8/3/2019 Why Not Vote

1/5

WhyNotVote?

Somepastorshavesuggestedoverthepastcoupleofmonthsthatweconsidertakinga

vote

among

ordained

SGM

pastors

to

determine

whether

or

not

C.J.

returns

from

his

leaveofabsence.Thereasonsoftenvary,butthecommonthemeisthatitwouldhelp

torestoretrustintheBoardandCJiftheboardletgoofthedecisionandalloweditto

bedeterminedbyavote. TheideascomefrommenwholoveSGManddesiretoseeus

movetogetherinstrengthandtrusttowardthefuture.

Trustbuildingisapriorityforusinatimelikethis,andwehavediscussedwaysboth

asaboardandwithmanyofyou torebuildtrustwhereithasbeenshakenwithin

SovereignGrace. Butwedontbelievethevotingoptionistherightwaytohandlethis

nordowebelieveitwouldbeeffective. Infact,itcouldbecounterproductive. Heres

why.

TheissueathandTheprimaryissuefacingtheinterimboardwasthis:DotheallegationsagainstC.J.

madebyBrentDetwilerdisqualifyC.J.frombeingpresidentofSGM? Thedistribution

ofBrentsdocumentsplacedintocirculationseriouschargesaboutC.J.scharacterand

ethicalintegrity,therebyraisingquestionsabouthisqualificationtoserveasSGMs

president. Itwastheinterimboardsmandatetodevelopaprocessbywhichthese

chargescouldbeexamined. Forhispart,C.J.tookaLeaveofAbsencesoasnotto

influenceor

undermine

the

credibility

of

this

process.

Theprocessofreviewingtheseallegationsisnowcomplete. Thereviewpanelshave

deliveredtotheboardcareful,wellresearched,andobjectiveassessmentsofBrents

charges,andtheyfoundinthemnobasisforC.J.sdisqualificationfromservingas

president. Therefore,theonlyreasonableactiontheboardcantakeistoreturnC.J.to

thepresidency. Tofailtodosowouldhaveanumberofdetrimentaleffects:

Itwouldunderminetheobjectivityofthereviewprocess. ThepanelswereformedtoprovideanobjectiveassessmentofBrentsallegationsandofC.J.s

fitnesstoserveaspresidentinlightofthoseallegations. Tofailtoactonthe

basisof

the

reports

is

to

undermine

the

legitimacy

of

ajust,

biblical

process

by

whichtoweighchargesagainstaleader.

Itwouldcreateaninjusticebyunderminingdueprocess. ToputC.J.srestorationtoavotewouldchangethetermsofhisreinstatement,whichfromthe

beginninghasbeenbasedupontheresultsofthepanelsfindings. Thiswould

underminethedueprocesswecarefullyputintoplaceandtreatC.J.unjustly.

8/3/2019 Why Not Vote

2/5

ItwouldimportadditionalandunrelatedcriteriaintothedecisiontorestoreC.J.PuttingC.J.sreinstatementtoavotewouldactuallyconfusetwoseparate

issues: C.J.sethical/characterqualificationstoserveaspresidentandhislong

termsuitabilitytoserveaspresident. BothhisLeaveofAbsenceandthereview

processwererelatedtotheformer,andneitherwasintendedtospeaktothe

latter.The

question

of

whether

C.J.

is

the

best

person

to

serve

as

SGMs

presidentlongtermisanimportantissue,however,thatisnottheissuethe

interimboardwasaddressing,anditseemsinappropriatetoimportthatissue

intothecurrentprocess. OfcoursethequestionofwhoshouldserveSGMas

thenextpresidentisonethatthepermanentboardwillneedtoaddress

immediatelyuponitsformation.

TheBoardisinformedThrough

our

own

internal

reviews

and

the

panel

reports,

the

Board

has

gathered,

reviewed,anddiscussedthevalidityofBrentsallegationsmorethananyothergroup.

Thatwasourmandateandwebelievewevebeenthoroughandimpartialinmeetingit.

Atthesametime,disturbingamountsofmisinformationhavebeenspreadviaBrentand

othersaboutC.J.thathavecoloredthepublicopinionontheseissues.Becausewewere

chargedwithcreatinganimpartialprocessandtrustwasdamaged,wedidnotengagein

publiclydefendingC.J.(orSGM)againstthemanyfalsereportsthathavebeen

published,digested,andacceptedbysomeasvalid.Wekepttheseconversationsin

privatevenues. Apublicresponseinthisclimatecouldhaveunderminedthecredibility

ofthepanelsandcreateddeeperconfusionconcerningourprioritiesandfocus. And

therewere

other

reasons,

too,

why

we

often

had

to

keep

quiet.

Some

of

the

relevant

evidencewelearnedcametousinconfidenceandwewerentatlibertytouseittoour

advantageasapublicdefense. Anumberofthingswelearnedreflectedpoorlyonother

parties,andwedidnotfeelitwasappropriatetomakesuchinformationpublic. At

otherpoints,wesimplynotedthatgettingintoonlinebackandforthswithBrentand

otherswouldultimatelybeunproductive. Weareinfactnowwonderingwhetherour

silencewaswiseandtowhatextentitmayhaveleftslanderandfalsereports

unaddressed.

Thisunfortunatedynamiclotsofmisinformationbeingspread,andlotsoflimitations

onour

ability

to

counteract

ithas

created

asituation

in

which

only

the

Board

is

really

informedonthecontextandvalidityofaccusations.Thingsthatshouldneverhavebeen

discussedpubliclyarenowopenquestionsthatwecantinintegrityfullysatisfyforthe

public.Tocompoundourcommunicationchallenge,forseveralyearstheinformation

wesendonlytopastorshasbeenfrequentlyforwardedtothosewhorunthecritic

blogs,whichmeansthatitisntevenpossibleforustocommunicateprivatelywithour

pastorsasagroupanylonger.Thisisadifficultleadershipchallenge,onethatmanyof

youmenfaceaswellinthecontextofprivatelyaddressingyourcongregations.

8/3/2019 Why Not Vote

3/5

Wherethatleavesusisthis:forreasonsoutsideourcontrolandowingnothingtothe

qualityofmenwehaveservinginourchurches,noteverypastorisadequatelyoreven

equallyqualifiedtomakeaninformeddecision.ThisopensthepossibilitythatC.J.could

beclearedoftheverychargesthatpromptedtheleaveofabsencebutstilllosehis

position

not

because

he

is

guilty

but

because

he

might

not

be

popular

enough

in

the

presentclimate. Wedontwanttoseethathappentoanypastor. Inthesecasesthe

groupwithconstitutionalauthoritymustbethemostinformedgroup. Andtheymust

havethefreedomtomakethewisestdecisionsinthefearoftheLordandwiththe

supportoftheirconstituencyastheydo.

OtherconcernsThefollowingarenotthedrivingissues,buthereareotherconsiderationsthatcame

intoplayinourdiscussions:

Webelievethatsubjectingthistoavotecreatesanunhealthyprecedentforunjustremovalofleaders,onethatwillunavoidablyputupward

pressureonyourpastoralteamifapastorfacesslanderousallegations.

Wedonotwanttosetaprecedentforyouinwhichyourcongregation

expectstomanagedecisionswhichScripturedelegatestoelders(1Tim.

5:1921,cf.Deut.19:1517)

Webelievetheeffectofavoteatthistimehastheriskofpoliticizingthedecision,creatingapolarizingredstatevs.bluestatedynamicthat

wouldbeunhealthyforSGMespeciallygiventhemajordecisionswe

stillneed

to

walk

through

together.

We

want

to

do

what

we

can

to

avoid

factionsandopendivisions.

Inourbylaws,theresponsibilitytoinstallandremoveaPresidentisclearlyentrustedbymemberchurchestotheBoard.AoRstrongly

counseledustohonorintheirinitialreport:InspiteofBrents

allegations,SGMscurrentbylaws,doctrine,andpracticeallindicatethat

theSGMBoardhasfinalresponsibilityfordecidingwhoshallbe

appointedorremovedasaBoardmemberorofficer. Churcheswithin

theSGMfamilyhaveagreedtoMembershipAgreementsthatsupport

thisarrangement. Accordingly,thechurcheshaveassentedtothis

systemof

governance.

From

abiblical

point

of

view,

the

SGM

Board

has

boththeresponsibilityandauthoritytodecidesuchmatters,andSGM

memberchurcheshavecommittedthemselvestohonoringthissystem

ofauthority.(ConsultationReport,pg.17)Asweconsideredpolity

adaptationsatourfirstinterimboardretreat,Tedsaid,Oneofthe

biggestmistakesagroupcanmakeistochangeitspolityinthemidstofa

crisis.Thisisntsufficientonitsown,butnordowedonttakeAoRs

counsellightly.

8/3/2019 Why Not Vote

4/5

Recentlywereceivedalettersignedbymorethan40SGMpastorsthatservedtoremindusthatmanypastorsarelookingtoustomakethe

decisionaboutC.J.sreturn.Sowhileavotewouldbuildtrustwithsome,

itwouldweakenitwithotherswhodontwantthatapproach.

Webelieveavoteundulyremovesjustcauseasaconsiderationinhandling

charges

against

an

elder,

in

this

case,

against

C.J.

As

we

noted

earlier,hisleavewasinresponsetoBrentsallegations,sothequestion

theBoardfacesis,InlightofBrentsallegations,istheresufficientand

objectivegroundstoremoveC.J.fromtheofficeofpresident?Butina

voteaskingShouldwereturnC.J.asPresident?,thereisnowayto

ensurethateveryoneisdecidingthesameissue. Again,deliberating

DoesC.J.havetherightgiftstoleadSGMintothefuture?isavalid

question,onethatanyPresidentshouldbesubjectto.Butitwillnotbea

justevaluationofcharges,norwoulditprovideajustcauseforC.J.s

exonerationorremovalifpastorsvoteonthePresidencyquestionbased

on

the

wrong

factors.

Onefinalthought:theAoRGroupReconciliationReportAfewpeoplehavesuggestedthatwedelaythedecisionconcerningC.J.sreinstatement

untilAoRpresentsuswithitsreportfromtheGroupReconciliation(GR)process. We

understandthisimpulsebutfeelthatwouldalsobeinappropriateduetothedistinct

differencebetweenthepanelreviewprocessandtheGRprocess.

Thepanelsweredesignedspecificallytoaddressthepotentialareasofdisqualification

stemmingfrom

Brents

charges

and

leading

to

C.J.s

leave.

These

panels

could

call

any

andallwitnessestheydesired,andtheyproducedathoroughandobjectiveaccounting

oftheirfindings. AoRsGRprocesswasnotdesignedtoevaluateC.J.squalificationforthepresidency,andtouseitthatwaywouldbeinappropriate. IntheGRprocess,

individualswithgrievancesfromacrossSGMhadtheopportunitytoweighinontheir

experiences. Wecertainlywanttolearnallthatwecanfromthis,butthiswasnot

designedtorenderajudgmentonCJ,norwoulditbeeffectiveindoingsothatis

neithertheintentionnordesignofthisprocess. Thesearesimplyinterviewswithaview

towardpersonalreconciliation;thereisnocrossexamination,nohearingofwitnesses,

nocorroboratingtestimony,noranyotherfactorwhichisnecessarytoestablishfact,

allocate

guilt,

locate

culpability,

etc.

So

it

would

be

illegitimate

to

use

the

GR

report

as

aninstrumentofadjudicationortoextractfromitanobjectiveassessmentofCJandhis

qualificationtobepresident.

8/3/2019 Why Not Vote

5/5

ConclusionTheinterimboardisexcitedaboutafuturethatinvolvesourpastorsmoreineverything

frompolityrefinementstoregionalcare. Weseethestrengtheningvaluethatbringsto

ourfamily

of

churches

and

the

ownership

it

creates

among

our

pastors,

and

hope

to

see

itbuiltintotheframeworkforpartnership(andpolity)thatwemovetowardinthenear

future. MayGodhelpusarrivethereinthesameinthesamewaywestarted.together

forthegloryofGod!