Push4cush

SGM

• As you are a party regarding this article, I would ask that you give a statement here. I am attempting some informal mediation, and I would ask that all parties be civil. The page has been fully protected for one week, in an attempt to solve this dispute. You can also post a message on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see you have added a statement to the page, but keep removing it. If its the page layout you're worried with, don't worry, I can fix that. Thanks for your statement. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is just a general note, I am going to be delivering my thoughts soon. It is not binding, nor will it be the end of discussion. It is my suggestion, I have spent a long time thinking about this, and have also received advice on this matter. I would ask that you consider my thoughts, and respond to them accordingly, please keep an open mind. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SGUncensored

Hi Push4cush. Thanks for your response on the discussion about SGM's wiki entry.

I have a sincere question for you: in your response, you stated "it's not necessarily unscriptural to warn people about those who engage in dangerous doctrines or practices. Otherwise, Paul really spoke out of turn in 2 Timothy 4:14. He doesn't indicate that he exhausted the Matt 18 process of confrontation before warning the recipients of his letter against him. There are other examples of this elsewhere. I'm not saying that the SGU blog rises to the import of Paul's epistles -- just that there is a place for warning others of practices that aren't in keeping with more acceptable expressions of biblical care." I wonder though, if Paul ever named someone's name and called them an evildoer without making known his own identity? To the point: I don't think that a group of people, anonymously citing specific names and churches and calling them cults, and accusing them of extreme wrongdoing (again, all anonymously) is biblical, or even ethical? How would you like it if one of your coworkers sent a letter to your boss, anonymously, and suggested you sexually assaulted them? I am not suggesting, by any means, that warning people in danger is wrong, I believe it is commanded in Scripture! But, I think we do so without hiding behind anonymity, especially when the stakes are so high (the accusations are extremely serious, and deserve to be legally confronted if true) as to discourage people from going to a SGM church, and also strongly encouraging members to leave their churches, even if they don't see anything wrong! I think another practice of "biblical care" is not causing others to stumble, and I wonder (I'm not accusing, but really wondering) whether anyone has stumbled as a result of reading this blog.

What are your thoughts?

Timothy6 20 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Timothy620,

I realized that my thoughts posted here are publicly available, so I have decided to redact them. Hopefully, you had an opportunity to read them before I did. If not, having read over your interactions with Wiki editors since Feb and your final comments, I realized you're quite entrenched in your views and probably not all that open to considering my perspective. I'm not trying to judge you, just be wise in what I share on this site.

If you copied my comments here, you do not have my permission to distribute them in any way (including, but not limited to, email, posting them on a website of any kind - blogs included).

Push4cush (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Hi there. I did read what you wrote and will likely respond on Monday, I try not to be on the computer too much on the weekends, spend more time with my family. I did copy it onto my computer, but just for the sake of readability. I'm not here to exploit you or anyone else; having read your story here and on the blog, I have a lot of compassion for you and would never mean you harm- so please understand I am not emailing your story to anyone, or posting it anywhere. I am very young, and am trying to both care for you and others who have been hurt (ok, I really do mean that. I totally understand that you may feel otherwise, but it is the truth), as well as trying to stand up for my "family of churches", as they are that, and I do believe (as you and others have admitted on the blog) that God is doing great things through SGM. I am really excited to be a part of that. I do appreciate your concerns, and though I haven't seen them, I have talked to my pastors and those way further up the "food chain", and am trying to do what I think honors God in fighting for justice, doing the right thing. I just don't think that that means abandoning SGM and warning others of it being a "cult". I also understand why you can't take the same position. You have been through more than I can imagine ever going through. I am really thankful that you haven't left the faith through it all, more than anything I thank God for that. But I also hope that there could be some reconciliation without resorting to all this mess. So, am I "entrenched in my views"? Maybe, but maybe I'm more open to considering your perspective than you think. You, Kris, and others all seem to me to be very smart and very thoughtful, I don't want to be dismissive with anything you have gone through. But please also understand why I can't just assume that what you say is true across the board (I'm not by any means calling into question the veracity of your stories), when I have seen so much that God is doing in my church and in many others that I have spent time in. Anyway, it's late and I'm babbling. I hope you have a good night and a great Lord's Day tomorrow.

Seeking for peace. Timothy6 20 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the heart you've shared here, and I will take you at your word that you do feel some compassion for those of us who have been seriously injured in SGM. But I'm curious about something. You said that you were "trying to both care for you and others who have been hurt ... as well as trying to stand up for my "family of churches" ..."

I'm wondering how you see yourself caring for those of us on the blog? I think your words in the Talk page have probably wounded those who came over and read the debate from the SGU site the deepest of any written ... and have been the most dismissive (my personal opinion from what I've read from others, in addition to what I experienced reading through the discussion).

I trust that you may not have intended to do that, but your incessant demand for evidence (that really isn't possible with spiritual abuse) and threat to "greatly protest" inclusion of the SGU link w/o the evidence you demand (even though it adds to what Wikipedia has required of us) do not communicate care. Even your moniker, which appears to be based on 1 Tim 6:20, seems to indicate that you don't even think that anyone who participates in the blog is a Christian - that we've "wandered from the faith."

Could you clarify these things? I'm not looking for heated debate. Really. I just think it might be helpful for you to realize that your incisive words may not be expressing the more compassionate, genuinely caring side of you. And I don't mean that sarcastically or condescendingly at all.

Blessings to you.

Push4cush (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Push4cush

Hi again, I posted my response on the talk page. Regarding my moniker, it's more a reminder for myself than an accusation against anyone. Timothy6 20 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Just a note, I have made a recommendation on the Sovereign Grace talk page, I recommend you review it. Please, I must stress, my recommendation is not binding, only the Arbitration Committee can make binding decisions. That said, I have done my best to make a fair recommendation, and I would like you to review this, and give your comments below my statement. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)