Date post: | 06-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | cjmwikileaks |
View: | 224 times |
Download: | 0 times |
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 1/51
Announcement Regarding C.J. Mahaney from the
Sovereign Grace Ministries Interim Board of Directors
In July 2011, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) installed an interim Board of Directors.
Our primary task was to determine C.J. Mahaney's fitness to serve SGM as President
in light of accusations made against him by a former SGM leader, Brent Detwiler. To
accomplish this, we sought to apply the teaching of 1 Timothy 5:19-21 regarding the
examination of an elder. As described in our October 28 blog post, we created three
panels to review Brent's allegations and report their findings to us, after which we
would determine if C.J. was to continue in his role as President.
After examining the reports of these three review panels, we find nothing in them that
would disqualify C.J. from his role as President, nor do they in any way call into
question his fitness for gospel ministry. Therefore the Board has decided unanimously
to return C.J. to the office of President, effective immediately.
These reports confirm the experience of many people over many years under the
ministry of C.J. Mahaney. C.J. is a man and a minister of fundamental integrity who
has endeavored to serve SGM with faithfulness and humility since its inception. As
with all ministers of the gospel, C.J. is not infallible, and this fact is not lost on him.
And so we also affirm that throughout this process of evaluation, C.J. has made
genuine confession to the appropriate parties and has demonstrated a desire to grow
in areas of weakness. C.J. has demonstrated a commendable trust in the grace and
sovereignty of God throughout this entire process.
To put our decision in context, shortly before the interim Board began its work, C.J.took a voluntary leave of absence to avoid even the appearance of influencing his
evaluation. To further protect the integrity of the process, the interim Board sought the
counsel and affirmation of an outside conciliation ministry, Ambassadors of
Reconciliation (AOR).
With C.J. on leave and AOR involved, the review process took the following form: We
commissioned three outside ministers to review Brent's documents in light of C.J.'s
confessions and render their judgment on his fitness to serve in ministry. In light of
their evaluation, they found him to be completely fit to serve. We then commissioned
three panels-each consisting of three SGM pastors-to evaluate C.J.'s involvement in
the three central events of Brent's allegations. The panels had complete autonomy tointerview any witness and review any evidence. They conducted their reviews and
prepared their reports without any outside influence, save for the oversight of an
independent facilitator who was responsible to certify the process. As readers will see
in the reports, the panels had broad license to issue any individual or organizational
recommendations they deemed appropriate in light of their findings. They did an
exceptional job with their unenviable assignment and we're grateful to them for the
many hours they invested in this process.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 2/51
This has been a trying season for our family of churches and for C.J. and his family in
particular. The recommendations made by the panels delineate some of the
weaknesses we see in our ministry, and we expect to learn even more when the
separate AOR-Ied Group Reconciliation process is completed this spring. Our hope
and prayer is that all of us evaluate these matters humbly, apply the forgiveness thatcomes through the gospel appropriately, and relate to one another about these matters
graciously as we work together to reform what needs reforming, reaffirm the goodness
of God in our midst, and continue to plant and build local churches with our chief aim
the glory of God through the gospel.
You can download the rest of this package, including the panel reports, as a PDF.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 3/51
Table of Contents
1. Statement from the Review Panel Facilitator
2. Report on C.J. Mahaney's Fellowship
3. Report on Brent Detwiler's Dismissal from Grace Community Church
4. Report on Larry Tomczak's Departure from Sovereign Grace Ministries
5. Sovereign Grace Board's Response to the Reports
6. C.J. Mahaney's Response to the Reports
7. Biblical Principles Informing this Process and Our Conclusions
8. Final Comments on the Life and Ministry of C.J. Mahaney
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 4/51
1. Statement from the Review Panel facilitator
[ Embedded below]
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 5/51
Re: Review Procedure Involving Three Substantive Accusations by Brent Detwiler against C.J.Mahaney
To Dave Harvey, President (Chairman) of the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries
As you know, J was appointed facilitator by the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries to
design a review procedure that would provide a fair, biblical, impartial assessment to review the three
substantive accusations involving C.J.Mahaney and make recommendations to the Board. Further, I
was to oversee the implementation of the review procedure from beginning until each subcommittee
presented to this Board its reasoned report.
Enclosed are the three reasoned reports each signed by the each of the respective subcommittee
members assigned by this Board to answer a particular issue involving the above accusations.
I met init ially with all subcommittee members briefly and simply gave some general guidelines, without
entertaining any questions or feedback from them. 1followed this up with Independent meetings with
each subcommittee in which there was extensive dialogue between subcommittee members and myself
about their role. Eachsubcommittee understood that it was the sole determiner of what information it
was to review and who was to appear before it at the hearing stage. This meant that no one else could
prevent them from requesting and reviewing any information they deemed appropriate or helpful.
likewise, they could ask for any person to appear before them to present information. At any stage a
subcommlttee determined they needed more documentation or desired to question additional people, I
indicated I would try very hard to make that happen.
Iasked Tommy Hill to initially assemble all relevant information to the issue before that subcommittee
Into notebooks to forward to each subcommittee member to begin preparation for his duties. As each
subcommittee reviewed this information they began to determine what persons they would llke to
appear before them and any additional information they would like to review. Eachsubcommittee
determined the tist of participants to appear before them and present information.
I made two decisions early on to protect the process. Those decisions were not to reveal the names of
each subcommittee member nor the list of people appearing before each subcommittee. I made this
first decision so that no one would attempt to influence any subcommittee member before or during
this process. Also, for some appearing before the subcommittees, it was crucial to them have their
identity protected. I realize there were good reasons for revealing in advance both of these lists. All
things considered, I determined it was better that neither list be revealed. Of course, the members of
each subcommittee will be revealed at the time their reasoned report is published.
Having been actively involved in ensuring that this review procedure was fair, biblical and Impartial and
keptto the task assigned, I report the following. Eachsubcommittee was composed of three Godly,
serious minded, grace fil led men of SOvereignGrace Ministries. Each diligently abided by the review
procedure. Each showed respect, attentiveness and kindness to each person who appeared before
them. Every effort was made to work with the schedule needs of a particular participant appearing
before them. Every effort was made to keep on time without rushing. At times of senslttvltv, each
subcommittee member demonstrated compassion and grace. In.surn, although each was diligent in
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 6/51
carrying out their assigned task, no one forgot that the person appearing before them was a brother or
sister in Christ. It was clear from the questions asked by the subcommittee members that they had
prepared well and had a clear idea of what needed to be explored or probed. It was additionally clear
that many good questions came from each subcom mittee mem ber listening w ell to the information
provided.
There were times during the hearing of a particular subcommittee that something emerged that
resulted In the subcommittee either asking someone to return to appear before them for additional
questioning or an attempt was made to have a person not previously on the list to either appear liveor
by telephone and, as I remember, was accomp l ish ed. I sat in and participated in each of the three
hearings. To the best of my recollection, Iwas p re se n t duri ng the entire hearing portion of each
subcommittee , other than on e 15-20 minute segment. During that time, another subcommittee
requested my assistance during their deliberation stage. A s soon as I com ple ted m y duties there , 1
returned t o t he s ub c ommit te e conducting th e hearing. It did not appear that any problems had
developed in my absence. As I listened to the information imparted at each hearing, It seemed to me
that the list of participants determined by each subcommittee was thoughtfully and thoroughly chosen.
Given the documentation reviewed an d the part ic ipan ts ques tioned. it did not appear to me that any
major participant was not asked to be present . Of those asked to participate, the re w as a h ig h d eg re e o f
participation.
Prior t o a rriv in g, I had asked each subcommittee to stay a day longer upon completion of that
subcommittee's hearing. Both of the f ir st two subcommittees decided to rearrange their schedules to b e
allowed to stay 2 full days following the completion of their hearing to deliberate and draft their
reasoned reports. The third subcommittee finished late Saturday afternoon and needed ttl return home
for preaching duties the next day and did not have much opportunity to stay to deliberate and draft
their re as on ed re po rt. A ls o I s erv ed as fac ll lta to r in reviewing each reasoned reportto ensure it was in a
form to do what it was supposed to do. But it was not my job to decide th e issues each were assigned.
No one asked me to do this nor did I attempt to do this. Each reasoned report is the decision of that
subcommittee.
In sum, e ach su bcomm itte e w ork ed hard , well an d sacrificially to serve the Body of Christ of Sovereign
Grace Ministries, the Board of Dlrectors of Sovereign Grace Ministries and as well astheir Sovereign
God. I am sure some will wish more had been said and done and others less. I am pleased with how well
the review procedure was carried out and priviledged to work with 9 subcommittee members. I also do
not know how to adequately thank Tommy Hill and Nora Earles for their superb help in making
e v er yt hi ng r un so seamfess ly .
In accordance with the RevieW Procedure, my last duty isto validate the actual process. I hereby
validate this process as following and carrying out the Intent and purpose ofthe review procedure.
~ace,n~"df_Yrh~~Ha&:t{/ ;~ Decem ber 26, 2011
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 7/51
2. Report on C.J. Mahaney's Fellowship
[ Embedded below]
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 8/51
Review Panel Report and RecommendationNovember 28-30, 2011Panel members: Mark Alderton, Rick Gamache, Steve TeterPanel Facilitator: Bryce Thomas
Location: Embassy Suites, Concord, NC
The Question
This Panel has been asked to look into one of three substantive accusations made by
Brent Detwiler against C.J. Mahaney. The question we were asked by the Sovereign
Grace Ministries Board to evaluate is:
Was C.J. Mahaney's participation in fellowship in 2003-2004, including the giving
and receiving of correction. in keeping with the teaching of Scripture?
For the purposes of this Panel, the definition of biblical fellowship is:
Biblical fellowship is simply the nature of relationship between believers who are
walking in Christian life together, humbly opening their lives to one another for
prayer, mutual encouragement, counsel, care, confession, correction, and
community-all for the purpose of helping each other understand, apply, andrejoice in the grace of God revealed in the gospel of Christ.
The Facts
We have evaluated and reviewed relevant documents written by or quoted by BrentDetwiler, testimony from 11 participants, and additional applicable material totaling over
500 pages.
In response, the Panel finds the following to be fact
1. C.J. and Carolyn Mahaney had faithfully participated in biblical fellowship atCovenant life Church (hereafter CLC) in the context of care group for well over
two decades before the time period in question.
2. In fall of 2002 lasting until the fall of 2003, the Mahaneys entered a season of life
including but not limited to: increasing ministry responsibilities for C.J. as he ledboth CLC and Sovereign Grace Ministries (hereafter SGM), book deadline for
Carolyn, hospitalIzation and near death experience of one daughter (as well as
subsequent care), planning the wedding of another daughter, the death of C.J.'sbrother in-law, the failing health of Carolyn's father requiring near constant care,
Carolyn's prep for a woman's conference for 3000 ladies.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 9/51
2
3, During this season (fall of 2002 through the fall of 2003) the Mahaneys pulledback from participation in structured care group ministry. though they never
pulled back from participation in unstructured. informal fellowship and care.
4. In April 2003 (via Dave Harvey) and then again in the winter of 2003 at a retreat
for those then on the SGM Leadership Team (Dave Harvey, Brent Detwiler,
Steve Shank), critique was brought to C.J. regarding how he receives correction,
his haste in judgment. and his participation in confession and pursuit of
evaluation.
5. In September 2003, C.J. joined a monthly Accountability Group at CLC with JoshHarris, Kenneth Maresco, and Grant Layman (with Bob Kauflin joining the group
at a later date).
6. In early 2004, the SGM Leadership Team made C.J.'s Accountability Group atCLC aware of the critique they brought in the winter of 2003 in order for the CLC
group to provide ongoing, local care and accountability. In the months thatfollowed. there was confusion regarding who was ultimately responsible to follow
up on the specific examples of concern raised by the SGM Leadership Team.Each group assumed the other group was or should be providing primary follow
up on the specifics of the critique.
7. On August 10,2004, C,J. issued a written confession to the SGM Leadership
Team and the CLC Accountability Group stating several broad areas of sin where
he was feeling conviction, including areas addressed in the early 2004 critique,
10.0n October 13, 2004, C.J. issued another brief, follow-up confession to both
groups of men (the SGM Leadership Team and the ClC Accountability Group)communicating additional areas he became convicted of.
8. This culminated in a face-to-face meeting with both the SGM Leadership Team
and CLC Accountability Group along with C.J. o n August 20, 2004. At the
meeting, Brent Detwiler presented a lengthier list of specific critiques of C.J.expanding on the critiques already brought.
9. In the weeks following the meeting, C,J. began expressing concern with the
manner in which the evaluation WaS delivered, in particular in the Aug. 20meeting. Steve Shank expressed similar concerns; And as C.J. communicated
with the CLC Accountability Group. they too began to express their concern with
how the process of evaluation was unfolding, even though they agreed that these
categories of sin were present in C.J.'s life.
11.On October 19, 2004, the CLC Accountability Group (Joshua, Kenneth, Grant,and Bob) issued a paper to the SGM Leadership Team called uCLC Pastors'
Recommendations for Moving Ahead in Caring for C.J." acknowledging areas of
change and growth in C.J., as well as areas to more fully explore and evaluate in
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 10/51
3
C.J. It also included a process for C.J. to move ahead in discussing his ownconcerns and observations he had for Brent Detwiler and Dave Harvey.
12.On January 6, 2005, the CLC Accountability Group sent an update to the SGM
Leadership Team regarding C.J.'s care and accountability in which theycommend C.J. for his deepening fellowship and responsiveness to the process of
evaluation locally, encourage him to pursue further dialogue regarding existing
differences between the SGM Leadership Team and C.J., and layout a plan forongoing care for the Mahaneys-C.J. and Carolyn-locally,
13.Later in 2005, the SGM Leadership Team issued-a document expressing 11
areas celebrating growth and change in C.J.
14.By September 2005, Dave Harvey, according to his testimony before this Panel
and documentation at the time, felt he had clarified his concerns for C.J. to theCLC Accountability Group; confessed his own (Dave's) sins committed during the
process of critique, and had received enough positive updates on C.J. from theCLC Accountability Group that he had fulfilled his obligation to care for C.J. as a
friend and SGM Leadership Team member. Recognizing the limitations of
providing care and accountability from a distance, he entrusted C.J. to his localteam.
15.ln the spring of 2005, C.J. and Carolyn joined a newly formed care group for
Sover~ign Grace Ministries' employees (Pat and Charlotte Ennis, Bob and Julie
Kauflin, Gary'and Betsy Ricucci, Jeff and Julie Purswell) and were and havebeen active in this care group.
The ,Significance of the Facts
There are three main issues (all addressed in the documents written by Brent Detwiler)
thai need to be addressed in order to answer the question ofthls Panel, each of which
addresses an aspect of biblical fellowship:
1. C.J. 's lack of involvement in care group for an extended period of time2. The appearance that C.J. manipulated people in order to avoid correction
3. The manner in which C.J. responded to observations of sin in his life
1. C.J.'s lack of involvement in care group for an extended period of time.
The lack of involvement in care group was unusual and not according to the historical
norm for the Mahaneys or according to the practice of SGM, but there were reasonable
explanations for it (see fact 2 above), and fellowship continued through other means. It
was inconsistent at times, but not nonexistent. It was informal, but not insignificant. Theprinciple offellowship is commanded in Scripture, but fellowship is not limited to formal
care group structures.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 11/51
4
2. The appearance that C.J. manipuJated people in order to avoid correction
C.J. was involved with two main groups of men who had a platform to speak into his life.
One was his CLC Accountability Group, and the other was the 8GM Leadership Team.A list of observations of sin was brought to C.J. and his CLC Accountability Group by
the Leadership Team in early 2004. But the follow-up on these issues with C.J. became
confused, each team believing the other team was or would be taking care of i t . Was
this confusion the result of C.J. manipulating the teams in order to avoid correction? Wedon't believe so. We believe the confusion was the result of several factors including,
but not limited to: geographical restraints on relationships and fellowship among the
SGM Leadership Team, differing and changing views on what specifically needed to be
addressed and by whom, and C.J.'s own failure to pass on some critique from the SGM
Leadership Team to the CLC Accountability Group because he had dismissed it asinaccurate.
C.J., by his own admission, should have followed up more aggressively with the SGMLeadership Team and kept both teams better informed of evaluation brought by the
other for as long as this leadership structure and dual accountability structure was in
place. But, after listening to the testimony of those involved and reading relevant
documentation from the time, we do not believe that C.J.'s intent was to deceive,
manipulate, or control the ongoing process of evaluation in order to avoid correction.
3. The manner in which C.J. responded to observations of sin in his life
• There were instances of C.J. inviting correction and input and responding to itappropriately
• There were instances of C.J. confessing sins as the Spirit brought conviction
• The recognition by others of progressive growth and change in C.J.
• The recognition by others of their experience of grace through C.J. and deepfriendship with him, even among those bringing the critique
The primary categories of sin brought to C.J. during this period involved his own prideand how that affected his relating to others. They are sins that are common to man, yet
not to be ignored, particularly in a leader. This Is why they were being brought to C.J. as
observations in this time period. Did C.J. respond to these observations in a way that is
in keeping with biblical fellowship? There were instances where he did not, and
particular people who experienced that more than others. We have more to say about
this in the recommendation section. However, we believe C.J:s overall response to
observations brought to him during this period was in keeping with participation in
biblical fellowship. We say this for the following reasons:
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 12/51
5
Decision
The Panel answers the issue to be decided not based on individual events, but on thetotality of C.J.'s involvement in fellowship over the time period in question, and in the
context of his overall life.
That said, our answer to the question is: Yes, C.J. IS participation in fellowship from
2003-2004, including giving and receiving correction, was in keeping with the teaching
of Scripture.
We do not believe that C.J.'s practice of biblical fellowship during this seasondisqualifies him as a minister of the gospel or as the President of Sovereign GraceMinistries.
This is not to say, however, that C.J.'s particular sin tendencies should be discounted
when considering his future ministry role. On that point, we have recommendations.
Recommendat ions
On December 16, 2010, after considering his own heart in light of written accusations
brought by Brent Detwiler and with the help of several trusted counselors, C.J. Mahaney
issued, what this Panel considers to be, a thorough, thoughtful, and heartfelt written
confession. In this confession he outlined 7 categories of sins that negatively affected
relationships and events during the time period we've been asked to investigate. These
include: 1) arrogant confidence in his perception of his own heartand discernment in
relation to others; 2) not easy to entreat; 3) sinful judgil1g; 4) lack of specificity in
confession of sin; 5) sinful withdraw from those bringing correction; 6) particularlyprovoked when integrity is caUed into question; 7) lack of follow up on his confessionsissued in 2004.
The Panel asked C.J. specifidally if he still believes that these categories were at playand affected relationships during 2003-2004. He said "yes."
The Panel also asked C.J. whether he believes these sins are still evident in his life
since that time period. His answer was that these are "besetting sins in my life." Someof those who testified acknowledged the presence of these sin patterns (to varying
degree) in C.J.'s life and relationships.
We want to be quick to add that several men closest to C.J. have affirmed the fruit ofrepentance and sanctification in his life as it pertains to these categories of sin. In otherwords, C.J. is, like every Christian, both saint and sinner. Though indwelling sin
remains, he is right now being "transformed into the same image (of Christ) from one
degree of glory to another" (2 Corinthians 3:18).
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 13/51
6
Yet these indwelling sin patterns have historica lly and m ay potentia lly im pact negatively
C .J.'s experience of b ib lica l fe llowship and others' experience of fe llowship w ith C .J.
That sa id , we would like to recom mend the fo llow ing.
1. This Panel recommends that C .J. reconnect w ith those whom he has served w ith(particu larly the members of the form er SGM Leadership Team and CLC
Accountab ility G roup) to d iscover how they m ay have been impacted by these
sin patterns-what they experienced, how it affected them , and w hat thoughts
they would have for him going forward. We recommend this because in some
cases we think reconciliation m ay still need to take place, and th is is a necessary
step to that end. But a lso th is input would be inva luab le to he lp C .J. as he
continues to m ake progress in sanctifica tion in these areas. Though his sins are
common, the ir e ffect on others can be magnified because he has been the
leader, teacher, and m odel o f the va lues that these sin patterns vio la te (e .g .
hum ility , approachability , e tc.). W e recom mend that the com ments of those C.J.
meets w ith be shared w ith the current 8GM Board and discussed as to how they
should in form his leadership go ing forw ard.
2 . This Panel recommends that C .J. view his December 16, 2010 confession as a
tem pla te for pursuing personal grow th in these areas. This confession resonated
deeply w ith those of our partic ipants who have been directly a ffected by these
issues; it confirm ed what some of them had seen "in the past and they were
greatly he lped that C .J. had owned these sin patterns w ith specific ity. W e see
th is as an ind ication that continuing to pursue grow th and accountab ility in these
specific areas (which C .J. is eager to do) would address some of the
fundam enta l issues that have led to the re la tiona l strugg les som e have
experienced w ith C .J.
3. F ina lly , th is Panel recommends that consideration be given by the SGM Boardregard ing how to provide accountab ility , input, and leadership structures that
guard against and reduce the potentia l im pact o f the inevitab le sin patterns that
tem pt leaders. For exam ple, if a leader is resistant to correction, be lieves his own
perspective to be superior to others, and w ithdraws from those who correct h im ,
h is leade rsh ip can becom e unchallengeable and unchangeable , un less there are
avenues for recourse. W e recognize that the SGM Board is currently review ing
how to restructure the leadership of the m in istry , and considering these issues in
the reconfigura tion w ill be m ost helpfu l.
Concluding Remarks
What th is Panel has been investigating is one branch on the tree that the Lord is
prun ing and beautify ing. It's one branch on a tree fu ll o f fru itfu l branches. The sins we've
been discussing are sins that need to be and are being addressed w ith sober
earnestness by C .J. But these sins do not represent the to ta lity o f the man and his
ministry.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 14/51
7
Together in Sovereign Grace Ministries we enjoy a rigorous spiritual atmosphere in
which sin is taken very seriously, sanctification is pursued with great intentionality, and
where relationships and community are vital in helping each other in the pursuit of
godliness. Above all, we enjoy a culture where doctrine is taken very seriously, and inwhich the gospel of Christ is the crown of all doctrine, imbuing the culture with an
atmosphere of grace, joy, and generosity. This grace from God has flowed to us
primarily through the example and preaching and leadership of C.J. Mahaney.
We thank God and everyone who participated in this process of review for the spirit of
brotherhood and unity we experienced. We recognize that our unity is anchored in our
Brother and Savior, Jesus Christ, by whose perfect life we are declared righteous
before God and by whose sacrificial death we are forgiven and set free from sin and by
whose glorious resurrection we are guaranteed an eternal life of sinless perfection in
the presence of our Sovereign Joy.
Sincerely,
62J(Jf~R ic k Gamache
o..-';;',4-ilS teve Te te r
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 15/51
3. Report on Brent Detwiler's Dismissal from Grace
Community Church[Embedded below]
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 16/51
Reasoned Report For Brent Detwiler's Resignation From GCe, Mooresville, NC
This report will cover 5 basic items: 1) the charge, 2) the process, 3) the history
4) the conclusions, 5) the recommendations.
1. The Charge
This subcommittee was convened to examine the following question:
UDid C.J. Mahaney wrongly influence the process of Brent Detwiler's
dismissal from his church in Mooresville, NC?"
1
In addition the Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) Interim Board asked us to
make any recommendations related to this question. We were charged to do this
in an impartial and fair mannerfearing God and applying passages like Micah
6:8.
2. The Process
Our review of the question began with the reading of several hundred pages ofdocuments provided by Brent Detwiler, the SGM Mooresville Assessment Team,
the local Mooresville leaders and others regarding the issue of Brent Detwiler'sresiqnatlon from Grace Community Church (GeC) and surrounding issues.
Following our reading and review of these documents we met in Charlotte, North
Carolina from Thursday, December 1! It - Saturday, December 3m to interviewwitnesses who had knowledge about this issue" We met with 18 witnesses
hearing testimony for approximately 28 hours as well as reading testmonyfrcm 2
additional witnesses. Each subcommittee member was free to ask any questions
they desired whether prepared beforehand or during our dialogue with eachwitness. Each witness was given the opportunity and encouraged to shareopenly and honestly regarding their experience and we as a subcommittee are
grateful for the willingness and forthrightness each witness displayed in our
review meetings. Upon completion ofthese interviews additional documentation
was also received and read by our subcommittee relating to this issue. This
review led us to expand our initial scope to include any indirect influences C. J.Mahaney may have had on the process or any other factors that led to Brent
Detwiler's resignation. While there is always more that could be.done, we are
convinced we've received the necessary information to process this question.
The independent FaCilitator, Bryce Thomas partlcipated in each witness interview
and ensured that we completed our task in a fair and impartial way.
3. The History
Qualification: W e were asked to serve on this subcom mittee because we had no known
connection with the actual events affecting th is issue. W e have gathered the facts to the best o f
our ability but rea lize some precision o f the facts may have been lost, This is th e h is to ry re la tiv e
to ou r a ss ignmen t as we un de rstan d it
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 17/51
In 2006, after faithfully serving on the Sovereign Grace Ministries LeadershipTeam for many years, Brent Detwiler expressed a desire to lead and pastor alocal church and submitted a proposal to plant a Sovereign Grace church in theMooresville, North Carolina area. Mooresville is about 15 miles away from
Crossway Community Church which Brent planted and led until 2002 whenMickey Connelly assumed the role of Sr. Pastor.
In 2007 after much discussion the SGM Board along with the Crossway PastoralTeam expressed a faith for Brent to plant the church in Mooresville, NC andthereby both the SGM board and the Crossway Pastoral Team approved the
church plant.
2
Upon approval of the church plant, Brent began forming a church planting team
which included selecting a governing board made up of two other men; JonathanDetwiler and Ray Mulligan. In March of 2008, approximately 10 care group
leaders and 150 people were sent out from Crossway to plant Grace Community
Church in Mooresville.
When the church was planted, two key people assumed new roles in Brent's life.Gene Emerson, who was a long standing friend of Brent's and served as a pastorwithin Brent's region, now assumed the role of providing extra-local care for
Grace Community Church on behalf of SGM. Ray Mulligan, who also had a long
term relationship with Brent and one of the board members of this new church,assumed the role of providing local pastoral care for the Detwiler's. Brent was
initially supportive of both Gene and Ray serving in these roles.
In addition, the SGM Board decided to reorganize and place Dave Harvey in therole of overseeing church planting and church care. This new role for Dave
involved overseeing the SGM regional leaders and had the effect of removingC.J. Mahaney from direct involvement in local church plants and local church
care.
By the Fall of 2008 some challenging pastoral situations emerged leading toseveral households leaving the church. This resulted in a meeting with Gene
Emerson, Ray MuUigan and Brent Detwiler to discuss these situations. Brent didnot agree with Gene and Ray's assessment, and both Gene and Ray
encountered an unwillingness on Brent's part to consider their perspective on the
issues surrounding these pastoral situations.
In January 2009 Ray Mulligan resigned from the GCe board. There were anumber of factors that contributed to Ray's decision to resign, one of them being
his frustration with Brent's unentreatability. Eric Kircher, who joined the GCC
leadership team in the Fall of 2008 was then asked to provide local pastoral care
for the Detwiler's that Ray Mulligan had been providing. At that time Eric
expressed an enthusiasm and support of Brent's leadership.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 18/51
In the Spring of 2009 Eric Kircher's perspective of SGM changed significantlyfrom concerned to favorable and his perspective of Brent Detwiler changed
significantly from favorable to concerned. According to Eric he also encounteredBrent's unentreatability which led Eric to contact Gene Emerson and appeal for
SGM to get involved. Eric's understanding of Gene's counsel was that the onlyway for SGM to get involved was for the local leaders to call for Brent's
resignation. Eric met with three other Gee leaders who made the decision tosign a letter calling for Brent's resignation as Sr. Pastor of GCC. The reasonthey agreed with Eric's recommendation to involve SGM by calUngfor hisresignation was 1) Ray Mulligan and Eric Kircher's experience of Brent's
unentreatability, 2) Concerns over the number of people that had left the church,
3) Brent expressing the possibility of Gee leaving SGM, and 4) concerns
regarding the perceived lack of health of Gee.
On June 3, 2009 Eric Kircher called Gene Emerson to inform him that he was on
his way to meet with Brent to call for his resignation. Gene called Dave Harveyto inform him of what was taking place. Dave was quick to have Gene seek to
persuade them to slow down, ask for SGM's help, and establish a due process.
The result was that the demand for Brent's resignation was rescinded a day laterand SGM prepared to send in an assessment team to evaluate and help with the
situation. It was the hope of all involved, including those who signed the requestfor Brent's resignation that matters could be worked out so that Brent would be
able to remain in his role as Sr. Pastor.
An assessment team made up of three SGM pastors was formed; Brent
recommending two members \Wayne Brooks and Phil Sasser) and SGMrecommending the third (Bob Kauflln), The assessment team spent
approximately seven weeks listening to and.caring for many of the peopleinvolved. They spent about thirty hours alone with Brent and his wife Jenny,listening, praying, and offering counsel. In addition, they interviewedapproximately 35 other people. Through their assessment along with their ownexperience the assessment team affirmed the findings of the local leaders
regarding Brent's unentreatabHity. Their conclusion was that a functional plurality
could not exist in this environment. They communicated this to the local leaders,
again emphasizing that the final decision belonged to them. The local leaders
then concluded that Brent's resignation was appropriate and necessary.
The assessment team recommended to SGM that Brent be provided another
local church context where he could receive ongoing pastoral care and potentialrestoration. These options offered to Brent were not agreeable to him and aseverance package was offered which he accepted.
3
After Brent's resignation Crossway Community Church offered to send twopastors to serve Grace Community Church so they could remain intact, move
ahead and regain their vision for the Mooresville area. After discussion and
consideration, the leaders together with the people of Grace Community Church
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 19/51
We organized our conclusions into two categories:
felt it was best to close the church and incorporate the people back into
Crossway Community Church.
4. The Conclusions
Conclusions specific to our charge
1. We found no evidence that C.J. Mahaney directly or indirectly wrongly
influenced the events leading up to and including the resignation of Brent
Detwiler as senior pastor of Gec.
2. We did find evidence that C.J. Mahaney was actively supportive of Brent's
desire to plant this church, that Brent receive due process when this crisis
developed, and that C.J. Mahaney wanted to preserve Brent's role in
ministry.
3. Ifs clear from the evidence that the decision to ask for Brent's resignation
was ultimately decided by the local leadership at GCC.
Additional Conclusions
1. Given Brent Detwiler's relational history and service to SGM over the
years, C.J.'s lack of communication with Brent over the time period of
2007-2009 contributed to Brent's suspicions of C.J.'s wrongful influence
regarding his role in ministry. In addition, the fact that CJ and Brent had
not fully resolved their relational conflicts at the time of the church ptant
also contributed to these suspicions.
2. We affirm and agree with the finding of the SGM Mooresville Assessment
Team regarding the advisability of this church plant. They state in their
report, "one of the things that stood out to us in our evaluation was that it
was very questionable whether this church should have been planted in
the first place~at least in the manner it was." Even though the SGM
leadership team, the Pastoral Team at Crossway Church and Brent
Detwiler had faith for Brent to plant the Mooresville church and were
hopeful that the plant would succeed" we found the following:
• There appears to be a failure by all those involved to sufficiently
consider the implications of the relational difficulties that existed
between Brent and SGM as weJl as between Brent and the Pastoral
Team at Crossway Church and the effect it would have on the
church plant.
• There appears to be a failure by the parties involved (SGM
leadership, Crossway Pastoral Team, and Brent Detwiler) toadequately inform the members and leaders of the church planting
team of these relational issues between Brent and SGM/Crossway
at the time the plant was being considered.
3. We affirm the findings ofthe SGM Mooresville Assessment Team that
Gene Emerson could have been much clearer to the local leaders
regarding the way they could have invited the participation of 8GM in
evaluating Brent short of calling for Brent's resignation. We also believe
4
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 20/51
that SGM's lack of clarity on its polity contributed to the confusion as to
how GCe could involve SGM. This lack of clarity led to an unwise and
premature request for Brent's resignation. This request was hurtful to
Brent and was harmful to the process,
4. The evidence demonstrated that the SGM Mooresville Assessment Teamof Bob Kauflin, Wayne Brooks, and Phil Sasser were diligent, fair and
unbiased in their evaluation of the issues surrounding GCe and did a
good job in serving that local church through such a difficult situation.
There was no evidence of bias on the team. This Assessment Team was
actually hopeful going into this process that Brent would remain as the
senior pastor of GCC. Brent also had the opportunity to pick two of these
panel members to ensure a non-biased evaluation. The evidence also
showed that the Assessment Team sought to serve and care for the'
Detwiler's, the Gee leaders and the GCe members they interacted with
during this difficult situation. They conducted over 100 hours of interviews
with approximately 35 people, 30 hours with the Detwilers alone, and met
several times with the leaders of GCe to discuss this matter. However,the evidence also raised questions for us regarding what should be the
typical process used in determining how the assessment team members
are to be selected.
5. Based on the evidence we would affirm the findings of the SGM
Mooresville Assessment team that the reason the local Mooresville
leaders asked for Brent's resignation was a consistent pride and lack of
entreatability on Brent's part that didn't facilitate the building of a healthy
plurality of leadership locally. All the leaders we interviewed lost
confidence and trust in Brent's ability to lead this church.
6. Evidence demonstrated that following Brent's resignation SGM was fair,
even generous to Brent in his severance package as well as opportunities
to go on staff at another SGM church.
5
5. The Recommendations1. We recommend that the process of approving a church plant assure the
relational unity, trust, and the partnership between SGM, the church
planter, and the elders of the sending church and that they not proceed
without this being well established.
2. We recommend that the SGM board look for any contribution, and accept
responsibility for any flaws, errors or sins in the decision to plant Gee
(see additional findings #2) and consider what an appropriate response
should be to the former members of Grace Community Church.
3. We recommend that SGM help church planters to establish their earlyleadership teams in a way that ensures a healthy plurality, explains their
relationship with SGM, and establishes clear expectations between the
church planter and the leadership team and between the leadership team
and SGM.
4. We understand that SGM is in the midst of defining its polity. In light of
this we recommend they include the following
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 21/51
• Define and establish clearly SGM's relationship with it's local
churches
• Define and establish SGM's role in helping to resolve and reconcile
disputes among local eldersfleadership teams and when a crisis
develops in a church.• We recommend that SGM provide trained regional teams to help
conciliate/mediate disputes among elders or leadership teams that
cannot be resolved and/or reconciled locally.
• We recommend a process where the local church can affirm the
extra-local leadership involved in serving that church.
• We recommend that SGM develop a process for when a dispute, aloss of confidence, or a serious concern arises between the local
eldershiplleadership team and the extra-local leader so that the
issue can be addressed or another extra-local leader is assigned to
serve that church.
• W e recommend that 8GM develop a grievance policy that local
churches can adopt so that all parties know what steps to takewhen relational difficulties arise at a local or extra-local level. This
grievance policy should also be used to address any relational
difficulties SGM has at its leadership levels.
5. We recommend that SGM develop a policy for when a charge is brought
against an elder that clearly articulates a 1Timothy 5 process so that
members ahd leaders of our churches know what recourse they have in
bringing a charge and the elder is either protected should the charge be
false or granted a fair, biblical and impartial process to examine and
a dju dic ate th e c ha rg e.
6. If in the future an extra-local assessment team is deployed to serve one of
our churches. we recommend that the person being assessed partiCipate
in choosing the members of the assessment team and participate in
defining the assessment process so that trust is engendered by aU
involved.
~ ~, . itll4v . . ' . \,~_.I... a rra n B~'~r
Sr. Pastor
Sovereign Grace Church
Marlton, NJ
/~~
Ron Boomsma
Sr. Pastor
Sovereign Grace Church
Pasadena, CA
~,J_~Mark Prater
SGM Interim Board
Covenant Fellowship Church
Glen Mills, PA
6
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 22/51
4. Report on Larry Tomczak's Departure from Sovereign
Grace Ministries
[ Embedded below]
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 23/51
Reasoned Report Regarding Larry Tomczak's Departure from SGM
The Issue
The Interim board of directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) assigned ourpanel the following question:
'Was Larry Tomczak's departure from Sovereign Grace Ministries handled
properly?"
We were asked to provide a reasoned report of our findings that would include a
description of what happened, an opinion of the significance of what happened,
and recommendations to the board based upon our conclusions.
So, what is our answer to the question, 'Was Larry Tomczak's departure from
Sovereign Grace Ministries handled properly?" No, It was not handled properly.
This is not to say that every part of Tomczak's departure was handled
Improperly, but virtually everyone we interviewed identified mistakes, sins,
regrets or grievances with the handling of Larry's departure. As in most relational
The Process
The folloWing report is based upon our study of pertinent "items of evidence" andpersonal interviews. We reviewed more than 100 documents and Interviewed 14
people (12 in person. 2 by phone). Our panel was given the authority to
interview anyone we chose. Most. but not everyone. we invited accepted our
invitation for an interview. The witnesses we interviewed included people who
served on the board of SGM, as an employee of SGM, on the staff of City Church
of Atlanta, or on the pastoral staff of Covenant Life Church during the time of
Larry Tomczak's departure from SGM in 1997 (Note: the ministry was named
"POI" at the time. but for the purpose of this report we will use the current name
·SGM"). Our most extensive interview was a live interview with Larry and Doris
Tomczak themselves. We are grateful for all the people who participated in the
proceedings and shared their experiences with us. Many traveled considerable
distances to meet with us, prepared documents to assist us, and shared theirpersonal correspondence and notes with us. Some revisited difficult memories in
responding to our questions. We especially appreciated those participants'
testimonies. It is a challenging exercise to reconstruct events that occurred
nearly 15 years ago. Memory is limited and selective, so we tried to Confirm
details by more than one testimony or source.
To fulfill our assignment, we will report some sins that have been both contessed
and forgiven. To some this may seem as inappropriately "digging up the past."
We are sympathetic to that and only report forgiven sins in the redemptive hope
that understanding what happened in the past will help us avoid the same actions
in the future.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 24/51
conflicts, blame is shared. Our report, however, will primarily assess the
handling of Tomczak's departure from the SGM side of the ledger. Larry
acknowledged some personal fault in his handling of his departure. Our
assignment was not to explore his faults, however, but to understand and report
SGM's. This is important for the reader to understand at the outset. Since our
report will evaluate SGM, our assessment and recommendations will necessarily
be one-sided.
What Happened?
Along with C.J. Mahaney, Larry Tomczak was a co-founder of both Covenant Life
Church (CLC) and Sovereign Grl;lce Ministries. He led the Board of SGM from its
inception in 1982 until 1991 when C.J. Mahaney took leadership. Larry served at
Covenant Life Church in its early days and led SGM's first church plant to
Cleveland, Ohio. As the Cleveland church became established, steve Shank
became the Senior Pastor and Larry returned to CLC and devoted himself to
serving the broader mission of SGM. He later left CLC and relocated to FairfaxCovenant Church (now Sovereign Grace Church) and continued to serve
Sovereign Grace from that location. In 1994 he relocated to plant City Church of
Atlanta.
City Church held its first public service in October of 1994. The church
experienced rapid growth, and a leadership team Came together that included
Larry MaJament. Tomczak continued to serve on the Board of SGM while
planting the new church in Atlanta.
From 1995 through early 1997, the SGM board was studying and solidifying their
doctrinal position regarding Reformed theology. During this season they were
hammering out an "essentially Reformed" understanding of salvation. Reformedteaching was being taught more expliCitly in SGM churches during these years.
For some SGM pastors, this represented a clarifying or deepening of their current
belief. For others, this marked a departure from previous convictions. For the
board, a watershed event occurred in January of 1997. On a retreat together,
each board member in the presence of the others was indIvidually asked and
voiced agreement to a series of doctrinal questions ihatframed a clear and
unified position on Reformed theology which characterizes SGM to this day.
The SGM Board Members that we interviewed distinctly remember Tomczak
agreeing with the board's doctrinal conclusions at the January retreat. They
were convinced that the board was moving forward with doctrinal unity. There is
some evidence, however, to indicate that Tomczak was still wrestling withReformed theology after the January retreat, even though he assented to these
doctrinal positions at this retreat. A member of the local eldership at City Church
told us that Larry raised some doctrinal concerns with him in the Spring of 1997.
In a letter dated April 2,1997 this pastor writes that he was "still not clear where
LT stand's concerning reformed theology." One board member we interviewed
2
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 25/51
communicated that Larry freely acknowledged agreement at the retreat, but he
suspected that Larry wasn't fully on board doctrinally. So the evidence seems to
indicate that Larry communicated his doctrinal agreement at this January retreat,
yet at the same time some observed signs that Larry was uncertain about
Reformed theology.
In mid April 1997. one of the Tomczak children confessed personal sin to a
leader at City Church. In short order, the child shared this with Larry and Doris as
well. Subsequently, the child confessed sin in greater detail in a meeting with
SGM Board Members C.J. Mahaney and Steve Shank present. C.J. and Steve
promised the child that they would keep the confession confidential. They even
committed to withholding the details from the other board members. The content
of these confessions (which would be inappropriate for this report to discuss) led
to an evaluation of Larry Tomczak's qualifications for pastoral ministry. The
evaluation was conducted by both local leaders of City Church and the SGM
board.
By mutual decision, the SGM Board, the City Church leadership team, and Larry
Tomczak agreed that he should take a leave of absence. In a letter sent out to
the members of SGM churches on May 15, 1997. Tomczak wrote, "it is right and
necessary for me to step down from the apostolic team (former name of the
board) and fulfill what is a mutual decision to take a leave of absence as senior
pastor of City Church for six to twelve months." In this letter. Larry identified "the.
sins that God is currently revealing in my Ufe" as "pride. selfishness. deficiencies
in the famtly and lying." Tomczak communicated that the leave would "enable
me to address the areas of concern In a redemptive and concentrated manner,"
Regarding the length of the leave, Larry stated, "Ultimately. the timing of my
return will be determined by the apostolic team and the local leadership."
Fellow pastor Larry Matament was chosen to serve as the Senior Pastor of City
Church. He with the aid of Steve Shank (WhO served on behalf of the board)
soughtto help-the Tomczaks during this time of restoration. It was a difficult time,
for the Tomczak family and for City Church. The restoration process lacked a
specific plan. Several of those we interviewed acknowledged that the care for the
Tomczaks during this leave was deficient in various areas.
In September of 1997, Larry raised some doctrinal concerns with Steve Shank.
Steve asked Larry to write out his concerns for the purpose of discussion with the
board. In response, Tomczak sent a 31 page paper, which not only articulated
doctrinal differences, but also announced his departure from 8GM. Tomczak
explained that he disagreed with certain tenets of Reformed theology, and healso differed with his local leaders' and the 8GM board's opinion of his readiness
to return to ministry. Tomczak thought he was qualified to return to pastoral
ministry. As Larry and the board discussed his departure, sharp disagreement
arose over his reasons for leaving as well as the public explanation of the
reasons for his departure.
3
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 26/51
A number of the board members contended that Larry was continuing a pattern
of deceitfulness by claiming that he wanted to separate because of doctrinal
disagreement. They perceived him as removing himself prematurely from the
restoration process. According to a letter from Mahaney sent to SGM members
explaining Larry's departure, neither the SGM Board nor the City Church
leadership team believed that Larry's character warranted his immediate return to
ministry. Board member Brent Detwiler wrote in an email to Larry dated
September 26, 1997, "This is about character- not calling. not doctrine. Please
don't resist the dealing of God and separate yourself from everyone who knows
you the best and loves you the most." In fact, in the minutes of a board meeting
from September 17,1997 the board recorded, " ...we will not support doctrine as
the reason for his departure due to the real reasons behind his decision to leave.
We would feel that for larry to do so would be unethical."
4
In early October 1997 several phone conversations took place between the
Tomczaks and members of the SGM Board. At leasttwo of those conversationswere recorded by the Tornczaks Without the knowledge of the participating board
members. On October 3,1997 Larry initiated a call with C.J. Contrary to some
claims, this phone call was not recorded, As a result, an exact transcript of the
call does not exist. Larry and Doris reconstructed the dialogue after the call from
detailed notes they took during the call. According to the Tornczaks' notes, C.J.
allowed for the possibility of making known their child's sin if Larry communicated
that he was leaving SGM over doctrinal disagreement. If C.J. were to disclose
this child's sin and its details, it would have violated the promised confidentiality
that he had given the Tomczak child. This amounted to a threat. Doris accused
C.J. on the phone of blackmailing thern. In our interview with C.J., he freely
admitted that it was wrong for him to even bring up the possibility of breaking his
promise to their child. Although he readily admitted that what he did wascoercion and wrong, he did not agree with Doris's assessment that this
constituted blackmail.
Our panel listenedte selected portions of a tape-recorded call that took place on
October 7, 1997.between board members (Steve Shank and Paul Palmer) and
Larry, Doris and their child. On this call Steve Shank repeatedly held out the
possibility to the Tomczak child that the private confession of sin could be
disclosed if Larry gave false reasons (from the board's perspective) for hls
departure from SGM; that is, if Larry stated that his reason for leaving was
doctrinal in nature.
Our panel also listened to significant portions of a tape-recorded call from thenext day, October 8, 1997 between Larry and Doris and a number of board
members. The primary participants on the call were Dave Harvey, Steve Shank
and Brent Detwiler. (CJ was not a party on either of the taped calls we heard.)
In this conversation, these board members reaffirmed the possibility of divulging
something of the child's sin if Larry claimed he was leaving for doctrinal reasons.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 27/51
Their contention was that the child's sins were relevant to Larry's disqualification
for ministry.
Later the board retracted its coercive threat, but it is difficult to establish exactly
when this retraction occurred. The following items are relevant to determining
the time of the retraction:
• According to SGM board minutes of October 14, 1997 the board sought
legal counsel and received a "strong recommendation we do not divulge
(Tomczak's child) sin to any degree in any fashion."
• According to C.J.'s testimony, "on or around October 14, Steve and' have
a vague recollection ,of me calling Larry and assuring him that the specifics
of the (Tomczak's child) sins would never be made public."
• In a December 1998 document written by Larry entitled "An Appeal to the
PO I Leadership for Repentance, Reconciliation, and Closure," Tomczak
claims to have issued a warning about the board's threat. He wrote, "Wefeel such a sense of anguish in finding ourselves to be the object of
outright blackmail (that was only withdrawn after we communicated to you
the immorality and illegality of the threat)!" Larry's language indicates that
the threat had been withdrawn sometime between the time- of the phone
calls and the writing of his paper 14 months later.
• On Octoberffi, 2002, Mahaney wrote a letter of apology on behalf of the
SGM Boardto the Tomczak child. After asking forgiveness, C.J. writes
uAs best we can recall, we corrected this soon after the recorded
conversation and gave assurance that we would not divulge personal
information about you regardless of what your father did or said.
Hopefully. this removed the ongoing possibility of disclosure, but it did not
cancel the fact that our earlier words had caused you a period of fear andanguish. We failed you, and we are deeply sorry for the affect this had on
you."
• According to Brent Detwiler, in a letter written to Larry in February of 2003,
the threat was short lived in the board's mind. He wrote to Larry, 'When
you began to misrepresent your departure from POI, we considered for a
short period of time, whether or not it might be necessary to divulge
information to those being influenced from your misinformation. We
decided, however, to honor our commitment to (your child) even though
we knew it would limit our ability to explain to others, when necessary, the
seriousness of your sin and why we did not believe you were qualified for
ministry."
• Most recently in a summary document-written in November 2011 J Larryand Doris describe the incident as "premeditated blackmail,
communicated and reaffirmed on numerous occasions and subsequently
left to silence and hang over us for over a decade,"
5
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 28/51
• From the above evidence it seems unlikely that the threat lasted more
than 14 months and may have been dealt with in 11 days. So it does not
seem that this threat was "left ... to hang over us [the TomczaksJ for over a
decade." It was made; it lingered for at least a couple of weeks; it was
evidently retracted or understood to be withdrawn sometime within 14
months.
The Tomczaks officially departed from City Church and SGM in October of 1997.
Mahaney sent a letter to members of SGM churches on October 15 explaining
that Larry was leaving and that his local team and the SGM board did not
endorse his decision to "abandon the restoration process." Larry produced a six-
page paper dated October 22 offering his alternative explanation of his departure
for those who inquired. Tomczak's paper avoided the subject of doctrinal
disagreement.
6
Following the Tomczak's departure, Mahaney made a public statement regardingLarry to Covenant Life Church, the church where C.J. served as Senior Pastor.
According to the testimony we heard, C.J. had the tape turned off for at least a
portion of his comments; there is no recording or transcript of his statements that
we are-aware of It has been reported that C;J. said something like, "I'd rather be
dead than dolnq what Larry Tomczak is doing." C.J. acknowledged making this
comment when we, ihterviewed him. It appears that C.J; also made a reference
denigrating Larry's integrity. It is purported that C.J. called Larry a "liar." We
could not confirm this actual language, but it does appear that some uncharitable
description of Larry- and/or his actions was given. C.J. does not recall saying
anything along these lines in his presentation. However, in a document prepared
by a board member in 2001 tl1ere is a reference to this statement and a question
as to whether C.J. should have communicated that tarry was a liar iI , such "anunqualified way."
From the FaUof 1997 until early 2003, Larry and C.J. discussed pursuing
reconciliation, yet for various' reasons it did not happen. Unable to agree on a
mediator or conditions to be met before meeting (e.g., C.J.'s request that Larry
provide a copy of the tapes for the board to hear), reconciliation efforts stalled.
On Jan. 25, 2001, Mahaney and Tomczak met for the first time since Larry's
departure in 1997. According to Larry's testimony, he played a portion of one of
the taped phone conversations for C.J. On May 4,2001 C.J. requested the
tapes so that the board could review them in their entirety. Larry did not provide
the tapes at that time.
In December of 2001, Larry communicated that since the board was not
responding to his requests for reconciliation he would "widen the circle" by
providing the tapes to six nationally known leaders outside of SGM and one
former pastor from SGM for their evaluation. C.J. made another request for the
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 29/51
tapes in January of 2002. Larry sent the tapes to the leaders, gathered their
responses, and forwarded their evaluation to C.J. On July 16, 2002, C.J. wrotethe seven leaders and requested that they appeal to Larry to send the tapes to
him so that the participants on the call could hear it themselves and consider
whether they sinned during the conversation. Larry sent the tapes to C.J., and
C.J. acknowledged receiving them in a letter dated August 6, 2002.
7
On October 16, 2002 C.J. wrote the Tomczak's child and sought forgiveness for
threatening to break the vow of confidentiality. C.J and Larry remained
unreconciled, however. We are unaware of any tangible steps toward
reconciliation between 2003 and 2010. In the fall of 2010, Larry sent a letter to
C.J. asking to meet for the purpose of reconciliation. Mahaney and the
Tomczaks met together and then publicly announced their reconciliation In 2011.
In a November 2011 document titled, "The Tomczak Departure from S.G.M.-
What Really Happened?", Larry claims that the vow of confidentiality that had
been made to his child in 1997 ''was later broken," We interviewed a person whotestified that C.J. told him details of the child's sin in a brief, private conversation
in May of 1997. C.J. has no recollection of this conversation.
The Signlflcance of What Happened
In this section Iwe aim to draw out important concerns from the narrative of Larry
Tomczak's departure. We are unable to comment on all that occurred. but we
seek to identify the salient points and offer our commentary for the SGM board.
1. SGM board members share culpability.
Our reading. interviews, and exposure to the recorded conversations convlnce us
that this issue is not simply a Mahaney vs. Tomczak matter. More specifically.
the coercive threat involved other board members as well as C.J. Every board
member may not have been equally knowledgeable or even 'equally involved in
the threat, but some board members unquestionably reaffirmed the initial threat
to reveal the Sin of the child if Tomczak stated his reason for leaving SGM was
doctrinal.
Admittedly, we didn't hear either call in its entirety based on time restraints nor
were we permitted to keep copies of the tapes or transcripts to review beyond
our initial hearing. But we did hear several board members uphold and conflrm
the threat. We are left to conclude that there was agreement among some boardmembers to seek to coerce Tomczak by leaving open the possibility of revealing
his child's sin if he were to give doctrinal differences as his reason for leaving
SGM. We are not, however, certain how participating board members initially
arrived at the decision to leave open the possibility of exposing the sin of the
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 30/51
Tomczak child. We can only confirm that the threat was initiated by Mahaney
and then later supported by some other board members, thus blame must be
shared.
2. The coercive threat was sinful.
When Tomczak explained to the board that he desired to leave SGM over
doctrinal differences, Mahaney and some board members raised the possibility of
publicly disclosing further details of Larry's sins. Why did they consider this? In
a letter dated September 26, 1997 Detwiler writes to Tomczak, 'While you are
certainly free to change your theological position, the way you have gone about i t
lacks the most basic kind of integrity or humility. Worse than that, you are now
using your new found understanding of these issues as an excuse to run from
the dealings of God, break off long standing relationships, and pursue your own
ministry." Here Tomczak is accused of using his new doctrinal convictions as an
excuse to withdraw from a dlselpllnary process.
8
According to the board minutes of October 14,1997, the board deemed Tomczak
disqualified for ministry. Moreover, they believed that Tomczak's introduction of
his critique of Reformed theology would confuse and hinder people during a time
When the SGM churches were galvanizing around a more clearly defined
theology, One board member testified that he believed that Tomczak's doctrinal
disagreement was a smokescreen! and the board was resolute in explaining his
departure with integrity.
larry had previously confessed that he was taking a leave of absence due in part
to "deficiencies In his family." While the threat was never spelled out in detail in
the phone conversations we heard, board members did leave the clearImpression that the family deficiencies divulged through the child's confession
might be disclosed. If larry chose to announce that his departure was driven by
doctrinal disagreement, these board members threatened to share a fuller
explanation of his family deficiencies that included reference to his child.
In our interviews, w~ heard strong opinions as to whether or not this threat
constituted blackmail. As a panel, we are not qualified to render a legal
assessment. Our primary concern has been working to objectively understand
what happened and why it happened. What is evident to us is that the threat was
present. and it was wrong. Itwas coercive. It was sinful. The Tomczak child
confessed sins with an assurance that the confession would be held in the
strictest confidence. When-the child repeatedly appealed on the phone that theconfession of sin remain private regardless.of what the child's father might do,
the child was given no assurance that the promise would be kept.
Some board members testified that they were only considering sharing the
categories and not the details of the child's sin. However, this distinction was
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 31/51
never made to the Tomczaks, so they were led to fear the worst. The Tomczaks
were understandably distraught by the possibility that their child's private
confession could become public in any way. At the time. some board members
thought they were acting to restrain Larry from misrepresenting his departure and
possibly splitting his church. They perceived their actions as protecting SGM,
However, the net result was that they were manipulating Larry to act in a way
they deemed righteous and doing so at the potential expense of his child.
9
As previously recounted, it is uncertain in our minds exactly when this threat was
removed, But even in the best-case scenario, allowing the Tomczaks to live for
eleven days under this threat is grievous. Leaders must use God glorifying
means to achieve a God glorifying end. Ironically, while some board members
believed they were attempting to persuade Tomczak to act with integrity, they
ended up compromising, their own.
Thankfully, each board member we interviewed who had participated in the
threat sorrowfully acknowledged his actions and had already reached -out to theTomczaks pursuing forgiveness.
3. Public critique hurt Tomczak's reputation.
In the book of James. the tongue is compared to a fire. James warns, "How
great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (James 3:5). The exhortations
of this chapter apply to all believers, but there is an introductory warning to
teachers at the beginning. Teachers will be judged with a greater strictness
(3:1). Pulpit speech comes under greater scrutiny because preachers are
teaching God's word in the context of worship. Both the public environment of
the speech and the holy nature of the task elevate the effect and influence of a
pastor's words in the Sunday gathering.
In the context of Larry Tomczak's departure from 8GM. uncharitable public
speech damaged Larry's reputation, Following Tomczak's departure. Mahaney
communicated in a public worship service at Covenant Life Church that he would
rather be dead than do what Larry Tomczak was doing. One Covenant Life
pastor testified that these comments were the death of Larry's reputation at CLeo
According to this pastor's testimony. some church members who knewthe
Tomczak family stopped interacting with them after C.J.'s comments about Larry.
While church members are responsible for their own relationships and their own
actions. they certainly could have been influenced by Mahaney's public criticism
of Tomczak.
Mahaney publicly acknowledged his sinful words about Larry in a confession
given to Covenant Life Church in July 2011. He said, "And when Larry dld leave.
my public announcement of his departure was self-righteous in attitude and
critical of Larry at a very vulnerable time in his life. I highlighted his sin alone,
and I was blind to my own. I'm deeply grieved by this."
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 32/51
B road ly speaking, we read and heard uncharitab le words by peop le on boths ide s of th e issue of the T om cza k's de parture . The resu lt? R ela tion ships w ere
b roken and corrupted. G od fo rb ids such speech in Ephesians 4:29, "Le t nocorrupting ta lk com e out o f your m ouths, but on ly such as is good for build ing up,
a s fits th e o cca sio n, th at it m ay give grace to those who hear." W ords that "g ive
grace to those w ho hear" w ould like ly have m ade a sign ificant and helpfu ld iffe re nc e a t s tra te giC momen ts in th is c on flic t.
10
4. F ear a ffec te d som e b oard de cis ion s.
A s co-foun der of SGM, Tom czak was a high profile leader. Even though h is
in fluence had d im in ished from the days in w hich he led the board, he w as s till
widely known, dearly lo ve d a nd h eld lo ng sta nd in g re la tio nsh ip s w ith m an yleaders and m em bers in SGM churches. D uring th is tim e, the board w as lead ing
SGM through a period of doctrina l defin ition . O ne board m em ber testified tha t he
presum ed tha t T om cza k's dep artu re ove r doc trina l d isag re em en t w ou ld h aveh in de re d th e u nity th at w as em erg in g a ro un d R efo rm ed th eo lo gy. A dd itio na lly ,
ba sed o n T om cza k's 3 1-pag e pap er d efin ing h is d iffe rence s, the bo ard w asa ppreh ens ive th at Lan y w ou ld m isrep re s.ent the ir v iew s as he so ugh t to describe
h is d iffe re nc es w ith SGM 's d oc trin e.
B oard m em bers appealed to Tom czak to rem ain in a res to ra tive process w ith
SG M, so that-they could la ter com mend h is charac te r and send him out w ith a
cle ar sta te me nt o f d oc trin al d iffe re nce s. F rom th e b oa rd 's p ersp ectiv e, T om cza k
cut sho rt h is re stora tio n proce ss and w as unw illing to re main and w ork throug h
theo lo gica l d iffe rences. W hen T om cza k dec ide d to lea ve. in div id ua ls on the
bo ard proce ede d to m ake som e unw ise de cis ion s.
R eflec ting o n th is try ing season, on e bo arc m em be r testified tha t from an eth ica l
standpoin t, they had an opportun ity to w alk a h igher road , but they d idn 't. Hecon te nds tha t th ey w ere too concerned a bou t To mczak's po te ntia l to dam age
SG M, wh ich led them to m ake som e decis ions based on fea r o f what cou ldhappen. H e said that they d idn 't trust Larry, bu t they shou ld have trusted G od.W e a gree w ith his can did ana lys is id entify ing fea r as a sin fu l m otive that c lou ded
thei r Judgmen t.
5. D efic ie nt p ro ce ss es co ntrib ute d to th e co nflic t.
If the han dling o f the T om cza k's d epa rture is re prese nta tive , th en SGM la cked
SU ffic ient pro cesse s for eva lu ating a pas to r a nd his fitn ess fo r m in istry and forp re scrib in g a clea r, m ea surab le pathw ay for res to ra tion. H ere are ou r conce rn s:
a . Eva lua tion of Tom czak- A t the tim e o f Tom czak's leave , the re appeared to
be unan im ous agreem ent that Tom czak shou ld step down from m in istry for a
season. L arry him se lf s ta te d, "I agre e com plete ly" a nd "' to ta lly a gree w ith th e
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 33/51
course of action we are taking and view it as God's mercy for me and my family."
(Tomczak's May 15, 1997 letter announcing his leave of absence)
We do not second-guess the mutual decision for Tomczak to step down.However, we point out that one aspect of the evaluation seemed misguided in
our view. As the threat emerged there appeared to be a blurring of responsibility
between the child's sins and the father's sins. In fact, in one of the phone calls
this point is debated between the child and one of the board members. At one
point during the call, the board member said to Larry, "[Your child] is a product of
your fatherhood and that disqualifies you from ministry."
11
To be fair, Tomczak publicly admitted to "not effectively training my children In
the Lord" and ·concealing sins and problem areas in the family:" (Tomczak's May
15. 1997 letter) Even so, there were some board members at the time who
seemed to hold Larry directly responsible for his child's sins.
One board member testified that there was too much of a link made between
Larry's parenting and his child's sin. The idea that "good pastors =: good kids"
represented a kind of thinking that lacked depth in this board members
estimation. He went on to express that conclusions should not be drawn too
quickly between faithful parenting and the current fruit in a child's life. We think
this is a discemingand charitable perspective.
b. Inconsistent definition of Tomczak's leave- The nature of Tomczak's leave
was unclear at different points in the process. The following examples illustrate
the probJem:
• Larry's letter announcing his leave of absence (May 15, 1997) describes"some significant dealings of God in my life" which led to the conviction
that he was 'not above reproach" (1 Timothy 3:2). Because of this
concern. he and the board reached a mutual decision that he should take
a "leave of absence." Never in Tomczak's letter is "discipline" or "church
dlselpnne" mention-ed.
• Board minutes from an October 14, 1997 meeting record the following
decision, "It was agreed that this situation with Lany and our proposed
action would not be viewed as church discipline (Matthew 18), but rather
as a disqualification for ministry issue (Hebrews 12)."
• The 8GM Board's letter announcing Tomczak's departure from 8GM(October 15, 1997) describes his leave as disciplinary. In this letter,
Mahaney uses phrases like "disciplinary process" and "discipline" to
describe the restoratlon process.
• Neartya year later in August 1998. Mahaney sent a letter to pastors in
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 34/51
SGM regarding Larry. He explained that the board had "made numerous
appeals to Larry Tomczak for the purpose of reconciliation. Regrettably,
Larry has not responded." The letter then reported that Larry had
contacted some SGM pastors as if nothing were wrong. So the board
recommended the following: "On behalf of the team (board), I wanted to
alert you to the possibility of contact by Larry and ask that you not engage
in casual conversation or pursue fellowship with him. Instead appeal that
he be reconciled with the team and ask forgiveness for his sins." This
sounds like the kind of response appropriate for someone under "church
discipline." ("Church discipline" refers toa Matthew 18 process in SGM
vemacular. )
12
To further complicate the matter, C.J. enclosed a separate letter from a
SGM pastor to Larry with the above August 1998 letter. Mahaney
recommended the pastor's letter as a model approach to Tomczak. In
the letter, this pastor corrected Larry for private comments he had made
including a claim that his leave wasn't church discipline. This pastor'sletter included the following. "It was very much a church discipline issue.
This is how itwas described both to you and to the church ... I am deeply
disappointed and distressed that you so misrepresented the facts to me."
Our point is not to critique this pastor who was working off of inaccurate
assumptions. Rather, we are making the polnt that including the letter as
a sample response was confusing because the letter treated Larry's
leave as "church discipline," when we suspect it was not.
The problem in all of this is not simply terminology but an inconsistent description
of and approach to Tomczak's leave which could confuse people about Larry~s
Slanding. Was it a "leave of absence" or a "disciplinary process"? Was it "churchdiscipline"? If not, why is "casual conversation" or pursuing fellowship with
Tomczak discouraged? In hindsight, the process lacked a consistently clear
explanat lon.
c. Unclear process of restoration- The restoration process lacked specific,
measurable markers to determine when Larry was qualified to return to pastoral
ministry; A 6,..12month timetable was prescribed, but the leave didn't include
objective benchmarks to measure his progress which could have enabled Larry,
the local elders and the 80M Board to be on the same page. This proved
detrimental when Larry asserted he was ready for restoration after four months
and the local elders and 8GM Board disagreed with him. Without clearly outlined
steps to measure restoration. "ministry readiness" becomes overly subjective,difficult to determine, and thus open to more than one interpretation.
Not only did the restoration process lack defined criteria for evaluation, but even
more importantly. it also lacked sufficient gospelMcentered care according to
some who testified before this panel. One leader involved in providing care for
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 35/51
the Tornczaks candidly and humbly told us that if he could do it over again, he
would have sought to be more gracious. He shared that they lacked compassion
at times for the Tomczaks who were walking through difficult circumstances in
their family. Another leader reported that at points there was an over emphasis
on indwelling sin and the Tomczak's failures when there should have been more
supportive pastoral care for the family, A board member shared that he now
wishes that he would have more wisely considered the heartbreaking season the
Tomczaks were experiencing and responded by giving them more hope in thegospel.
13
The Tomczaks certainly received some wsll-lntentloned and loving care. But
from the testimonies we heard the gospel should have been louder, clearer and
more frequent in the restoration process. The gospel produces empathy which
leads us to come alongside people In the midst of their crisis. Gospel oriented
care shouldn't mute legitimate correction, but such care should leave people with
a resounding hope.
d. No recourse for Tomczak- Whether Larry was right or wrong in his
disagreements with the board, he undoubtedly lacked recourse for his
grievances. SGM had no defined process for adjudicating disputes among
leaders. Answering the question, 'Was Larry Tomczak's departure from
Sovereign Grace Ministries handled properly?" is complicated by the reality that
we have no standardized procedure by Which to measure the board's handling of
Tomczak.
Absent policies directing the matter, the board appears to have made ad hoc
decisions about his departure, their communication about him. and their
approach to reconciliation. We don't expect that policies could have addressed
every detail of this case, but the lack of any policy surely contributed to theboard's and Tomczak's faitures and sins along the way. Tomczak lacked an
avenue of appeal to address his acousanons against the board,
6. Larry Tomczak contributed to the conflict surrounding his departure.
In a public document released in November 2011 describing his departure from
SGM, Larry writes, "I want to say at the outset that I am not blameless, but I at
times yielded to a spirit of fear when told 'I lacked discernment' and was at times
cowardly when I should have addressed unrighteous behavior." The SGM
Board's sins are not excused because of Tomczak's sins, but his contribution
must be acknowledged. In our interview, Larry summarized his shortcomings
under the general heading of "the fear of man." Those may indeed be roots
underlying 'his actions, but his actions were quite serious and contributed to a
breakdown in relationships. By failing to speak his mind, he misled the board
who cannot be faulted for taking his agreement at face value. In fact, Larry
testified to us that he was uncomfortable with some of what he wrote in his May
1997 letter of confession but felt required to write it as he did. Board members
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 36/51
testified that they believed Larry meant what he wrote. Fear of man can lead to a
duplicity that erodes trust in relationships.
14
There was widespread agreement among the board members we interviewedthat they didn't trust Larry. In his May 1997 letter announcing his leave, Larry
confessed among other things that he had been guilty of lying evidenced by
"being deceitful and submitting to fear by concealing sins and problem areas in
the family. rt He went on to write, umy friends and fellow leaders have rightly
expressed a lack of trust and confidence in my leadership." Their lack of trust
peaked when he announced a few months later that he was leaving SGM for
doctrinal reasons. In his May fetter, he soberly reported that he was not above
reproach and thus his stepping down was tiright and necessary." Less than five
months later he told the local leaders and the board that he must leave because
his doctrinal convictions were irreconcilable with SGM's.
The board believed this lacked Integrity. Moreover, they believed that if theysupported Larry's claim that doctrinal disagreement was at the heart of his
separation they would be breaching their own Integrity. In fact, one board
member expressed that had they announced that Tomczak left over doctrinal
disagreement it would have appeared as a cover up to some people who knew
the details of Larry's sin and the deficiencies in his family.
While it is beyond our scope to explore Tomczak's failures, our report would be
excessively slanted jf we failed to reference his contribution to the conflict
surrounding his departure.
7. The SGM Board failed to aggressively pursue reconciliation
An understandable question that an observer might ask is 'Why did it take almost
14 years to sit down and reconcile over these issues?" Unfortunately; we are
unable to supply a satisfying answer to that question. We read numerous letters
exchanged between Mahaney and Tomczak during the period of 1997-2003.
From those letters, we can infer a few reasons why reconciliation efforts
remained stalled. In our mind,jhe reasons offered in the exchanges don't justify
the lengthy relational separation. Rather than drilling down into those details, we
offer some general observations and concerns.
From reading the letters between Mahaney and Tomczak supplied to us, we
don't believe that the SGM board was running toward reconciliation with Larry.
For the most part; they were unresponsive to him rather than aggressivelypursuing reconciliation with him. In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus says, "So if you areoffering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something
against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to
your brother, and then come and offer your gift." The urgent priority that Christ
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 37/51
assigns to reconciliation seems to be missing from the SGM Board's approach to
Tomczak.
Additionally, it appears that reconciliation was delayed by a lack of self-critique
from those on both sides of the conflict. We didn't see the board pursuing a
determined pathway of self-examination nor did we find evidence that they
Initially acknowledged their own failure where appropriate when Tomczak voiced
his concems and accusations. Jesus teaches in Matthew 7:1-5 that we are toremove the log in our own eye before tending to the speck that is in our brother's
eye, From what we have read and heard, we don't believe that this peacemaking
principle was always faithfully applied by the board in their dealings with
Tomczak. This failure contributed to the delayed reconciliation.
Mahaney and the Tomczaks publicly reported in 2011 that they had beenreconciled. We think their announcement was sincere, but we believe there is
more work to be done to secure a bilateral and enduring reconciliation.
In the past, Mahaney and Tomczak COUldn'tagree on a mediator, so we would
like to recommend one. We suggest Ted Kober (or his delegate) from
Recommendations
1. We recommend that everyone Involved In the events of this report soberly
examine their hearts. before the Lord seeking the Holy Spirit's conviction andresponding with repentance before God where appropriate. Any changes that
we recommend for any individual or for the SGM Board corporately will be
worthless apart from the work of the Spirit bringing conviction, forgiveness,
renewal and reconciliation. This recommendation is offered with a genuine
confidence in the power of the gospel to affect change in our lives as we humble
ourselves before the Lord.
2. We recommend that the current SGM board members (C.J. Mahaney, DaveHarvey, Steve Shank) and the key local elder (Larry Malament) who served
during the time of Larry Tomczak's departure pursue a mediation process with
him. We appreciate that each of these men have recently and i11some cases
repeatedly returned to Tomczak and confessed their sins and soughtreconciliation. We are not questioning their efforts or their sincerity. However,
based on the testimony we heard, we do not have confidence that these
relationships are reconciled.
We don't know the:contentofthe private meetings between individual leaders
and the Tornczaks, but from what we heard, itseems that neither side believes
the other has taken full responsibility for their own faults. Similarly, both sides
lack a high degree of trust for those on the other side. In this environment of
weakened trust, we believe mediation is essential to bring a God-glorifying
reconciliation that will satisfy each party.
l S
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 38/51
Ambassadors of Reconciliation serve in this process and that SGM cover all the
expenses for the mediation.
16
Finally, we recommend that SGM avoid joint statements and appearances
announcing reconciliation with the Tomczaks until a neutral third party mediatorsupports that statement. Communicating progress is welcomed. Communicating
reconciliation should be withheld until it is encouraged by the mediator, in our
opinion. Following mediation, the board should consider if any further public
communication is warranted.
3. We recommend that the board prioritize the writing of some form of a "book of
church order." We know that the board has already announced its intentions to
draft such a work. But our immersion in the details of Larry Tomczak's departure
from SGM leads us to recognize the serious need for this and recommend that
the board expedite this project.
We are not fully informed of the intended scope of the "book of church order,"and we aren't certain which Issues SGM will leave for the local churches to
decide upon. Even so, we recommend that the SGM Board address the
prominent deficiencies highlighted in the Tomczaks' case. Both the board and
the Tomczaks would have benefitted from well-defined guidelines on the
following issues:
• Evaluating a pastor's qualifications for ministry
• The legiti~acy and purpose of a disciplinary of non-dlsclpllnary leave of
absence for a pastor or board member
• A defined grace centered restoration process for a disqualified pastor
• Standards for public communication regarding the discipline of a pastor
• Standards for public communication regarding the departure of adisqualified pastor .
• A grievance policy providing recourse for an offended pastor or board
member
• An explanation of the selection and dismissal procedure for SGM Board
members
• Clarity on the relationship between the SGM Board and the local church
• A defined accountability for a SGM Board member with his local eldership
• A policy for mediation between board members or local pastors in conflict
If these issues are outside the parameters of a "book of church order," then we
recommend that they be addressed through another more appropriate means.
4. We recommend that Larry Tomczak be honored for his years of service in
Sovereign Grace Ministries. As his departure has been revisited through this
review, we have an opportunity to graciously: express our gratitude to him. With
one exception, we won't recommend specifics because honor expressed in
response to the recommendation of others can ring hollow for the recipient. As a
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 39/51
panel, we were privileged to sit with the Tomczaks and briefly express our
gratitude for their years of investment in this family of churches. We are sure
others, including board members, have done the same. But a more formal SGM
response would be meaningful and appropriate in our estimation.
17
We specifically recommend that the board give a financial gift to the Tomczaks
as an expression of gratitude for their years of sacrificial service in SGM. We
understand that severance pay is not customary for someone who resigns his
employment as Tomczak chose to do. We understand that a financial gift is not
customary when someone departs in the midst of a dispute. We also understand
that the gospel of grace calls us to a generosity and gratitude that is not
customary.
If SGM has already given a financial gift to the Tomczaks, then we welcome the
board to make that known, as unbecoming as it might seem to publicize such an
act.
5. We recommend the SGM Board take steps to improve communication with its
pastors. Specifically. we believe the board can grow in the way it updatespastors concerning changes in our policies and practices. During our recent
period of difficulty, the board has served pastors well in communication, and we
recommend they maintain this present value even when the difficulty subsides
and frequent interactions are no longer necessary.
This recommendation Isn't so much a responsa.to specific deficiencies in the
handling of Tomczak's departure, but revieWing documents from the time of his
departure has made us aware of many changes within 8GM. As we read
documents from 15 years ago, we found ourselves thinking, "We don't do things
that way anymore." As we asked current leaders about decisions and actionsfrom the past, many testified, ''We would dolt differently today." They weren't
only addreSSing mistakes or regrets. They were acknowledging that SGM culture
has changed.
To us, it seems like changes' in personnel! policy and practice have occurred
without much public explanation. This is anobservanon not an accusation. We
recommend the board continue to pursue a leadership approach that readily
Identifies and explains change where possible.
Conclusion
To the best of our ability. we have presented the facts. We have sought toobjectively critique people we know and love. This has been a difficult report to
write for a few reasons. First, we intentionally wrote an imbalanced report. We
didn't think the interim board was asking us to even out our analysis. Therefore,
we didn't highlight the many ways that 8GM leaders acted wisely and faithfully.
Instead we chose to dissect a few failures in the process and make
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 40/51
recommendations in light of those failures.
We also found this report difficult to compose because we are writing as
panelists critiquing pastors, when in fact we are pastors ourselves who are
keenly aware of aur own sins and weaknesses in caring for God's people. This
entire investigation and reporting process has led us to a greater fear of the Lord.
We don't feel comfortable pointing out others' need for the gospel without loudly
acknowledging our own need for that same grace as well.
18
Finally, in evaluating the care offered the Tomczaks, we pointed out that leaders
could have. done better at coming alongside Larry and his family and offering
them gospel hope during a difficult time. They needed to hear more of the
faithfulness of God to forgive and restore according to those we interviewed. It is
out hope that we don't repeat this mistake at this time. The facilitator for our
review panel, Bryce Thomas, spoke of the need to "breathe grace" to people who
find themselves overwhelmed as the Tomczaks did. We hope, that the SGM
board, the Tomczak family and others who read our report will adopt Bryce'scounsel. May God's immeasurable grace touch everyone mentioned in this report
and everyone who reads it , and may we respond with trust in Christ who is
working for our good and his glory.
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts,
kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if onehas a complaint agaihst another, forgiVing each other, as the Lord has forgiven
you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds
everything together in perfect harmony." Colossians 3:12;..14
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 41/51
5. Sovereign Grace Board's Response to the Reports
We want to begin by thanking the men who served on these panels for their fair,
unflinching, and evenhanded work. They have given us a thorough and objective
baseline from which to draw conclusions.
We also want to note that C.J. is not being added to the interim Board and he had no
influence over the writing of this response. We invited him to write his own response
instead, which follows ours.
General Observations
All three panels, to varying degrees, mention a lack of organizational guidance and
policy for how to evaluate leaders, discipline leaders, and resolve conflict between
leaders, and all three recommend change. We acknowledge this deficiency andexpect to hear more about this from AOR in their report on broader ministry issues later
this spring. With their assistance, we plan to address these things.
We also recognize that the panels' comments on organizational guidance and policy
suggest a thorough examination of SGM's leadership structure. Because our mandate
as an interim Board was to evaluate Brent's allegations, however, we leave that task to
the next Board. To confuse the examination of Brent's allegations (which were the
occasion for C.J. taking a leave) with our polity or future leadership would reach
beyond our assigned task, and quite likely distract us from a biblical due process for
evaluating charges against an elder. C.J. initiated his leave solely to allow for a fair
examination of Brent's charges, and we have ended his leave solely based on theresults of that examination. Long-term questions about organizational guidance are not
for the interim Board to address. That's for the permanent Board.
Two of the reports also recommend that C.J. pursue mediation with some of the
participants in these conflicts. We support the pursuit of mediation whenever it is
appropriate. However, our support requires some qualification: mediation requires
both parties to agree on the issues to be explored with a goal of reconciliation. No one
should be held accountable to participate in mediation unless the other party has a
sensible outstanding complaint. Moreover, any other party must enter the mediation
process with a willingness to have his own participation in the conflict evaluated. We
would ask that any request for mediation with C.J. include notification of the SGM
Board so that we can guide him in his participation.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 42/51
Report Regarding C.J.'s Participation in Fellowship and Correction
Brent's allegation here is that C.J. is a hypocrite who teaches others to participate in
fellowship and listen to correction but does not do so himself. The panel found no
grounds for this characterization of C.J. This is not to overlook personal sins C.J.
committed through the course of this conflict, and we join with the panel (and C.J.'scurrent care group and ministry associates) in affirming his formal and repeated
confession related to these sins in 2004, 2010, and 2011 and the growth others have
identified in these areas and see no reason for him to make further public
confessions. And we affirm both from this report and our own experience that, "these
sins do not represent the totality of the man and his ministry." Although we agree with
the report that these sins are common, we also affirm that C.J. should make these
issues a matter of review in his ministry relationships. But the events portrayed in
Brent's documents do not characterize C.J., nor do they represent his commitment to
sanctification and fellowship over the span of his ministry.
Report Regarding Brent Detwiler's Dismissal from, Grace Community Church
The charge here is that C.J. manipulated a review process which led to Brent's
dismissal as the pastor of his church, Grace Community Church of Mooresville, North
Carolina. The panel found no evidence for this allegation. Moreover, evidence points
to the contrary. The panel wrote: "We did find evidence that C.J. Mahaney was
actively supportive of Brent's desire to plant this church, that Brent received due
process when this crisis developed, and that C.J. Mahaney wanted to preserve Brent's
role in ministry." Although Brent did receive a credible process for reviewing his
leadership team's call for his dismissal, we regret that we lacked a defined process,which created confusion for everyone involved. We believe better policy guidance from
SGM can rectify similar situations if they arise in the future. We are also tasking a SGM
Board member and Senior Pastor Mickey Connolly (of Crossway Community Church
which sponsored the church plant) to explore with members of the church plant if there
are any outstanding complaints regarding the decision to plant the church.
Report Regarding Larry Tomczak's Departure from Sovereign Grace Ministries
This report chronicles a very sad chapter in SGM's history. The panel found that, with
the then-"apostolic team's" support, C.J. initiated a threat to break a confidence withthe Tomczaks in response to Larry's stated reasons for leaving SGM. This was
followed by other members of the team affirming the threat if Larry left under the
pretense of doctrinal differences. We wholeheartedly agree with the panel's finding of
the apostolic team's sin. Although we were glad to learn from the panel report that the
threat did not hang over Larry's family for "more than a decade" as Larry stated, it was
still unacceptable, even if, at best, it was retracted within eleven days.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 43/51
These sins were serious and caused real pain to the Tomczaks. This interim Board is
not able to speak for all involved in 1997, but Dave Harvey and Steve Shank do join
their voices to C.J.'s in a public confession of their sin against the Tomczaks, and
likewise have pursued the Tomczaks for their forgiveness.
This interim Board along with C.J., Dave, and Steve want to express our sorrow overthe pain and confusion this has caused to others.
After reviewing these events in context, however, we do not consider the sins SGM
leaders committed to be disqualifying. First, far from carrying out the threat, when
those involved recognized that it was ethically wrong, they withdrew it. Some have
suggested that the long period before C.J. and Larry reconciled reveals a 14-year-long
lack of conviction for those involved, but the data does not support that interpretation.
During the interim Board's own review, we discovered via testimony and in reading
correspondence from the early 2000s that an outside conciliator had advised the
leadership team and Larry that meaningful mediation was not possible unless Larry
was willing to participate with his own failings subject to review. So the lack of earlier
reconciliation appears to be a failure of both parties. And furthermore, in 2002 C.J.
sought forgiveness on behalf of the team from the Tomczak family member who would
have been harmed had the threat been acted on. Again, this does not comport with
suspicion that C.J. failed to recognize his sin until this past year.
Second, C.J. has taken responsibility for his failures in the conflict. As mentioned
above, nearly ten years ago, he sought the forgiveness of the person who would have
been harmed if the threat had been carried out. In 2010, he met with Larry and Doris
and sought their forgiveness as well. And on July 10, 2011, C.J. confessed to
Covenant Life Church that his announcement of Larry's departure, "was self-righteousin attitude and critical of Larry at a very vulnerable time in his life." He added that, "I
am deeply grieved by this." We are grateful that he took responsibility for this before
the church, as his statements caused unnecessary damage to Larry's reputation in the
church. We are also grateful for Larry's public statement of forgiveness and
reconciliation with C.J.
Finally, we found no evidence beyond this event that C.J. or any other member of the
past leadership teams in SGM has made coercive threats a means of manipulating
behavior in the conduct of their ministry. Although the threat was wrong, it does not fit
into a pattern of behavior.
Regarding the panel's recommendation for mediation: C.J. and the SGM Board stand
ready to engage in mediation for reconciliation with any or all of the participants in this
conflict. If Larry would like to seek mediation for reconciliation with any or all of the
participants in this conflict, we ask that he bring his request to this Board with a clear
statement of issues he believes to be outstanding and that he agree to participate
according to commonly accepted standards of mediation.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 44/51
Closing Remarks on Brent Detwiler
Finally, a word on Brent. We are heartbroken that a man who was once a dear friend
and fellow leader, a man who made many positive contributions to our ministry, is now
estranged from us and continues to unfairly criticize many in SGM, which has resulted
in the unnecessary damage to the reputations of some. We want Brent and all of SGMto know that given the love of the Savior for us all and the amazing potency of his
grace, we still hold out hope that we can be reconciled. Although we consider his
charges to be addressed finally and completely, we have communicated to him in
private correspondence that we stand ready to meet and discuss our differences if the
goal is reconciliation. And we renew our appeal to have his pastor contact us so that
we might take the next step towards this goal. Such steps would not only please the
Savior but it would bring us great joy.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 45/51
6. C.J. Mahaney's Response to the Reports
Dear Friends,
The only appropriate place to begin this letter is by expressing my gratefulness. My
heart is filled with gratitude to God for all who are involved in Sovereign Grace
Ministries, who have trusted God and patiently endured a difficult season in our history.
First, I want to thank the interim board. These men were handed a most unexpected
and unappealing assignment, and for the past six months they have served and
sacrificed on behalf of all of us in Sovereign Grace. I simply cannot thank these men
enough. Many thanks are also due to the wives and children of the board members for
supporting them during this challenging time. And I want to thank the panelists who
accepted a most unenviable assignment requiring countless hours of complex and
concentrated work. Finally, I want to thank each of the pastors and each of the
members of Sovereign Grace churches for your patience and trust in God during this
process. I know it has been a difficult and confusing time for many of you. And I amsorry for the challenge it has presented to our pastors-the men I respect the most-
and the members of our churches-precious ones for whom Christ died and for whom
we have the great privilege to serve. I deeply regret where my mistakes, leadership
deficiencies, and sins contributed to the relational conflicts detailed in these reports.
And I am truly grateful for your support throughout this trying time. So with all my heart
I want to say thank you.
Over the last six months I've spent many hours reflecting upon Sovereign Grace, our
history together, and our purpose and mission. I've also taken time to think and pray
about my calling and how I might best serve Sovereign Grace in this new season
before us. I have sought counsel from friends and leaders within SGM and in thebroader evangelical church. There is much work for SGM to do in the years ahead, and
I want to do alii can to make this work fruitful. The opportunities for church planting in
this country and throughout the world are numerous. The requests we receive for help
exceed our resources. And one can't help but be excited about the immediate future
given the present Pastors College class and the church planting ventures we have
planned for the next few years.
In light of all of this, here is how I think I can best serve you in the days ahead: as I step
back into the role as president, I will do so only temporarily. I think it would be wise for
SGM to have a new president who has gifts better suited to serve Sovereign Grace in
this next season. I love SGM and I want the best for SGM. Lord willing, I look forward
to serving SGM more effectively in a different role. So my return will be temporary and
with a few important intentions. Let me briefly explain what they are. First, I want to
give immediate attention to helping the interim board transfer governance to their
successors. In 2010 we began considering how to expand the SGM board and better
define their role in evaluating and overseeing the president. Now that the interim board
has served its purpose, it is time for us to complete the transition to a more permanent
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 46/51
expanded board. I look forward to seeing this process through and benefitting from the
leadership that an expanded board will provide for Sovereign Grace. Despite the many
evidences of grace in our midst, I'm aware of a number of present weaknesses in SGM
and some past failings; as our president, I take full responsibility for these and I am
grateful that with a new board in place we can together continue to address these
issues. Second, once the new board is formed I want to assist them however I can inidentifying and installing my successor as president, although that decision will be for
the board to make. There are a few other matters I want to address in my remaining
time as president, all of which is subject to the priorities that the board establishes for
me. But I hope these primary goals can be accomplished within the next few months.
After supporting the board through these important transitions, I hope to return to what
I believe is my primary calling from God - pastoral ministry and the pulpit. This plays a
significant role in why my return as president is temporary. Let me explain. I think
preaching and pastoral ministry are where grace is most evident in my life and where
my leadership is most effectively expressed. Others seem to agree. And I think I have
neglected this call to preach for a number of years as I have endeavored to serve as
president. Over the past five years many faithful friends have brought this concern to
my attention and impressed upon me the importance of preaching as a primary means
of my serving and leading. However moved I was by their concerns and
encouragement, the many responsibilities of the presidential role would quickly
preoccupy me again and the effect of their counsel would subside. Over the past six
months I have seen more clearly than ever the wisdom of their counsel. So I think the
most effective way I can serve Sovereign Grace is by planting a church and leading a
local congregation through faithful expository preaching and teaching, as well as
serving Sovereign Grace in other tasks and roles the board might recommend for me. I
also hope to continue to serve the broader church where strategic opportunity andinvitation present themselves, as I have with my good friends in Together for the
Gospel. I simply can't wait to get started. And I can proceed into this future confidently
when our new board and president are in place. So that is what I am returning to do
and why my return as president will be temporary. I would be most grateful for your
support in prayer in this season of transition.
For the past 30 years God has been merciful to Sovereign Grace Ministries. This is the
theological explanation for any fruitfulness in SGM. And He has not ceased to be
merciful to us during this challenging season. His mercy has been evident in countless
ways. I wish there was space to rehearse them for you. In God's gracious providence I
believe much good and growth will come from this season that will serve us as wemove forward, as well as serve a future generation we won't live to see. God is
sovereign, good and wise, and His good purpose for His church and for our small
contribution to the advance of the gospel cannot ultimately be frustrated. And now I
look forward to a new season where we give ourselves to proclaiming the gospel,
planting and supporting churches, and caring for pastors in the 22 countries where we
presently serve, as well as the different parts of the world God may call us to serve in
the days ahead. So let me conclude where I began, by expressing my gratefulness to
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 47/51
you. Thank you for making this mission possible by the way you serve in your local
church and support SGM. Thank you. It is an unspeakable honor and joy to serve the
Savior with you and be numbered among you.
With my gratefulness for each of you,
c.~.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 48/51
7. Biblical Principles Informing this Process and Our
Conclusions
What are we going to do with C.J.? That is the question that so many within SGM
have asked over the last six months, but it is not the core issue that faced the interimBoard. The issue we felt we faced, both as a Board and as a movement, was this:
"How do we respond biblically when an elder faces serious allegations of
wrongdoing?"
"What happens with C.J.?" needed to follow from-not establish-the answer to that
question. If we handled this situation as though it was fundamentally and personally
about C.J., we would have missed the point and risked needlessly distorting our
judgment. Although the exact process we used for C.J. does not need to be a template
for the future, the principles this situation presented to us are vital and must be applied
to any future situation in which a minister of the gospel faces allegations. The Bible
gives us clear guidelines for such situations that are timeless and fully sufficient forhandling the present situation in a God-honoring manner.
Fundamentally, they include:
1. The man being accused should be open to evaluating and addressing possible
sins and errors (e.g., Proverbs 9:7-12, Matthew 18:15)
2. In the event there is more than one witness, the allegations should be brought to
and heard by the church's leaders (1 Timothy 5:19)
3. In evaluating the allegation, witnesses from both sides should be allowed to
testify and share evidence (Proverbs 18:17)
4. Those hearing the allegations should evaluate the evidence "without bias, doing
nothing from a spirit of partiality" (1 Timothy 5:21)
5. Those hearing the allegations should presume innocence until guilt is
established (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; cf.
Matt. 18: 16).
6. Those evaluating allegations of wrongdoing should make biblical distinctions
between common sins (1 John 1:8) and sins requiring censure or removal from
office (1 Tim. 5:20), between confessed sins and a refusal to repent (Matt. 18:15-
17), between well-intended mistakes and intentional wrongdoing, and between
limitations in gifting and corrupt practice.
This is the framework into which we needed to fit this assessment process and bywhich we needed to evaluate C.J.'s future in ministry. Before the panels, here is where
we stood with respect to acting on these Scriptural imperatives:
1. Openness to evaluating/addressing sin. Despite Brent's accusations otherwise,
C.J. has been leaning into these allegations for well over a year. He has involved a
broad circle of people. He has met in person with the men he served closely with,
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 49/51
heard their stories, and confessed to them. He wrote two lengthy confessions to Brent.
He has offered to enter mediation with Brent multiple times.
2. Hearing the allegations. Obviously this is what the panels were for-and C.J. was
supportive of this evaluation. At no point did he attempt to escape this process or
influence it in any way.
3. Hearing both sides. C.J. has been patient to have an appropriate context for
sharing his side of the story and bringing witnesses to support him. Despite being
broadly slandered by Brent, he stayed silent publicly for months. With a national
platform at his disposal, C.J. could have asked for a public, one-sided presentation of
facts from his perspective. Instead, he waited to speak his side until there was a
context for all sides to be heard at the same time.
4. Doing nothing from partiality. C.J. took a voluntary leave of absence in June so
that he would not give even the appearance of influencing the integrity of this process.
This was unprecedented and, in the opinion of most outsiders, counterproductive
leaving some to presume C.J.'s guilt and unnecessarily limiting C.J. in his ministry. But
wise or not, it was his attempt to walk the high road and guard the integrity of this
process. And while he was still on the Board, he was strongly supportive of having an
evaluation done.
5. Presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is afforded someone in
Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. This is even more important in a
time when public discussion of allegations can happen round-the-clock in globally-
accessible forums.
We realize our communication about this has been poor at many points, but we hope
this clarifies in Scripture how we've viewed this. These principles are and always
should be central to evaluating a man's qualification for ministry when he faces
allegations.
That brings us to the panels. On December 26, the Board received their findings and
recommendations. The Board gave these panels authority to interview any witness and
review any evidence they believed was relevant. We also gave them license to make
whatever recommendations for us they saw fit-no individual, policy, or organizational
practice was off limits. We did not want the efficacy of this process diminished by any
lack of mandate or license. You can see the breadth of their mandate in therecommendations they make, because they are in many cases quite significant and
weighty. But of equal significance is that, after interviewing the witnesses and
reviewing the documented evidence, not a single panel saw it necessary to declare
C.J. disqualified from ministry.
And so we returned to our principled approach. Where does Scripture lead us at this
point? There are two primary directions we needed to consider.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 50/51
1. If the man is found to be continuing in his sin, he should be rebuked in the
presence of the church (1 Timothy 5:20)
2. If the man is found to be disqualified from ministry, he should be removed from
office (1 Timothy 3:1-7)
As a Board, we do not see how either of these principles could at this point beinterpreted to apply to C.J. We gave full evaluation authority to the panels and none of
them found C.J. unrepentant, resistant, or disqualified, and therefore they did not see
rebuke or disqualification as the appropriate next step for C.J. Based on our own
understanding of Scripture, we agree:
1. Continuing in sin. The panels exonerated C.J. from any charge that the things he
did wrong are areas of unrepentant sin. With respect to Larry Tomczak, C.J. repented
and apologized to the family; with respect to Brent's dismissal, the panel found that the
process was handled appropriately (and did not involve C.J.); and with respect to his
practice of fellowship, they found that his practice was in keeping with the teaching of
Scripture.
2. Disqualification from ministry. Months ago, an outside panel representing the
perspectives of three denominations reviewed the sins C.J. confessed-which includes
the most serious allegation against him-and advised that they were not grounds for
removal from ministry. And in our own internal review with the three panels (comprised
of nine SGM pastors), the same conclusion was reached-not one panel
recommended that C.J. be disqualified from ministry.
Th is interim Board was convened seven months ago with the primary task of
adjudicating Brent's allegations against C.J. We strived to do that in conformity withthe teaching of Scripture in these matters, and find at this point that Scripture takes the
issue of adjudication no further.
We include these comments in hopes that going forward we can continue to make
improvements in this area of historical weakness for us. The counsel of Scripture does
not leave us in the dark with respect to these issues, and we have sought to conform
our actions to that counsel in handling this difficult situation. We hope our efforts prove
a helpful starting place as we address this through better policies in the years ahead.
8/3/2019 Panel Reports and Board's Response
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/panel-reports-and-boards-response 51/51
8. Final Comments on the Life and Ministry of C.J. Mahaney
In 1977, C.J. served as one of the three founding pastors of Covenant Life Church. He
served that church faithfully for 27 years working hard to see that it was established on
biblical foundations. In 1982, he was instrumental in founding SGM. For 20 of our 30
years of existence, he has led this ministry. He has worked hard and by the grace of
God his work has been fruitful. He has taught us that every church's focus should
center on the grace of God as given to us through the gospel. He has modeled, in his
private life and public ministry, a passion for Christ and his cross. He has promoted
and established doctrine which has protected our churches from error and excess. He
has shown us how, through the grace of the gospel, we can grow in holiness. Our
ministry and our churches have gained respect in many parts of the evangelical world
for good reason-God has blessed us and given us grace to plant and to build local
churches, and he has blessed us through giving us the gift of the ministry of C.J.
Mahaney. Every member of every Sovereign Grace church should feel a debt of
gratitude for C.J.'s life and ministry.
We agree with one panel's comment that the sins and leadership weaknesses
recorded in their report "do not represent the totality of the man and his ministry." We
would say that is true for all of C.J.'s sins and weaknesses recounted through these
panels. And so we restore him to his office believing that he is the best man for this
position in this immediate season, and we look forward to many more years of
partnership in ministry with him as we strive to plant and build local churches to the
glory and praise of God.