Todd Pruitt (from the Mortification of Spin and ACE) wrote an insightful article wherein he did not question Mahaney's pastoral credentials. He did question the wisdom of asking CJ to speak in light of the surrounding controversies revolving around Sovereign Grace ministries (which CJ helped found).
The clearest voice and best analysis of this saga was penned by Grace To You's. Phil Johnson (the original Pyromaniac). Phil's article reminded me that before we join a rebellion against a church leader we must evaluate the actual evidence properly. Failure to do so can wreck a lot of unnecessary hurt and havoc. In this vein I would encourage you to invest some time in ESPN's 30-30 documentary titled "Fantastic Lies." False accusations can quickly turn a crowd of interested and concerned people into an angry mob. Genuine abuse by unqualified pastors does happen (and when it happens it is a serious sin). The opposite is also true. Far too many qualified pastors have been abused and run out of town by uninformed mobs (see Pruitt's articles on Battered Pastors). Suffice it to say, we must be careful and cautious before drawing hard and fast conclusions concerning things like this. I wanted to include Pastor Phil's commentary below because he helps us to do just that:
"Lots of people have been asking my opinion about having CJ Mahaney as a headliner at T4G. Here's a longish summary of my answer:
In July of 2011 I started reading the original 600-page
Detweiler dump. Approximately 375 pages in, I gave up looking for anything
substantial. Everything Brent Detweiler complained about was petty and
personal: CJ Mahaney was too controlling; he wasn't transparent with his fellow
leaders; he didn't submit to the same accountability he demanded of them; he
was stubborn; he didn't listen to criticism; etc. I'm no defender of SGM's
continuationist doctrine or their philosophy of ministry. In fact, the Detweiler
documents left me with the impression that SGM is practically cultlike in the
ways they have tried to achieve "accountability" and
"transparency." (The accountability structures seem even worse than
the Roman Catholic confessional system.) But it deeply annoyed me and offended
me to read hundreds of pages of private emails in the Detweiler papers without
seeing any evidence of the kind of gross, deliberate wrongdoing that might
justify that style of public attack on a Christian leader's character and reputation.
Let's suppose all the things Detwieler complained about were
true. None of it was as bad as Detweiler's decision to trample the whole point
of 1 Timothy 5:19 in order to litigate his personal grievances against his boss
on the Internet. His airing of personal complaints against CJ to a worldwide
audience predictably unleashed a flood of gossip and speculation among people
who had no righteous involvement in any of the conflicts Detweiler described.
(See Proverbs 26:17.) It was a strategy whose main aim seemed to be to destroy
CJ's reputation.
Sometime much later (seems like it was almost 2 years
later), accusations began to surface that CJ Mahaney had actively participated
in a cover-up of several child-abuse incidents within SGM. Given my frustration
with the Detweiler documents, my inclination was to be highly skeptical of
these new accusations. The charges don't fit what I know of CJ Mahaney, and
(again, in opposition to 1 Timothy 5:19) the notion that Mahaney engineered a
cover-up conspiracy wasn't backed up with any real evidence. I still haven't
seen any damning emails or smoking guns implicating CJ himself. The only
"proof" seems to consist entirely of several people who say they are
pretty sure it's impossible that such things could occur in SGM without CJ's
knowledge and approval. Even if it's totally true that CJ's leadership style
would lend credibility to the charge, we are expressly forbidden to admit the
charge without actual evidence. Speculation and suspicions from someone who
can't possibly know what actually happened behind the scenes is not
evidence--no matter how many voices join in and echo the accusations.
On the other hand, I also disagree with the decision to
include CJ among the speakers at T4G2016. I was happy to see CJ in attendance
but not speaking at T4G2014. I don't see the wisdom in putting him on the
platform two years later when, if anything, the controversy that surrounds him
is more fierce than ever. Turning the T4G spotlight on CJ while such a scandal
is raging certainly doesn't help him, and it unnecessarily clouds the message
of T4G. I share all of Todd
Pruitt's concerns about that.
I'm considering this from a practical and personal perspective. If it turned out that two or three of my employees committed criminal child-abuse offenses in the course of their work under my oversight, even if I was totally ignorant of what was happening and personally innocent of any wrongdoing, I would nevertheless decline any outside speaking engagements until all questions about the matter were truly and sufficiently resolved. It would not be right to attach the scandal and reproach of a brewing conflict like that to any other organization. Passing up an opportunity to be a headliner at a big conference would especially seem an important way of countering the charges that a person lacks humility.
In CJ's case, as I understand it, some of the questions floating
around are still being litigated in the courts. I just don't see any good
reason to rush him back into such an important position of high visibility.
That's my perspective.
Still, I would not suggest that there are no difficulties
with the course of action I would have taken, either. At some point you have to
refuse to cater to the concerns of people who insist on accusing a man when
they can't possibly meet the simple biblical standard of evidence. So I do
sympathize with those who had to make the decision for this year's T4G, and the
fact that I would have chosen a different course of action does not in any way
diminish my respect for them."
