Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at:

Monday, October 31, 2011

SGM-Mahaneygate: Collateral Fire Support for Detwiler

1.  It appears that Brent Detwiler is getting collateral fire support from one SGM Pastor in an appeal for adjudication--with witnesses, records, etc.  2. We also have word that CLC may be paring back their financial contributions to SGM and that they, CLC Elders, also support and have appealed for an adjudicative process.  3.  Also, 60 to 80 former SGM Pastors may get involved with the AoR Group reconciliation process. 4. This is not a CJ-Brent brouhaha, but a larger issue, the impact of a tyrant, overlord and abuser on an organization.  As Brent has often posited, there is a culture that is abusive, hypocritical, self-preserving, self-defensive, self-righteous, unjust, and deceitful.  5.  It's not about Brent or his cenotaph/obit.  It's about a culture that is cultic and controlling, a culture Brent cultivated, oversaw, and justified.  6.  Brent is as bad as Ceeg.  Both of them were abusers.

Harrington and Harvey

George Harrington is the former senior pastor of the Sovereign Grace church in Jacksonville, Florida. Recently he began Cross Central Church in Jacksonville.

George's insights and his appeal to the SGM Board mirrors those of many others. In Dave Harvey's October 28 blog post he focused all his attention on me as if I were the only one with farfetched concerns for C.J. and SGM. He also twists the truth about my attitude and actions beyond recognition.
This is an attempt to draw attention away from the long list of men like George Harrington who are expressing the same concerns as me. As I've said from the very beginning (see RRF&D, p. 128), the concerns I've raised are not limited to me and C.J. Joshua Harris said the same thing last night at a members meeting for Covenant Life Church. C.J.'s sins have impacted the entire movement and adversely effected many leaders and people. I am just one part of the story.

George's correspondence is used with permission

October 21, 2011

Dear SGM Board,

I’m writing you to appeal for a context where those who have serious concerns for SGM as a whole, and accusations against key individuals can be voiced before an agreed upon third party. Brothers, for this to linger on indefinitely only drags the glory of the Savior down. It also makes it much more difficult for SGM to address critical issues and move into the future better positioned to promote the gospel of Christ. There would seem to be no way to avoid this crisis continuing unless there is such an event.

It is becoming increasingly perplexing that there hasn’t been movement on your part to expedite such measures to draw this crisis to a conclusion. Measures that have been implemented thus far have not been such that a majority of your most serious accusers have agreed to. Not only that, but these men should be regarded as once having held strategic roles within SGM for decades. The longer you wait, the more speculation will arise in the general public that you have something to hide, or best case, managing this crisis. There doesn’t seem to be any way around this issue. I don’t believe that the Lord will be satisfied until you do open the door to objective analysis and judgments. I think that you men should begin to realize that not only does there need to be significant philosophical changes in authority and polity, but potentially to key leaders and their roles. While I am not making any assertions as to who and what, I think you should be willing now to open up a process where you can discover what these changes would be as events unfold.

Another part of such an event taking place is that there surely will be judgments that vindicate key leaders in SGM as well. Why hold men up any longer if they are being falsely accused? Why delay God’s discipline to others who are bringing these accusations if they are deemed to be ungodly and unfounded? Why not serve those of us who have spoken out? I know I would not shy away from the Lord’s correction and rebuke, if I need to be corrected and disciplined. EVERYONE involved can be judged and evaluated as to their culpability. I personally would be open to a public statement made by an objective agreed upon mediator/group to pronounce any culpability and correction directed toward me. I don’t believe any of us are afraid of that, neither should you.

It appears that the major issue in there being a lack of agreement is not on who will be the actual mediator and judges, but how will these judgments and information be handled after the process is over. What kind of role and authority will be vested in their conclusions? How will these conclusions be communicated? This is where you cannot position yourself to control the process or the information disseminated. Even if you have solicited a third party, (AOR), the process, authority vested in their judgments, and final communication of conclusions is not acceptable to many.

Especially since a large part of the accusations currently being brought asserts there is a history of spinning information favorably and shifting the blame to discredit the messengers. While I am personally not charging this, other significant men have.

Ultimately, I suggest that an objective body that can be agreed to by everyone involved, make their judgments and recommendations publicly, and then you can decide what you will or will not do to implement their conclusions. You can always feel free to disagree, but neither of the parties involved can change, spin, or alter the panels conclusions. It seems insincere to solicit participation to learn where “mistakes and practices” need addressing, when you have basically determined who will arbitrate, and then allow this third party to set the rules. This looks too much like SGM setting the stage to communicate publicly that, “Well, we tried, but…” and then move on without real input and course corrections.

Recently, I read a letter from Dave to Brent. I think this letter contains the essence of the concern that many men have, and why there is such shrewdness in negotiating the terms of reconciliation. Let’s assume that everything Dave writes in his letter to and about Brent is true. Let’s assume that Brent has been totally bogus in his assertions and has sinned grievously against you. Why would this then make you timid about moving forward with a forum that everyone can agree to? Why not have Brent’s head displayed for all to see what it really is? Why not be vindicated and absolved from all that is mentioned in the letter? Why continue to make multiple appeals to men who don’t think that the current process is acceptable? (Which seem more like strong arm tactics to some of us.) Why are you forcing your subjective version of what is fair and objective? My conclusion is that if you are correct in your charges against Brent, it will come out. The problem may lie with, what if you are wrong?

I know that those of us who are speaking up represent thousands of good people who will not have a voice to speak. They need to be able to draw some kind of consolation and closure from years of hurt and confusion. You need to respond for their sake as much as you do those of us who are the squeaky wheels. Most importantly, you need to respond for the glory of God and to serve your constituent churches into the future.

Brothers, I still count you as my friends and still dearly love SGM. Please remember, SGM is not yours, it belongs to God. He will be the reason why the ministry sinks or swims. Please release this to the Lord so that other objective men who love the Savior just as much as we do can bring clarity to these complex issues. My fear is that if this is not resolved soon, there will be irreparable damage done to the group of churches I love so much. Please, please, let go of the grip you have on your positions, the rest of us did.

Thank you for loving the Savior. I know that this is a painful time for you. I honestly wouldn’t want to be in your shoes right now, but, there is a way out! Please consider my appeal with heartfelt prayer and consideration. My love and concern go before me as you read this. May God be glorified both in the process, and the conclusion of these difficult times. I hope you still consider me your friend.

George Harrington

From: George Harrington
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 4:32 PM
To: Dave Harvey; Brent Detwiler; SGM Board; CLC Pastors
Subject: RE: Hello


Thanks for your kind words. May I suggest that you not evaluate any one's assertions or, in Brent's case documents if the material you are evaluating isn't accompanied by the one bringing the concerns? Especially if that individual/individuals has already communicated to you that they do not see this process as objective? It would seem like an exercise of going through the motions to satisfy subjectively your own stated desire to "learn and see all that God has for us." And my question would be, is that a reliable evaluation?

While I applaud your stated desire, it seems like that if any particular individual doesn't acquiesce and walk according to the process SGM had laid down, then you will evaluate these concerns without due process. This will only lead to more suspicion and speculation that there may be further spinning and altering the disseminating of information that seems to be a primary allegation from a number of individuals. Listen Dave, I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to bring a perspective for your good and the overall good of SGM. I love you brothers dearly and it hurts me to see the crisis you are enduring. But I must confess, I see a large part of these concerns not only having merit, but having been my experience. Please reconsider evaluating any one's written or spoken concerns at the AOR proceedings without a "Yes and amen" by the parties involved. Thanks for your consideration.


Sunday, October 30, 2011

Reformation Sunday 2011: Luther's Nun Freut euch

Nun Freut euch,
Text: Martin Luther, 1524

Verse 1

Dear Christians, one and all, rejoice, with exultation springing,
And, with united heart and voice and holy rapture singing,
Proclaim the wonders God hath done,
How His right arm the vict’ry won;
Most dearly it hath cost Him.

Verse 2 

He said to His beloved Son: “Tis time to have compassion.
Then go, bright Jewel of My crown, and bring to man salvation;
From sin and sorrow set him free,
Slay bitter death from him that he
May live with Thee forever.”

Verse 3 

To man Christ said: “Hold fast to me, I am thy Rock and castle;
Thy Ransom I Myself will be, for thee I strive and wrestle;
For I am with thee, I am thine,
And evermore thou shalt be Mine;
The foe shall not divide us.”

British PM Cameron Moves to Disestablish the Church of England

Cameron moves to disestablish the Church of England

One expects a Conservative prime minister to conserve all that is good in our Constitution. Where reform is necessary, one expects a Conservative prime minister to implement change in accordance with Burkean precepts – evolutionary, not revolutionary; consonant with social mores and sensitive to national customs and traditions. And one expects a Conservative prime minister to be fully informed of the facts of the nation’s political and religious history, and if not informed, certainly well advised.

It is depressing to observe that all those Conservative MPs with any grasp of history and politico-theology are languishing on the back benches: we have a government of constitutionally-illiterate technocrats, more concerned with the politics of economics and ‘modernisation’ à la Cool (if bust) Britannia.

This week, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia, David Cameron went where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not dare: he chipped away at the Act of Settlement 1701. He announced the end of male primogeniture in the Royal succession, and of his intention to lift the ban on the Monarch being married to a Roman Catholic. As His Grace has previously pointed out, such a change will require a raft of historic legislation to be amended. The
BBC mentions the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Royal Marriages Act (1772). To these, we must add the Coronation Oaths Act (1688), the Crown in Parliament Act (1689), the Accession Declaration Act (1910) and the rather more sensitive Act of Union (1707), Article 2 of which specifies that Roman Catholics may not ascend the Throne of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union 1707 is the founding charter of the United Kingdom. Tamper with this, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

For more, see:

"For All the Saints" for All Saints Sunday and Reformation Sunday

Lest we forget.

‎1. For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
Who Thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest:
Alleluia! Alleluia!

2. Thou wast their rock, their fortress, and their might,
Thou Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight;
Thou, in the darkness drear, their one true light:
Alleluia! Alleluia!

3. O may Thy soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,
Fight as the saints who nobly fought of old,
And win with them the victor's crown of gold:
Alleluia! Alleluia!

4. O blest communion, fellowship divine!
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in Thee, for all are Thine.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

5. But lo! there breaks a yet more glorious day:
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of glory passes on His Way:
Alleluia! Alleluia!

6. From earth's wide bounds, from ocean's farthest coast,
Thru gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
Singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:
Alleluia! Alleluia!

Saturday, October 29, 2011

SGMgate: "Why the 3-Panel Approach is a Sham"
"Why the 3 Panel Approach is a Sham"

By Jenn Grover
  1. The board didn't want to do it, they are only doing it because they were pressured. They felt it was unnecessary.
  2. Instead of a cohesive picture, three panels are going to split the issues and weigh them separate. Like with any disease, things don't look so bad if you fragment them but piece the whole thing together and you see the severity of the problems. Fragmentation has been part of the board's strategy. When I submitted many questions, Mark Prater came to answer them directly (Sept. 21.) I requested that it not just be me, that others have a chance to ask their questions, too. That request was ignored. I petitioned that answers to my questions be posted online somewhere so others could benefit from hearing the answers. That was denied. I did not and do not feel it was fair to only address my questions.
  3. Panels have been shrunk to 3 members - 1 board member and 2 senior pastors. If SGM believes that senior pastors are "first among equals" why the need for only senior pastors? Why the need for a board member, they already want to reinstate CJ without adjudication, so they are clearly biased. Do they not trust the pastors?
  4. There is no detail explaining how the panels will be chosen.
  5. The panels make recommendations; the board is not bound to them. AoR chastised the board for being only accountable to themselves. This set-up is a repeat of that problem.
  6. It seems absurd to even bother with evaluating the circumstances of Brent's removal without presenting his side. Talk about a kangaroo court.
I am convinced the only way to evaluate these charges is to do it openly n front of all SGM pastors like the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and throughout church history. Appeal to your pastors to appeal to the board, AoR, Ken Sande and others to press the SGM board for this.

SGMgate: The End in View

Dave Harvey, Acting SGM President, during
Mahaney's (feigned) Leave of Absence.  Dave, the
Judge, Jury Selector, Jury, Prosecutor
and (often) Keystone Kop-Detective.  He also acts, sells cars,
and has some great dance routines. 
He wears many hats.
It looks like the ballgame is over.  Completely over.  Harvey takes over the process and the independent panel is gone.  This is about as obvious as it gets.

All Is Lost!

I just read Dave Harvey's blog post. There is no hope for truth and justice.

Total terror and fear
of an open, recorded, and honest
adjudicative process.  Brent
gets the boot--again, like others.
Dave repeatedly quotes me out of context. For example, "unjust" and "bogus." Two words completely removed from their sentences and paragraphs and posts. It is just more spin. Honestly, I can't keep up. I could write forever. It is exhausting. I have never done this with C.J. or SGM. I always quote at length and in context. Not Dave. That is the only way he can get away with his spin.

The three panels Dave puts forth will be mini-kangaroo courts by definition. I won't have any idea what people are saying. I can't cross examine their statements. I can't challenge what they say. As a result, the panels won't be able to discern the lies, deceit, and "faulty" memory of those who testify against. This brings back really bad nightmares! They've learned nothing about due process.
If SGM was interested in truth they would allow every statement to be contested by me. That is why the adjudication hearing was so important. Every statement to panelists must be cross examined and must be backed up by primary source documents. Not memory. Memory often kills the truth. People can say anything if memory is their guide. This won't happen now and I've never done so. I've always sighted documents or quotes that were recorded or written down verbatim. Not SGM. They have never refuted me with documents. Never corrected me with evidence.

If Dave Harvey and the SGM Board are really interested in the truth they would allow for an open trial. Let it be recorded. Let it be videotaped. Let it be streamed live on the internet. But this will never happened. They are obsessed with controlling the message and the process.

They don't tell you so but it is only under extreme pressure from the SGM pastors, the AoR representatives, and people like Ken Sande and Jim Pappadeas that the SGM Board was effectively forced to allow the additional steps outlined in Dave's blog post. Nevertheless, they are still in control even though they consented to these capitulations.

Let's get honest. Let me speak before all of the movement. The SGM Board has now buried my voice. I've been shoved into "Group Reconciliation." But I've said all I can possibly say to AoR. If Ted Kober has any questions about what I've told him or the 1,000 pages I've sent him, he is welcome to call me. I am glad to talk. Dave distorts my view so badly and so often in his post.

So, let's do a real hearing in front of all the movement. No behind the scenes maneuverings. No back door discussions. No confidential conversations. Just evidence, witnesses, honestly and accountability. Let C.J. defend himself if my "rantings and ravings" are so outrageous. It should be an easy effort. Remember folks, the entire SGM Board already declared that nothing in my writings gave them any concern that C.J. might not be above reproach. Great. Prove it but let every one hear my prosecution and C.J.'s defense.

Dave's blog post contains so, so, so many errors! No one should believe what he says about me. Killing the adjudication hearing was a means to silencing me. They don't want me to speak. And I've repeated agree to meet if they simply provided me honest answers and saw the need for a public confession by C.J. That's all. But they have never referenced this. Yet it is plan in all of my writings. They promised to answer my questions, points and illustrations but they broke their word and none of them every saw any need for C.J. to confess anything in public. That is why we never met. Read my documents for the truth not Dave's blog posts which are false.

And last of all for tonight. It is part of the SGM plan to make it sound like I am the only one who has raised very seriously concerns for C.J. and SGM. This too is spin par excellence. It could not be further from the truth. I challenge the SGM Board to release to the public every letter, email, and FB message they have received since July 6. If they did, it would scare the daylights out of every SGM member.

Reduction, Presbyterianizing, and Curtailment of Bishops

The Reduction of Episcopacy
by James Ussher

The Reduction of Episcopacy unto the form of Synodical Government Received in the Ancient Church: Proposed as an Expedient for the compromising of the now Differences, and the preventing of those Troubles that may arise about the matter of Church Government. 1656

Episcopal and Presbyteral Government conjoined.

By Order of the Church of England all Presbyters are charged (1) to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same; and that they might the better understand what the Lord had commanded therein (2), the Exhortation of S. Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus is appointed to be read unto them at the time of their Ordination; Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to Rule (3) the Congregation of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.

Of the many Elders, who in common thus ruled the Church of Ephesus, there was on President; Whom our Saviour in his Epistle to that Church in a peculiar manner styles the Angel of the Church of Ephesus (Rev 2.1); and Ignatius, in another Epistle written about twelve years after unto the same Church, called the Bishop thereof, betwixt which Bishop and the Presbytery of that Church, what an harmonious consent there was in the ordering of the Church government, the same Ignatius doth fully there declare, by the Presbytery with St. Paul (1 Tim 4.14) understanding the Company of the rest of the Presbyters or Elders, who then had a hand not only in the deliverance of the Doctrine and Sacraments, but also in the administration of the Discipline of Christ, for further proof whereof, we have that known testimony of Tertullian in his Apology for Christians. (4)

In the Church are used exhortations, chastisements and divine censure. For judgement is given with great advice as among those who are certain that they are in the sight of God; and it is the chiefest foreshowing of the judgement which is to come, if any man have so offended that he be banished from the Communion of Prayer, and of the Assembly, and of all holy fellowship. The Presidents that bear rule therein are certain approved Elders, who have obtained this honour, not by reward, but by good report; were no other (as he himself elsewhere intimates) but those from whose hands they used to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist (5). For with the Bishop who was the chief President (and therefore styled by the same Tertullian in another place (6) Summus Sacerdos for distinction sake) the rest of the Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments joined in the common government of the Church; and therefore, where in matters of Ecclesiastical judicature Cornelius Bishop of Rome used the received form of gathering together the Presbytery (7); of what persons did consist, Cyprian, sufficiently declares, when he wishes him to read his letters (8) to the flourishing Clergy which there did preside or rule with him, the presence of the Clergy being thought to be so requisite in matters of Episcopal audience that in the fourth Council of Carthage, it was concluded, that the Bishop might hear no man’s cause without the presence of his Clergy, and that otherwise the Bishops sentence should be void, unless it were confirmed by the presence of the Clergy, which we find also to be inserted into the Canons of Egbert, who was Archbishop of York in the Saxons times, and afterwards into the Body of the Canon Law itself.

True it is, that in our Church this kind of Presbyterial government has been long disused, yet seeing it still professes, that every Pastor has a right to rule the Church (from when the name of Rector also was given at first unto him) and to administer the Discipline of Christ, as well as to dispense the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the restraint of the exercise of that right proceeds only from the custom now received in this Realm, no man can doubt but by another Law of the Land this Hindrance may be well removed: And how easily his ancient form of government by the united Suffrages of the Clergy might be revived again, and with what little show of alteration, the Synodical conventions of the Pastors of every Parish might be accorded with the presidency of the Bishops of each Diocese and Province; the impartial Reader may quickly perceive by the perusal of the ensuing Propositions.

1. In every parish the Rector or Incumbent Pastor together with the Churchwardens and Sidesmen may every week take notice of such as live scandalously in that Congregation, who are to receive such several admonitions and reproofs, as the quality of their offence shall deserve; and if by this means they cannot be reclaimed, they ay be presented unto the next monthly Synod; and in the mean time debarred by the Pastor from access to the Lord’s Table.

2. Whereas by a Statute in the 26 year of King Henry the eight (revived in the first of Queen Elizabeth) Suffragans are appointed to be erected in twenty six places of this Kingdom, the number of them might very well be conformed unto the number of the several rural Deaneries into which every Diocese is subdivided; which being done, the Suffragan (supplying the place of those who in the ancient Church were called Chorepiscopi) might every month assemble a Synod of all the Rectors, or Incumbent Pastors within the Precinct, and according to the Major part of their votes conclude all matters that should be brought into debate before them.

To this Synod the Rector and Churchwardens might present such impenitent persons, as by admonition and suspension from the Sacrament, would not be reformed; who if they should still remain contumacious and incorrigible, the sentence of Excommunication might be decreed against them by the Synod, and accordingly be executed in the Parish where they lived.

Hitherto also all things that concerned the Parochial Ministers might be referred, whether they did touch doctrine or their conversation; as also the censure of all new Opinions, Heresies, or Schisms, which did arise within that Circuit; with liberty of Appeal, if need so require, unto the Diocesan Synod.

3. The Diocesan Synod might be held once or twice in the year, as it should be thought most convenient: Therein all the Suffragans and the rest of the Rectors or Incumbent Pastors (or a certain select number) of every Deanery within that Diocese might meet, with whose consent, or the Major part of them, all things might be concluded by the Bishop or Superintendent (call him whither you will) or in his absence by one of the Suffragans whom he shall depute in his stead to be Moderator of that Assembly. here all matters of greater moment might be taken into consideration, and the Orders of the Monthly Synods revised, and (if need be) reformed: And if here also any matters of difficultly could not receive a full determination; it might be referred to the next Provincial or National Synod.

4. The Provincial Synod might consist of all the Bishops and Suffragans, and such other Clergy as should be elected out of every Diocese within the Province; The Primate of either Province might be Moderator of this meeting (or in his room, some one of the Bishops appointed by him) and all matters be ordered therein by common consent as in the former Assembly.

This Synod might be held every third year, and in the Parliament do then sit (according to the Act for A Triennial Parliament) both the Primates and Provincial Synods of the Land might join together, and make us a National Counsel: Wherein all appeals from inferior Synods might be received, all their Acts examined, and all Ecclesiastical constitutions which concern the state of the Church of the whole Nation established.


The Form of Government here proposed, is not in any point repugnant to Scripture; and that the Suffragans mentioned in the Second Proposition, may lawfully use the power both of jurisdiction and Ordination, according to the Word of God, and the Practice of the ancient Church.

back to top


(Not all the endnotes have been copied because of the difficulty of reading them in the manuscript available. Whereas Ussher gave most of the notes in Latin the Engish version of Schaff has been used here.)

The form of Ordaining Ministers

Ibid. ex Acts 20.17,28

poimainein – so taken in Matt 2.6 and Rev 12.5 & 19.15

“In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character.” Tertullian : Apology Chapter 39.

“We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist” Tertullian : The Chaplet or De Corona, Chapter 3

Tertullian : On Baptism, Chapter 17

“The whole of this transaction therefore being brought before me, I decided that the presbytery should be brought together; (for there were present five bishops, who were also present today;) so that by well-grounded counsel it might be determined with the consent of all what ought to be observed in respect of their persons.” The Epistles of Cyprian : Epistle 45 Cornelius to Cyprian

The Epistles of Cyprian : Epistle 53 to Cornelius

Book Review: Against Calvinism by Roger Olson

SGM-gate: Madness in the SGM Madhouse of Mad Dawgs

Detwiler puts a laser-guided missile into Davebitious's Davetistic Davetoberfest (to wit, Dave Harvey, acting SGM President and Ventriloquist for Mahaney).  We also play with Dave's name as per his (auto-biographical) book entitled "Rescuing Ambition,"  Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2010.  (Save your money.)  We also playfully use some words in our title:  madness in multi-dimensional senses, both good and bad.  This won't end well for CJ, Harvey, any enablers, or SGM-folks.  See below.

Get Out of Jail Free Card for C.J. – No Adjudication Hearing
There will be no hearing of charges against C.J. Mahaney. Like the board game, Monopoly, C.J. was given a get out of jail free card from the Sovereign Grace Board of Directors this week.

That’s right, the SGM Board has adamantly refused to have C.J. appear before his peers so they can evaluate charges against him. There will be no trial. There will be no defense. There will be no hearing. There will be no evidence. The Board refuses to let me present witnesses and a fact based case against C.J. He is off Scott Free. And the Board won’t listen to any appeals to the contrary. They are moving on so get out of the way or you’ll be run over.

I wrote Dave Harvey the following.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 4:52 PM
To: Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank
Cc: Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: Mini-Mona Lisa

Dave, here is what you wrote me on Wednesday. My response follows.

Hi Brent, hope you are well today.

The letter I sent on Monday appealed to you to have your pastor contact us, reaffirmed our desire to pursue reconciliation, and urged you to deliver your feedback in the group reconciliation process through a phone conference with AOR. But that letter also informed you that the door for adjudication was closed – so yes, that was our final word on the topic of adjudication. But we can make arrangements today if you desire to take the next step towards reconciliation. We really hope and pray you’ll consider this.

On behalf of the board,

These four sentences are full of deceptive lies. The next step toward reconciliation is adjudication! It has always been that way and you know it Dave. You pretend to want reconciliation but kill the very possibility by killing adjudication without even blushing. You have no shame. Let me answer your incredulous response.

First, my position on reconciliation has been clear from the beginning though you purposely misrepresent me. On July 6, I told Ted Kober I’d probably participate in an adjudication hearing as a first step. That’s what I am asking for now. I told him if that process went well then I would consider mediation. You know that Dave. So if you were really interested in reconciliation you would agree to an adjudication hearing and make sure it was fair and just so mediation could follow. That is why Ted made the following notation in the Consultation Report from August 25.

“Due to the long-standing and current conflicts, the SGM Board may consider implementing Recommendation #3 [Adjudication of Charges Against C.J. Mahaney] prior to Recommendation #2 [Group Reconciliation Services]. (p. 20)

Once again you are to blame for no forward progress. Your spin will not work. You are a master painter but the one thing you can’t draw is a straight line. Everything you paint is crooked. This is another example. Let me restate the facts. If you had any concern for reconciliation there would be an adjudication hearing. In saying no to a hearing, you are saying no to reconciliation. Let’s be honest for a change.

And if you were men of your word there would be an adjudication hearing even if C.J. refused to show up. This citation comes from the Consultation Report.

The parties in the case should be C.J. Mahaney as the respondent (or accused) and Brent Detwiler as the complainant (or accuser). Should either party not appear to present their case after being duly notified of hearing details, the hearing should continue in their absence considering all the evidence and testimony available to the panel. However, as in any adjudicatory process, written evidence presented without oral first-hand testimony or without opportunity for cross examination normally would not receive the same weight as oral first-hand testimony with opportunity for cross examination. (AoR Consultation Report, August 24, p. 19)

Dave, you promised to act upon all their recommendations. Once again you are breaking your word. I should be allowed to make my case to the five man panel whether or not C.J. participates. Here is what you wrote on the SGM blog.

Today we received the consultation report from Ambassadors of Reconciliation. It includes three areas where they and others will be involved in helping us:
  1. Adjudication of allegations against C.J. Mahaney
  2. Group reconciliation with others who have offenses
  3. Follow-up consultation and recommendations
We plan on following their recommendations in full.

Second, you know I already provided my feedback to Ted Kober during a two hour interview in which I outlined all my concerns for you, C.J. and SGM. I’ve also provided him close to 1, 000 pages of documentation. There is no reason to do another interview. Don’t say “I…urged you to deliver your feedback in the group reconciliation process through a phone conference with AOR.” I’ve given them more input then they can process. Don’t make it sound like I am unwilling to participate in an interview as part of the Group Reconciliation. That is spin.

From: Mellisa Richholt
 Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:12 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Confirming?

Dear Brent,

I am checking back to make sure you will be able to make the interview appointment with Ambassadors of Reconciliation during the group reconciliation assistance at SGM at 8:00 am on Thursday, November 10th. If that time is not possible, we could work towards another time slot.

Yours in Christ,
Melissa Richholt
Administrative Assistant

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Mellissa Richholt; Ted Kober
Subject: RE: Confirming?

Hello Melissa,

I have already done an interview with Ted in which I outlined all my concerns for SGM. There is no need for a second one. I’ve also provided him nearly 1,000 pages in documentation. He is intimately aware of all aspects of my thinking regarding the abuses and deceit in SGM. There is nothing more to add. My presentation of concerns has been altogether comprehensive.


From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 2:52 PM
To: Dave Harvey; SGM Board
Cc: CLC Pastors;Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande
Subject: Don't Misrepresent

Don’t misrepresent me again. There is no need for another interview.

Third, you may be hearing from my pastors but if so they will be appealing for your repentance. They are highly trained and well respected evangelicals. From what I gather, they’d probably describe your behavior as cult like. Dave, you are the one in need of pastoral care and repentance. In fact, have your pastors’ contact me or my pastors if you ever show any signs of remorse that could lead to reconciliation. We’ll await their call.

Fourth, you can “reaffirm” your desire for reconciliation from now until Kingdom come, but if you don’t acknowledge any wrong or allow for adjudication it is all a pretense, a show, a façade, a cruel joke. I want reconciliation but not a phony one. That is why I am willing to go through the hearing even through the scales of justice are weighed against me. Stop your boasting. If you want reconciliation we would be working out arrangements for an adjudication proceeding.

So “we can make arrangements today if you desire to take the next step towards reconciliation.” Give me and my pastors a call and let’s start up the adjudication hearing!


Then yesterday I followed up with Dave again in this lengthy email.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:06 PM
To: Aron Osborne; C. J. Mahaney; Craig Cabaniss; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Andrew Mahr; Bob Kauflin; Tony Reinke; Tommy Hill; Gary Ricucci; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: No Repentance, No Reconciliation, No Hearing of Charges

There is no reconciliation with God without genuine repentance. Paul the apostle said, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20).

It is also true; there is no reconciliation between men without genuine repentance. That is, repentance evidenced by deeds that all can see and judge. You, C.J. and the Board claim to want reconciliation but you are unwilling to repent. Therefore, reconciliation is impossible. Let me ask some questions.

What specific sins have you acknowledged? What specific abuses have you renounced? When have you made public confessions? To which churches you ruined have you returned? Which men have been disciplined for their abuse and deceit? Where have you restored reputations that you destroyed?

The answer is never and nowhere! You have taken the discipline of the Lord lightly.

Dave you know there are at least 60 former pastors and administrators who are waiting for you to repent, confess, and make restitution. You conceal this kind of information. These men are not reconciled to you because you have not dealt with your sins against them. There has been no sackcloth, ashes and wailing by you, C.J. or others (Jer. 6:26). Just feeble rationalizations, excuses or superficial acknowledgments.

I have presented 1,000 pages of documentation to the SGM Board. No one has repented as a result. Not you, not Steve Shank, not Bob Kauflin, not Gene Emerson, not Mickey Connolly, not anyone.

C.J. has confessed to some things but none of the most serious sins. And collectively, the SGM Board has confessed absolutely no sin to the pastors or the movement. Every public statement made by you is vague and full of qualifications. For instance, your comments Dave at the end of the SGM Mission Video are going to make many people gasp and gag. Your “confession” is anemic. There is no conviction, no illumination, and no contrition just like statements that proceeded. All we hear is “I’m sorry. We’re listening. We want to do better. We’re trying. It wasn’t our best communication. We’re tweaking our polity. The best is yet to come. I’m more hopeful than ever.”

Now you have slammed the door on an adjudication hearing and bolted it shut. King Kong couldn’t open it. The Board’s decision clearly means you do not want an airing of the evidence against C.J., yourself and others. You are running from the truth as fast as you can. This further destroys your credibility.

There is no legitimate reason in the entire world to refuse my appeal (and that of many others including Ken Sande) and forbid an adjudication hearing. At this point, you are afraid of the truth in the form of facts, evidence, proofs, and witnesses which now number 60 pastors/administrators and that does not include former Care Group leaders and members, whose number runs into the hundreds/thousands in testimony against you.

In spite of your unresponsiveness, God has worked in mysterious ways. For this I am grateful. By grace, I have been a blessing to some people but I am most encouraged by the fact that many people are helping one another deal with the trauma experienced in SGM. Others see it so clearly but you remain blind and indifferent. Pastors like this one have received no help from you. They write you. They appeal to you. But you don’t respond with brokenness and contrition. This has happened more times than I can count.

I love you friend. You were a big part of God’s healing in my life and a pivotal part of helping me get past what happened. Before you called, I thought I was the only one, thought I damaged goods. I am grateful for you. In many ways you have made the potential for ministry possible for me again. There now exist a reasonable (though sad) explanation for what happened at our church. For SGM no doubt you have been a huge headache, for me and the rest of the guys you have been a huge blessing.

At this point, the evidence against you is so great, you can’t even risk having a SGM Board member and four SGM pastors hear the truth for fear of the outcome. They might actually declare C.J. unfit to be President. What would you do then? That scares you! Dave, you can spin things every which way, but there is no denying you are locking the lid on the garage so no one sees or smells the trash inside. This is one more example of your control, lording, manipulation, and deceit. You are not concerned about integrity, transparency and purity. You are concerned about saving your skin.

Furthermore, it is an evidence of your pride that you are not willing to listen to the SGM pastors. You’re afraid to let them have a say regarding the reinstatement of the adjudication hearing because the majority will overrule you and you know it. This is another clear example of your arrogance, independence and authoritarianism. You are unaccountable. Self-interest and self-preservation control you. Dave, by this decision, you and the Board continue to conceal the truth. You can come up with all kinds of fanciful reasons like you do in your letter to me on Monday but the truth is plain. You are hiding in the dark unwilling to have your deeds exposed by the light! And the Group Reconciliation won’t bring anything out into the open. You know that also. No one should ever trust you!

None of this should be happening. Long ago, C.J. should have made a detailed and public confession and stepped down. C.J.’s sins are more numerous and more serious than the vast amount of men who have stepped down and made confession over the past 30 years and they weren’t the President of SGM who should be held to the highest standard. The lowest standard has been applied to C.J. The favoritism shown him is beyond comprehension. No one in the history of the movement could do what C.J. has done to such a long list of men who want to testify against him and but are now silenced because the SGM Board has shut down a process for the hearing of evidence. This is pure demagoguery.

I suspect the spin machine will be full throttle at the Pastors Conference on November 8-10. It will probably include a nominal confession by C.J. But there will be no reference to lying, deceit, abuse of authority, rejection of people who disagree, lording over processes, favoritism, manipulation, hypocrisy, and independence. These are the real reasons you won’t allow an adjudication hearing. You know all these charges are easily proven by one illustration or witness after another.

What follows is one long email I sent four months ago to the CLC pastors and the old SGM Board. It was written at a hopeful point in time. The Covenant Life pastors were preparing to meet with C.J. and C.J. was considering my input regarding deceit, promising to write me, and ready to make a public confession. I’ve talked about the first half of this email elsewhere (e.g. “C.J.’s Foxhole Conversion” at on October 13). I included suggestions for how to structure the Pastors Conference. Things could be so different today if C.J. and the SGM Board stayed the course.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 2:02 PM
To: Boisvert, Robin; Bradshaw, Mike; Brewer, Dave; Chesemore, Brian; DeVries, Don; Greer, Braden; Harris, Joshua; Hydoski, Isaac; Layman, Grant; Leach, Jamie; Lee, Joe; Maka, Matt; Malcolm, Adam; Maresco, Kenneth; Megorden, Corby; Mitchell, Mark; Sheffer, Eric; Simmons, Eric; Smith, Jon; Somerville, Greg; Wikner, Ben; Ennis, Pat; Ennis, Pat; Gary Ricucci; Harvey, Dave; John Loftness; Kauflin, Bob; Ken Sande; Mahaney, C. J.; Purswell, Jeff; Tommy Hill; Tony Reinke; Steve Shank
Subject: Tell It to the Church - On Hold


Greetings to all – Jesus is alive!

Let me say, I am relieved, grateful and glad to hold on further action. The note from the pastoral team was of particular encouragement.

From: Joshua Harris
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Robin Boisvert; Mike Bradshaw; Dave Brewer; Brian Chesemore; Don DeVries; Braden Greer; Isaac Hydoski; Grant Layman; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Matt Maka; Adam Malcolm; Kenneth Maresco; Corby Megorden; Mark Mitchell; Erik Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Jon Smith; Greg Somerville; Ben Wikner; Kevin Rogers; Dave Harvey; C.J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell
Subject: Tell It to the Church - On Hold

June 24, 2011

Dear Brent,

Thank you for your recent email and exhortation to our pastoral team. Many men on the team would not have been aware of the history that you detailed for us. As we read these documents, there were men recounting the significant role (one man through tears) you have played in their spiritual walk, including teaching us in the Pastors College, sermons given at Celebrations and Covenant Life and in your partnership in advancing the gospel. We sincerely thank God for you, brother, and the investment you have made into many of us.

Upon receiving your email with the attached documents, Josh asked every man to read all of the attachments, and immediately set a time for our team to discuss the contents and to bring our own questions that we would want to ask CJ. During this all day meeting, it was evident that the entire team was very concerned and greatly troubled by what we were reading. Various men expressed great concern for CJ, along with sadness and grief over CJ’s apparent sin of which we were unaware.

The team has scheduled a meeting with CJ next week, in which we will ask him to respond to the concerns your documents have raised for us. We feel an obligation as a pastoral team to respond without partiality and to help the process of confession of sin and reconciliation of broken relationships. And we are determined, as the elders of Covenant Life, to remain involved in this process. We think the involvement of the independent panel is a needed step and we will participate fully and forthrightly with their interview and evaluation process.

Because of your concern about the process to date, you have indicated that you plan to send these documents to a broader group of leaders. Would you be willing to postpone that action until we have time to process this fully with CJ and question him directly regarding the specific charges and allegation you are bringing to him? Thank you for your demonstrated commitment to resolving this process as shown by your restraint in not sending these documents out already.

Brent, we love you as a brother in Christ. Your years of service in Sovereign Grace have touched all the churches, including our own. We do not view you as an enemy. We want to see God use this process to refine and strengthen Sovereign Grace. Thank you again for writing. We continue to pray with you that God would be glorified in the process.

The Pastors of Covenant Life Church

Barring a dramatic response from C.J. and the CLC elders, I planned to send out “Tell It to the Church” tomorrow morning (see attached). I wrote it this past Thursday morning after sending C.J. the following questions.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:15 AM
To: C.J. Mahaney
Subject: Change of Heart?

Dear C.J.,

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

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

With sincere affection,

C.J., I am also grateful for your response.

From: C.J. Mahaney
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 12:44 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Cc: Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Tommy Hill; Tony Reinke; Ken Sande; John Loftness; Bob Kauflin; Gary Ricucci; Carolyn Mahaney; Chad Mahaney
Subject: Change of Heart?


Thank you for your affection and care. I trust you know I feel the same toward you.
In answer to your question, yes, I am changing my mind in regard to your request to give a more thorough response to your documents. At the same time, I am committed to making a public confession, as detailed below.

The men around have challenged me to go back again and seek to dig deeper into the issues you've brought. I can’t guarantee that I will meet all of your expectations, but I promise to make my very best effort to address your concerns. I won’t pretend this is easy, but I assume there is more of my sin I can perceive and I want to perceive it all. Brent, I know my sin has deeply hurt you and others and I want to more clearly acknowledge this wherever I can. I want to benefit from all God has for me in your documents. Most important I want to examine my heart more thoroughly and invite the help of others as I need their help in order to see my sin. Please pray that God would give me the gift of sight as I continue to examine your documents and my heart.
So here is how I plan to proceed.
  1. I will be meeting with the broader CLC pastoral team next week to hear their perspective and receive their correction.
  2. I am very eager to meet with the independent panel and hear their perspective and receive their correction as they study your documents and interview all the people involved. Since I haven’t any history with these folks I hope their objective evaluation will help them to perceive my sin more accurately and serve me as I hear their perspective and receive their correction. In order to gain the time to focus properly on this process, I am even considering taking a leave of absence.
  3. I am going to contact David Powlison to ask him to review your documents, and to set up a series of meetings with David so I can benefit from his correction and counsel.
  4. In attempting to give a more thorough response to the three documents, my plan was to give particular attention to the 15 areas of concern/sin you think I have yet to perceive or acknowledge. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this approach.
  5. I will also revisit your 15 areas of concern/sin with the board and make sure I have heard any and all concerns they might have related to these areas.
  6. As a result of these steps, my plan is to provide you with my response to your documents that specifically addresses your primary areas of concern.
I also plan to make a public confession to the Sovereign Grace pastors. My hope is to do this at our November conference although it’s possible this could take place at an earlier date. I want my confession to be as fully informed as possible, so I’d like to get the benefit of the independent review process before making it. It’s also my preference to make this confession in person with the pastors rather than by e-mail. I want these men to hear my confession and hopefully perceive my conviction/sorrow as well as ask their forgiveness. I also intend to continue confessing personally to any other people who have been directly impacted by my sin, including former pastors or members within SGM. And once God has given me a clear understanding of my sin and its impact on others, I anticipate that it will be beneficial for me to make a wider confession to the general public about God’s correction and refinement in my life.

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

Thanks for helping me to do this.

In His grace,

I do not see this as a private matter or something confined to me and C.J. It is much broader and I hope radical action will follow that addresses all the issues. Here are some thoughts to consider in planning the Leadership Conference on November 8-10.
  1. Have Joshua lead the conference, not C.J. or Dave. Opening remarks must have guests in mind.
  2. Do away with seminars.
  3. No guest speakers.
  4. Don’t permit C.J. or Dave to teach at the Conference.
  5. Set apart one or two sessions for C.J.’s confession. He should take his time, not be rushed, and share at length and in depth.
  6. Dedicate a separate session for C.J. and Larry to talk about their reconciliation and express regret for the bad fruit that resulted. Ask both men to share their history, sins against one another and lessons learned. Someone thank them afterward for their leadership over the years.
  7. Set aside time for Dave, Steve Shank, Bob Kauflin and Gene Emerson to make public confessions.
  8. Have Joshua preach on lessons learned and the way forward including comments about lording and spiritual abuse. Also about how to deal with disillusionment and loss of trust in leaders we respected. Also make statements about the idolization of men, mistakes made by SGM in this regard, corrective measures, honoring to a fault, etc.
  9. Have Grant preach on team ministry, plurality, lying, integrity, deceit, hypocrisy. Give a warning to sr. pastors who are like C.J. and staffs who remain silent in order to stay in favor with the sr. pastor. In my opinion, the sr. pastors are too powerful and have too much authority. The other pastors on staff are beholden to them. This should be addressed head on. Commend Joshua for his leadership at CLC.
  10. Dedicate time for staffs to interact and fellowship over what they are hearing. Alert staffs before the conference so they plan extra time during the conference to interact as a group.
  11. Think through what special encouragement, instruction and fellowship should be provided for the wives. Gary and Betsey R. could lead a session. Bring plenty of tissues…for Gary of course.
  12. Have Kenneth preach on the fear of man, man pleasing, favoritism, courage, face saving, flattery, love of reputation, wanting to look good, willingness to take a stand, willingness to suffer.
  13. Have C.J. alert all the SGM pastors in advance regarding the nature of the conference. Provide them a condensed written confession.
Some thoughts to consider in general.
  1. Plan to provide the senior pastors with a recorded confession from C.J. that can be played in the churches on the Sunday after the Conference (Nov 13). Have Joshua add concluding remarks.
  2. Have each sr. pastor tell their church on Nov 6 about the nature of the upcoming Leadership Conference, ask for prayer and indicate a recorded confession from C.J. will be played the following Sunday so the people are not totally shocked.
  3. Provide a written statement to the blogs they can post. Talk to Kris (Survivors) and Jim (Refuge) in advance of the conference and explain what is going on. Thank them, if that is possible, for their efforts.
  4. Have C.J. take a leave of absence.
  5. Consider significant salary reductions for C.J., Dave, and Bob. Maybe 50%.
  6. Provide a written report to men like Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Burk Parson, John Piper, David Powlison, Ken Sande, R.C. Sproul. Ask them for their assistance in caring for C.J. and holding him accountable in the future.
  7. Look into Steve’s handling of Benny Phillips, Keith Jacobs, Paul Palmer, Dave Bendinelli; Dave Harvey and Rick Gamache’s handling of Dan McIntosh; Dave’s handling of Don Shorey and Joe McMillian. Some of these men maybe unwilling to talk due to fear, distrust, or hopelessness.
  8. Have Dave return to Kingsway in Richmond and ask forgiveness. He has done great harm there.
Some thoughts for your meeting with C.J. next week.
  1. In addition to reviewing my documents with C.J. share your visceral reactions to what you read. He needs to know what you think and feel.
  2. Be committed to sharing your own experiences or observations of C.J. He must see the systemic nature of his sins. They are not confined to me.
  3. Ask C.J. about the correction he has received from the Board of Directors and other men. For example, Dave Bendinelli.
  4. Be honest and be firm. This is not a time to be soft spoken.
I’ve done some minor editing in each of my documents. Nothing substantial except for the section entitled, “C.J.’s Letter to PDI Pastors Regarding Larry – May 19, 1997.” I expanded it based upon an interview Larry did with The Washington Times in 2008. I’ve also added footnotes. You’ll find attached the final editions and new material as a complete record. I’m sending it to everyone involved with the exception of Carolyn and Chad. All of this material should be forwarded to the panel of mediators and David Powlison.

If God gives me the strength, I plan to write two more parts for a total of five. The fourth part will be called “The Untold Story.” I’ve attached the material I’ve written so far. A lot more work remains but it will give you a good feel for the trajectory I’ve mapped out. It conveys the devastating events surrounding my resignation. I hope others can learn from this account.

Thank you C.J. for continuing the race. It is not easy but the finish line is in view. Of course, the end is always the hardest part of a race but the reward will be sweet. Keep going my friend. I have confidence in you.

And thank you brothers for faithfully executing your responsibilities as shepherds. I am indebted to you! I also appreciate your personal sentiments. They are meaningful.

“The grace withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isa 40:8)
My heart rejoices in God my Savior.


Dave, over the last two years you, C.J. and the Board have acted like a slick politicians. You never answer the questions you’re asked. You just tell people what you want them to hear hoping they will believe it if you say it enough times. But you offer no proofs for the points you make. And you don’t refute the points made against you. It’s like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He produces no proof the Holocaust never occurred and he doesn’t refute the evidence showing it did. He just keeps telling his lie and people in Iran actually believe him.

You also deflect criticism by focusing the audience on something irrelevant. Or you attack (SGM Blog Post on July 13) or demean or criticize the person bringing the observations. For example, my style of writing. Who cares if I use literary devices you don’t like but are found in the Bible when you’re facing charges of lying, abuse, manipulation, for which you give no answers. You have no sense of proportionality.

You have missed the mark. Churches will now leave Sovereign Grace Ministries and rightly so. Other churches will split and experience great upheaval. Elderships will divide over whether to remain in SGM. Pastors will be forced out when a majority want to stay. More people will be devastated. More people will be disillusioned. More people will lapse from the faith. More youth will be derailed. But you don’t care about these matters. Not really. You care more about keeping your positions and kingdom intact. It is like watching the events in Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and Libya. Sooner or later, I’m afraid you will be toppled as the truth gets out and your corruption becomes more widely known.

Dave, your decision to silence justice, leaves me little choice but to make my case against you and others. I have been silent about such matters. I’ve held back hoping you will repent. There are so many clear examples of abuse and deceit I have not shared. So, you won’t be hearing from my pastors but your pastors will be hearing from me.

One last time, I appeal for your repentance and call for a just adjudication of the evidence. Seek his Kingdom and his righteousness first, not your own. If not, I commend you in prayer to the judgment
and mercy of God.