CJ Mahaney posted a “A Word of Thanks” on the Sovereign Grace Ministries blog on March 8, 2013, in which he announced that he is stepping down as President of SGM to “once again devote my attention to pastoral ministry.” The change is effective in April 2013.
The SGM Board of Directors posted a response, also on March 8, saying in part, “As previously announced, C.J. will transition from his role as President on April 12 at the time of the polity ratification vote. Though no longer serving in this leadership capacity, we are grateful that C.J.’s influence and partnership do not end here. We share his joy in seeing him back regularly preaching and pastoring in Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville, and we look forward to benefitting from C.J.’s continued investment in the mission of SGM through his service there and in the larger body of Christ. Please join us in praying for C.J. and his family during this transition.”
On March 7, 2013 (or March 8 – the blog The Tolling Bell, “Prez PR vs Lawsuit News” contains both dates), Judge Sharon Burrell of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County – Civil System held a scheduling hearing for case number: 369721V, lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries. The Tolling Bell reports, “Here’s the link to MoCo, MD case information as found by Guy at SGMSurvivors (hats off to you). You will need to click the link twice – the 1st directs u to the main page where you need to agree to terms. Once done, click the link again and it will bring you to case 369721V. Basically – a 20 day jury trial on 2/3/2014.”
You may recall that Sovereign Grace Ministries asked to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming their actions were protected by the First Amendment. The results of the March 7 hearing is significant, according to Hännah of Wine and Marble, because it means the judge rejected this argument.
Thoughts:
- It is good that CJ will finally be stepping down.
- It is disturbing that CJ will continue in pastoral ministry.
- It is concerning that CJ appears in his letter to be doing so voluntarily. When he didn’t resign when the lawsuit was first filed, the SGM Board should have removed him. The fact that so much time has elapsed and he’s still supposedly leaving of his own accord reflects very poorly on the SGM Board of Directors as well as on CJ.
- It is significant that these two events occurred within 24 hours of one another. It appears to be an effort to direct public focus away from one news bomb (trial date set) to another (CJ’s resignation). If SGM had been conducting itself in a transparent and above-reproach manner, I’d be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If I trusted them, I’d be more willing to assume the best, that this finally seemed like the right time to “allow” CJ to leave. But they have obstructed and concealed the truth for so many years that I cannot trust them or give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s what happen when you violate trust. You lose the gift of “thinking the best.”
- The Board of SGM is going to have to work very hard to rebuild trust, and their handling of CJ’s leadership has done nothing to improve my perception.
What do you make of this?
The reason this court date is significant means that their appeal to have the case dismissed on the grounds of the first amendment was not upheld by the court.
Hännah recently posted..That still centre
I’m going to update the post with that. Thank you, Hännah.
You ladies are brilliant!
I agree with you for the most part. The timing is suspicious but perhaps better to give the benefit of the doubt.
A commenter at SGM Survivors who is an attorney stated this: t
The evidence required for a class action is the same for a jury trial as for a bench (non-jury) trial: typically the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that their allegations are true.
I have reviewed the docket and it does not appear that the court has heard the motions to dismiss. The folks here and on other linked web pages who are trying to find a dramatic connection between the last hearing and CJ’s departure are off-base; the hearing simply set the schedule for the case. It’s a perfectly routine and mundane administrative task — nothing exciting or illuminating. You would do well to quit trying to find a smoking guns where none exist.
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=4080&cp=1#comment-73932
“It is concerning that CJ appears in his letter to be doing so voluntarily.”
Not so. They run a business, not a church. Accepting resignations is common business practice to give the ‘retiring’ associate the appearance of dignity & to ensure they can still receive compensation packages.
Most of today’s modern churches (lets call them “man’s churches”, since the true church is you and me with Christ as our Shepherd…not a building) are 401(c)(3) business entities and run accordingly.
Is it right? I don’t think so…but its also very easy to remedy…walk out and stop tithing.
This is a topic that’s near to my heart… Many thanks! Where are your contact details though?