Panel Reports and Board's Response

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.



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.



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



1. Statement from the Review Panel facilitator

[ Embedded below]



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



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



2. Report on C.J. Mahaney's Fellowship

[ Embedded below]



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.



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



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.



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:



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).



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.



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



3. Report on Brent Detwiler's Dismissal from Grace

Community Church[Embedded below]



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



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.



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



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



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



• 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



4. Report on Larry Tomczak's Departure from Sovereign

Grace Ministries

[ Embedded below]



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.



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



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



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.



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



• 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



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



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



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."



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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.~.



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,



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.



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. 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.

Documents

Panel Reports and Board's Response