations perfect? Not at all, but at their best, they are important, especially at the level of education for both laity and clergy, and for an information source of what is happening in the broader Christian world – especially in an age of media fragmentation and decentralization.
One of the major issues to me is the money issue. I do not feel it is in any way wrong for pastors or scholars to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and when this isn’t possible it places undue strain on their families that can detract from their vocational calling. However, what these Reformed megaconferences have done is create a financial juggernaut that might actually, unintentionally siphon funds from areas where there is real need in ministry. For example, it is beyond me how a PCA minister can justify belonging to one of these organizations when the operational budgets for these annual conferences run in the millions, when we have 75 applicants (or so) to every pulpit – surely these funds could be directed toward planting much needed churches, especially in rural areas and the flyover states. Of course there are other factors in the PCA that complicate this – such as a possible over-emphasis on urban church planting. I don’t want to assign bad motives to the men who are part of these organizations, but I don’t think they have asked the really hard questions about their reasons for existing in such organizations. Maybe the immedeate incentives not to, both in terms to the benefits they personally derive from such affiliations, and the buzz and excitement they generate that might give the impression that real Kingdom work is taking place keep them from evaluating these parachurch orgs.
If this were to happen, maybe some organizations would make the cut – but I wish there was a little less pragmatism and a little more introspection coupled with foresight over how such organizations impact the church at large over time.
LikeLike
I was wondering DH if Trueman should have been involved in this situation last year sitting on the 3 man board that approved Mahaney fit for ministry? I though it was strange since he is ordained in the OPC. but being involved in something outside the OPC and outside the confessional church.
LikeLike
Mark G, one of the best studies and exposes of fame is the Larry Sanders Show. Brilliant. It’s even funny.
LikeLike
D.G. recommends a show with 6 seasons the same week he shares a link with about 15 lectures. I can’t keep up with this Old Life curriculum. It’s more rigorous than Faber College around here.
That reminds me of the night that the Old Lifers tried to join CTC:
LikeLike
Re: “if the apostle Paul followed this advice, we wouldn’t have any of his epistles, would we?”
Please don’t forget the parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas,too. 😉
Lily the Lutherette
P.S. Have a great spring break!
LikeLike
Lily! Good to hear from you.
Of course, you can’t just say that and go away, so I trust we will hear more from you.
LikeLike
Hey mikelmann – good to see you here! Still singing the blues? 😉
LikeLike
Erik:
C.J. has Dever, Piper, Mohler and good old Lig Duncan in his corner. Why does he need a Presbytery or Classis?
I wonder what Lig’s Presbytery is going to say when the poo finally hits the fan?
LikeLike
No virtual Classis or Presbytery allowed.
LikeLike
Unchecked power truly does corrupt, and institutional oversight is good, but I think that we’re doing a disservice to Challies and to the truth if we condense his statement into “ignore wounded people.”
He’s saying something more nuanced: he’s saying “ignore blogs that purport to chronicle wounding.” That’s a wise thing to say. Hurting people are unlikely to get real help online. That’s not how the internet works. They’ll get some sympathy, and they’ll get some abuse, but they won’t get good discipleship, because that requires real interaction. So, if these blogs aren’t going to help people get healing, what will happen? Probably lots of gossip. That isn’t going to build the Church up, nor is it going to right wrongs.
LikeLike
Matt,
I think there are a few issues with your comment. First, whether or not it was even wise to address this issue begin with Challies should have been up front with how, while he and Mahaney did not have a personal friendship, they were both deeply involved in the same networks which benefitted them both professionally and in terms of public reputation. Second, while parading as biblical advice, it still came across as trying to put a lid on the issue – don’t read the victims stories, it’ll be bad for the church. It comes off as supremely disingenuous, as if he (and a long line of others in these networks) are simply protecting one of their own.
I don’t think any of the sites that chronicle the chronic abuses at SGM churches, or of Mahaney’s involvement claim they are doing discipleship or offering therapy. The basic reason why any of these sites exist is because many of the victims (of haneous offenses) were suppressed and even persecuted. by SGM brass – they went public because this was they only way they could be heard. The fact of the matter is these are public matters, because they concern public figures, like Mahaney who have gained a great deal on the basis of a public persona that does not comport with personal or ministerial conduct. What is good for the church is the truth, and for those who suffered to have some recourse and justice. What is bad for the church is coddling public figures and protecting them from the consequences of their actions.
LikeLike
“What is good for the church is the truth, and for those who suffered to have some recourse and justice. What is bad for the church is coddling public figures and protecting them from the consequences of their actions.”
Amen. And we are better off without celebrity preachers…and “networks” of churches with no formal authority or due process.
LikeLike
Go into your friendly neighborhood evangelical megachurch and ask for a copy of their church order. Be ready for a lot of blank stares. Crises are dealt with an an ad hoc basis because they don’t have a church order. It’s normally just a charismatic head pastor and when he is the one who needs correction chaos ensues.
LikeLike
Jed, all fair enough. Public figures are not private ones and there are uncomfortable realities for them.
Still, I can’t help but wonder about the things of order and decency. Are order and decency served by public displays like these? This isn’t to diminish either the reality of being a public figure or the injuries experienced of some. But what about the good of the order? I have to say, I have some sympathies for the RCC with all its spectacle. Is this all an example of how the virtues of self-expression have trumped those of self-comportment? And is waving the justice-for-victims flag simply a way for those of us relatively opposed to certain outfits to take cheap shots? Some of us wonder.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I have to wonder about the presumption of groups who show disregard for history and already established orders in favor of one of their own making, talk about self-expression, and then want to trade on charity and a benefit of the doubt afforded other and historically appraised institutions for their own. I don’t actually have any dog in the SGM fight, and am unaware of their problems other than the little bit noted here. But, I can tell you whether it’s RCC scandals or SGM scandals or domestic improprieties, almost to a case those in authority and offending are given deference and defense and regarded as being unfairly accused, until a ‘smoking gun’ is produced. It’s just the nature of these kind of cases. People don’t want to believe them to be true.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I should also note that when the offending party is allowed to adjudicate his own process and penalty it always comes short of the appropriate recompense and punishment. For example the british cardinal who finally owned to the inappropriate sexual behavior with four young priests, which would have never seen the light of day but for public pressure, announced his retirement(with benefits) and promised to withdraw from public life in the RC. Really, how nice of you to adjudicate your own defense, render your own penalty, that mysteriously manages to not strip you of your own financial means, and renders punitive recourse as ‘time served’- I’ve been embarrassed publicly, I’m old and that’s enough. BTW, the Vatican has been aware for years, and yet nothing was done until public pressure and embarrassment was applied. The Vatican still has done anything about it. The press did. Now the Vatican may, at this point, do something, but if not for public scrutiny nothing was forthcoming.
LikeLike
Sean, again, I get it about justice needing to be served and how public scrutiny has a unique way of effecting it and all that. I just wonder about at what expense, namely dignity. Maybe that sounds passé when compared to justice. But I can’t help not getting a warrior vibe in all of it, you know, as in the quest for justice swallowing up other aspects of what it means to have a well ordered society.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Just to keep this going, how about if we make distinction between advocation for yourself (which you might could argue would be something we lay down) and advocation for others particularly the young, the elderly, the infirmed, the poor, the helpless, et al. Wouldn’t the advocation for those who can’t or are impaired buttress the idea of an ordered, more just culture against an ordered oppressive one. Contemporary example; Women’s rights or lack thereof under an oppressive Islamic government. Might public scrutiny cause change in such a manner as to safeguard against a greater disorder such as revolution? If a populace has a reasonable expectation that justice will at least be attempted might they be more inclined to obedience and good order as opposed to a populace without that same expectation?
LikeLike
Sean, the distinction is fine but I’m not sure how it guards against undignified public behaviors. I mean, I can see pro-lifers saying they’re all about justice for the other, and I’m sure this motivates a fair number of them, but there is a rather large contingent that speak and behave in ways that are unbecoming. Think Baylys, as in those who have more criticism than plaudits for their brash and in-yo-face public efforts are faithless.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If I’m thinking Baylys, I can grant the point. Though it might be better argued that they conflate the kingdoms and thus discredit the gospel and their calling by their misuse of the pulpit(not that you would disagree). I guess I’m comfortable with the citizenry expressing their disapproval of rule, if for no other reason than it’s a safeguard that’s inherent in our political system, and the tradition in this country, has been pretty adversarial from the start, and is structured and accommodating of such a foil-free press . As it regards presbyterian church polity, there are clearly delineated channels and forms for redress of wrongs committed, and brow-beating or cajoling aren’t to be encouraged or pursued. You and I aren’t gonna vary much, if at all, on the church’s or individual christian’s posture toward civil authority. However, I’m not sure, if I understand SGM’s church polity, that they have a lot of room to find fault in other’s reproach. This discussion has points of contact with issues going on with Irish Catholic Bishops, with the Vatican questioning their(bishops) loyalty and fidelity to the church and canon law, because the Irish bishops in accord with civil law, employed a policy of notifying civil authorities of criminal activity first, rather than abiding the strictures of canon law. I don’t find much sympathy with the RCC on any of this.
LikeLike
Sean, the Baylys certainly have the kingdom confusion problem. But on top of that, and more to my own point, they suffer from drinking too deeply at the well of social justice and activism, which itself seems more or less callous to any abiding notion of public decency and comportment. Being clear on the kingdoms doesn’t always coincide with a sense of civic manners.
And I don’t have any problem with citizenry expressing their disapproval of rule either. I just wish there was at least as much concern for decorum in doing so. Maybe I’m greedy on top of passé.
LikeLike
“A Church, If You Can Keep It”
Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal
3/5/13
How do porcupines make love? About the same way one writes a column about a religion that is not one’s own: With utmost caution.
Yet when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and the drama of Benedict XVI’s resignation, this is no mere parochial event. The church is a pillar of the West. The pillar is trembling. It is trembling because so much of what defines the church is also so much of what ails it. When the thing that makes you is the thing that breaks you, you have a tragic flaw. You cannot expect salvation through reform. Something closer to rebirth is required.
Maybe this is what Benedict had in mind when he chose to give up his ministry—not simply as an act of weary abnegation by the oldest pontiff in more than a century, or even as an effort to set a pragmatic precedent by which future popes might be guided. Maybe what he meant to say was: “The church must begin wholly anew, starting, but only starting, with my own leave-taking.”
It didn’t take long to be reminded of the reason why. Last week, Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Scotland, Britain’s top Catholic cleric and an outspoken denunciator of the “grotesque subversion” of homosexuality, admitted to “sexual conduct [that] has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.” Specifically, he is accused of having made unwanted advances on three priests and a seminarian several decades ago, though the careful language of his admission (he only became a cardinal in 2003) suggests sinning of more recent vintage.
That’s just the Catholic sex scandal of the week. In January, former Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and Bishop Tom Curry were removed from all public duties after being implicated in an effort to cover for priests accused of sexually abusing children. Also in January, Msgr. Kevin Wallin of Connecticut was accused by his diocese of “acting out sexually—with men—in the church rectory.” (He’s also on trial for dealing meth.)
In December, a report commissioned by Germany’s Catholic church implicated 66 clergy in 576 cases of sexual abuse. One German priest was accused that month of molesting three boys nearly 300 times.
And so on and on and on, now culminating in a swirl of rumors and reports from the Italian daily La Repubblica that the pope made up his mind to leave after reading a confidential dossier about a gay sex ring within the Curia. The Vatican denies the stories, but the denials inevitably ring hollow. The church lost its presumption of innocence long ago. When did you last read a news story about a Catholic priest not in connection to a sex scandal?
This is a tragedy for all the obvious reasons. It is also a tragedy for every priest who is innocent of any kind of sexual misconduct. In 2004, the so-called John Jay report on priest abuse, commissioned by U.S. Conference of Bishops, found “4,392 individuals who had been the subject of at least one allegation of sexual abuse while serving in ecclesiastical ministry between 1950 and 2002.” More than 80% of the victims were boys. These are stunning figures.
But the report also found this: “This count of priests with allegations was 4.2% of all diocesan priests in ministry for that time period and 2.7% of all religious priests in ministry.” Double that figure, and it still acquits more than 90% of the priesthood of criminal sexual misconduct.
But it doesn’t acquit the church.
First, because it is a church: No institution whose existence rests on moral teachings can be so populated by sexual predators, or so complicit in their predations. Second, because the church can preach either that homosexuality is sinful, or that hypocrisy is sinful. But this church can’t preach both. And third, because a faith already so eroded by continuous tides of secularism hastens its own decline by seeming to confirm every secular prejudice against it.
The obvious and needful solution is to abolish the celibacy of the priesthood, a stricture that all but guarantees the sorts of sordid outcomes described above. But that’s a matter for Catholics to judge for themselves.
What non-Catholics can say is that the world benefits from a church capable of wielding moral authority for the sake of great things. John Paul II showed that individual dignity and faith could overmaster a totalitarian regime bent on eradicating both. That courageous work goes on now, particularly in China, where the reclamation of moral conscience remains the chief threat to the efficient autocratic state.
To do that, however, the church’s moral authority must be unimpeachable. It isn’t, and it won’t be until the church learns that to require the unnatural means, too often, to reap the despicable. In retiring, Benedict did what any normal man in his age and position would do. It is an example of ordinary human naturalness his successor would do well to emulate in other ways, too.
LikeLike
Zrim,
You might be a bit greedy on this score, but then there’s my wife upbraiding her friend on FB for posting pictures of still born children and the like as examples of abortion practice, which of course they were not, and proceeded to lecture her on what practices were helpful-persuasive conversation, and what practices were not-gratuitous pictures. The offending party took it well, and removed the pictures. So, what do I know.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I understand where you are going with the decency and propriety point you are trying to make. I think that part of the reason why we can make such claims in P&R circles is because we have a polity that at least at a structural level allows aggrieved parties to seek recourse in an orderly manner. And, although I am sure our churches have at some point botched sexual abuse cases, our protocols call for the involvement of criminal courts when crimes are involved (e.g. Eduoard). But in SGM churches, especially given their charismatic roots, polity is more or less ad hoc, held in the hands of one or a very few, so if they miscarry justice, their people don’t have the same recourse as you or I.
The cases that have gone public, whether in the justice system, or the court of public opinion, certainliy didn’t start there. There were in some cases years of suppression. Mahaney and others actions had created a critical mass that couldn’t be stopped once the lid blew.
As for whether or not these issues are being used as fodder for scoring points against political opponents – I am sure that it could be construed this way. For me this certanly isn’t the intent. For me, aside from my own (shared) criticisms of networks such as TGC, DGM, T4G, etc., there has been a whole lot of curious wagon-circling amongst those in those networks who stand to gain the most if this scandal would just blow over. There has been no shortage of “biblical” advice given by these public figures that seeks to shield Mahaney from scrutiny. My question is why? What is motivating this, a desire to see the truth of what has occured, and (alleged) victims given some recourse and restoration, or a desire to protect one of their own? Why not let this play itself out, and if Mahaney is innocent of what has been alleged against him, allow this to come out as well?
To me, as someone who is not involved directly in any of these cases (even though I have been involved in similar ones), the most important thing that should be discussed publically is why church governance and accountability structures are so important. Secondarily, I think there is plenty of room for public discussion on whether or not these large quasi-Reformed networks are actually helping the overall mission of the church.
LikeLike
“quasi-Reformed networks”
There’s an oxymoron for you.
LikeLike