« C.J. Mahaney supporters struggle to find a sympathetic following | Main | Resolution on Sexual Abuse of Children gains media attention »

Jun 07, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dale Pugh

I wonder if anyone is planning to question Mohler about this at the Convention? I won't be there to hear it if they do, but it would seem to be an appropriate question to ask.

Jack Wolford

I seriously doubt that Dufas , Duncan , Dever or Mohler will allow themselves to be questioned about anything other than how they feel about thus & so on advice of their mouthpieces . I sincerely hope the SBC runs a good , professional business meeting that all can follow . We all need that . We really do !!

Bill Kinnon


Your pdf of the Evernote capture has messed up the formatting. Perhaps it might be best to link to the original capture.

And I, for one, appreciate what you've been doing in regards to Mahaney and the SGM Abuse story.

peter lumpkins

Hi Bill. Got it. I linked above so I'll just delete the download. Lord bless

Tim Rogers


It just does not appear this issue is going away. Where do you see this in a couple of months if there continues to be a perceived cover-up and a perceived stone-walling of those who support Maheney?


Thank you again, Peter, for continuing to speak out on this travesty. If the people who knew about the Penn State case got wind of this, there would be hell to pay. It's interesting how the media was all over one man and a popular sports team yet this case has been largely ignored in mainstream media.


"... vast influence for good he has been among so many Gospel-minded people."

If Gospel = Calvinism, as these folks purport, then Mahaney's "vast influence" is limited to Calvinism-minded people. I see no overwhelming support coming from most corners of Christendom. His "influence for good"?!!

Ministerial integrity demanded that Mr. Mahaney step away from the pulpit until the courts dealt with this matter … he did not. That same standard applied to the SBC leaders who supported him – they should not have given him a platform to continue to speak while these serious matters were being processed by the legal system. Such support of Mr. Mahaney by SBC leaders push the limits of "Together" for the Gospel.

I don't foresee any questioning of Mohler from the floor at SBC-Houston, reproof at the convention level, or correction by SBTS trustees. The man appears to be untouchable and bullet-proof.


Max, you picked up on the very same phrase that slapped me in the face. If C.J.'s "good" exemplifies the "gospel" that these men laud, then it is a gospel I do not want, nor want to see spread throughout the world--not to mention recovered in the SBC churches because his kind of good according to the court case is disgusting and appalling. May God have mercy on C.J.'s victims and may God expose him and all those who support him in his cover-up for what they truly are. selahV


They changed the statement without admitting it. And after the facebook fiasco with comments they deleted. The change is interesting since it DID sound like they were trying to make it look like people just did not like Mahaney's doctine.

Could these 'godly' men simply trash and disrespect victims of child molestation anymore to prop up one guy who built the PDI/SGM empire?

Mohler must be very secure in his position within the SBC to be this blatently obvious. That is all I can say.

I mean, what next? How low can they go? I am not so sure empty words from stages are going to work anymore.

David (NAS) Rogers

If anyone plans to question Dr. Mohler dierectly about the C. J. Mahaney matter at the SBC Convention, I hope they will wait until Wednesday June 12 at 9:50 am for his SBTS report. The question should be worded in a way so that it directly note any SBTS relationship or Dr. Mohler's role as an SBC figure with regard to Mahaney. Otherwise, there may be a high possibility that the question will be ruled out of order.

One should be familiar with Robert's Rules of Order and specific SBC bylaws that may be used to shield Mohler from having to address the matter. One should use the Point of Order method to ask the parliamentarian how the question which is worded in a way to the SBTS representative (Mohler) does not comply with the Procedures Bylaw 26. (C) which allows for the floor to discuss the entity (SBTS in this case).

Confronting Dr. Mohler at another time (e.g. June 11 at 10:20 am during the SBC Historical Library and Archives Report) may be more easily ruled out of order due to the fact that the entity being reported on is not as directly relevant to the Mahaney matter.

One needs to be highly skilled in parliamentary procedure in order to be heard because the Convention officials have shown immediate tendencies to re-direct away from touchy subjects through the use of technical rules of order/bylaws.


Peter, the link to the PDF T4G statement on Facebook still isn't working as of 11:44 pm ET, Sat, June 8.

peter lumpkins

Fixed the link to the original facebook post for T4G.


I am not suggesting this, per se, but in my view, the best way to bring this up is NOT to appear to be confronting Mohler, but confronting Mahaney.

When the SBTS report is given, someone might ask,

"Dr. Mohler, in light of events over the last several years regarding a small group of about 80 churches called "Sovereign Grace Ministries", which events include numerous published complaints regarding an abusive authoritarian structure under the leadership of Reverend C.J. Mahaney who claims Apostolic leadership in those churches, blackmail among the leadership, the improper handling of child abuse allegations, which was the subject of a recent lawsuit most of which has been dismissed solely because the complaintants waited too long to file, and the fact that several churches and thousands of people have recently left Sovereign Grace Ministries, can you assure Southern Baptists that Southern Seminary will have no official or unofficial affiliations with Reverend Mahaney (who has recently moved to Louisville) or Sovereign Grace Ministries, and that neither Rev. Mahaney nor Sovereign Grace Ministries will be used as speakers, lecturers, teachers at the seminary or models for Southern Baptist seminary students in our churches? If you cannot assure Southern Baptists of this, can you state what official or unofficial affiliations Southern plans to have with Reverend Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries.

Thank you.

peter lumpkins

Louis. Thanks. I like your suggestions very much.


Robert I Masters

1.Obviously this will be ruled out of order because this action can only be done by the SBTS board of trustees.

2. Some might consider lawyers ethically challenged when they encourage other messengers to act upon actions that they themselves are forbidden to act upon do to signed agreements from their church.

3. Will you be doing this for all the seminaries?Didnt C J Mahaney speak at Southeastern also?

Andrew Barker

Robert, bearing in mind that Peter is quite amenable, really, and given the hour at which you wrote your last entry, I can only assume that you weren't thinking properly. Might I suggest that you ask him nicely to remove it to save you any lasting embarrassment?


"3. Will you be doing this for all the seminaries?Didnt C J Mahaney speak at Southeastern also?"

He moved his operation to Louisville. Why? He said, "to be near the seminary".

Robert I Masters

Andrew Barker
I have no clue what embarrasment you are talking about..could you please enlighten me!

Andrew Barker

"Robert I Masters:
I have no clue what embarrasment you are talking about..could you please enlighten me!"

If I misread your comments, then the answer is probably "no"
If I understood your comments correctly, then the answer is also "no".

Was conference ever going to directly sanction Mohler for his support of Mahaney? Not likely!

Does the resolution on child abuse make any difference? We will have to wait and see how individual churches deal with it. Does it affect how those in leadership approach these issues? It certainly should, since it speaks to those who are "accused of child abuse". It will be difficult for any leader to blatantly ignore a conference resolution on this issue in quite the same way. At least that's my take on it. Obviously, I could be wrong on that too!


This whole good old boys network has been stinking to high heaven for ages. It's about time people start calling these liaisons into question. We are too quick to praise and too reluctant to offer honest critique or even rebuke. Those that aren't afraid to stick their necks out on things are summarily tarred and feathered by the sycophants (both clergy and laypeople) who think their favorite guy can never be wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.