C.J.'s Convinced He's above Reproach and Fit to be President of SGM! Board Rejects Impartial, Just & Thorough Adjudication Process!

Tuesday

Oct112011

C.J.'s Convinced He's above Reproach and Fit to be President of SGM! Board Rejects Impartial, Just & Thorough Adjudication Process!

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:48PM

After three months of personal reflection and self-examination, C.J. is supremely confident he meets all the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and should therefore be reinstated as the President of Sovereign Grace Ministries. He has arrived at this conclusion before the Ambassadors of Reconciliation Group Reconciliation process has even begun. C.J. doesn’t need to take into consideration all the evidence that will be gathered over the next six months. The testimonies of hundreds of people won’t make any difference. The verdict is in. C.J. has pronounced himself fit and was ready to present his case before the adjudication panel.

This is remarkable and tragically the SGM Board is in complete agreement. I expect the Board will soon reinstate C.J. as President. He is already signing ordination certificates using the title of President.

In another major development, C.J. and the SGM Board forced upon me an “Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure” (see bottom of post) that was partial, unjust and contrary to every promise and commitment they made to me over the past year. I had to reject it. They also refused to consider my counter proposal for an impartial and just evaluation of C.J. and SGM. The corruption in SGM has reached new heights. I expect the SGM Board will emphasize my rejection of their proposal and not mention (or barely mention) their rejection of my proposal.

I anticipate a strong reaction against me from SGM much like their July 13 blog post, Sovereign Grace Ministries Board of Directors announcement regarding C.J. Mahaney. They will continue to disparage my documents but they will not provide open, honest and accountable answers. They will continue to distort the truth. They will spin, manipulate, and deceive. It breaks my heart. Things haven’t only gotten worse. The moral decline continues. Integrity has been tossed to the wind. C.J., Dave, and the SGM Board are unwilling to repent and acknowledge serious wrong doing on a wide scale basis.

Therefore, it is time for other former SGM pastors and leaders to go public. The Group Reconciliation process design by AoR and Sovereign Grace Ministries guarantees no transparency or accountability. At the end of the process, all evidence and all reporting go to the SGM Board alone. Nothing in the proposal obligates them to give an open and objective accounting of the evidence.

In a similar way, they’ve attempted to swear me to silence in an unjust adjudication process. And of course, they have sought to silence Joshua Harris in some significant way. In a nutshell, the SGM Board is committed to control the flow of all information.

Here is their basic strategy.

Defend and reinstate C.J. as President.
Acknowledge little or no wrong doing to the public.
Withhold indicting information or incriminating evidence from the SGM pastors and public.
Refuse to answer hard questions that hold them accountable.
Misrepresent the past two years.
Disparage credible people and vital evidence as gossip and slander.
Put forth a positive image of SGM.
Cut their losses, put things behind them, and move on.

Mediation broke down between C.J. and Joshua over issues of confidentially. Arbitration broke down between me and C.J. over issues including confidentiality. Group Reconciliation is breaking down over issues of confidentiality. People don’t want to participate knowing SGM can bury all the evidence. Folks realize the SGM Board has positioned itself to control all processes and the release of all information. Confidentiality is being used as a basis for concealment.

Things are bad! It is now time for people, pastors and churches to seriously consider whether they should leave Sovereign Grace Ministries.

The correspondence that follows outlines the critical events of recent days. I presented a summary above; here is the supporting evidence below.

Why I’m taking a leave of absence

July 6, 2011 by C.J. Mahaney

With a few potential exceptions, I will be taking a break from updating this blog for a while, and I want to share with you the reasons why and entreat you for your prayers while I am on leave.

Over the last few years some former pastors and leaders in Sovereign Grace have made charges against me and informed me about offenses they have with me as well as other leaders in Sovereign Grace. These charges are serious and they have been very grieving to read. These charges are not related to any immorality or financial impropriety, but this doesn’t minimize their serious nature, which include various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy.

I believe God is kindly disciplining me through this. I believe I have by the grace of God perceived a degree of my sin, and I have been grieved by my sin and its effects on others. I have had the opportunity to confess my sin to some of those affected in various ways by my sin. And I am so very grateful for their forgiveness. But I want to perceive and confess any and all sin I have committed. Although my experience of conviction has already started—and this is an evidence of God’s mercy—I’m sure there is more for me to perceive and acknowledge. Even with the charges I disagree with it has been beneficial to examine my soul and ask for the observation of others. And I am resolved to take responsibility for my sin and every way my leadership has been deficient, and this would include making any appropriate confessions, public or private. Most importantly I want to please God during this season of examination and evaluation.

So here is what I am going to do. I’ve asked to take a leave of absence in order to give time to considering these charges, examine my heart, and receive the appropriate help from others. With the guidance of the SGM board, I would also hope to pursue reconciliation with former pastors of Sovereign Grace during this leave. I have stepped off the board and I will not be the President of Sovereign Grace Ministries during this period of examination and evaluation. In order for me to receive an objective evaluation in relation to these charges the board is securing the help of a third-party ministry that has no history of relationship with SGM. With counsel from that ministry, the board will determine the appropriate steps I should take going forward. After processing these findings, the board will determine the appropriate steps I should take going forward. This leave of absence will also help remove any impediment to the panel’s exploration that could potentially arise if I remained in my current position, and it will enable me to fully cooperate in the process…

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:19 PM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert

Subject: Outside or Inside Evaluation?

It has been over three weeks since I wrote you and I’ve heard nothing regarding how you intend to proceed regarding arbitration.

Are you willing to secure outside arbitrators as promised? Are you willing to evaluate C.J. as promised? Are you willing to evaluate others like Dave, Bob and Gene as promised? Are you willing to evaluate Sovereign Grace Ministries as promised? Are you willing to publish an open report on all these findings as promised?

Or are you proceeding to use in-house evaluators including one Board Member, limit their evaluation of C.J. to whether he should be a Board Member, Chairman or President of SGM, forbid them from evaluating others in SGM, not have them evaluate SGM in general, and provide no open report to the members of SGM churches?

I’ve appealed for your repentance. I’ve asked the CLC pastors to appeal for your repentance also. What have you decided?

I have made no decision regarding my participation in arbitration. That decision awaits answers from you to these questions.

Sincerely,

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:29 PM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Cc: Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert

Subject: Next Step

To the SGM Board of Directors,

I was promised the opportunity to make my case against C.J. and Sovereign Grace Ministries. I would like to proceed immediately.

As previously stated, I plan to call 25 people in witness again C.J. and SGM. I ask that all their travel expenses be covered by SGM.

I first expressed an interest in arbitration/adjudication on July 14 with Ted Kober. I’ve not heard from him since regarding this matter.

Like everyone else, I read about the recommendations of Ambassadors of Reconciliation when their Consultation Report was posted on the SGM website on August 25. I’ve not been part of any dialogue. On that post, Dave Harvey said, “We plan on following their recommendations in full.” I’ve also heard nothing from the SGM Board since the report was issued and accepted. That is almost 6 weeks ago.

This causes me to question your sincerity and wonder about your intentions. Therefore I must ask. Do you plan to follow through on all your promises to secure an open and thorough evaluation of Sovereign Grace Ministries by an outside, third party, no history with SGM, group of objective evaluators? Or do you plan to break your promises and impose a highly contained and minimalistic evaluation that is done by people belonging to SGM?

I am prepared to start my presentation today. I suspect it will take three weeks (or 120 hours) to present all my evidence in a condensed fashion. I’d plan on another three weeks to present evidence put forth by 25 other witnesses. Please don’t be negligent and let this drag out any further. We should schedule three weeks during October-December and three weeks during January-February.

I expect to hear back from you within the week.

Sincerely,

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1:43 PM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Subject: RE: Next Step

After writing and sending the email [above] I received correspondence from Bryce Thomas who is the proposed facilitator from AoR. Attached to it was the Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure document signed by Dave [Harvey] and Tommy [Hill]. I have not read it and I will not consider its contents until I get clear answers to my questions and the proposal below. Here’s what I need to know. Are you going to follow through on your previous commitments or do you plan to break them? I sent you my blog post from August 26, “Promises Were Meant to be Broken.” In typical fashion, you provided no response, thereby putting yourself above accountability. What are you going to do?

Furthermore, when I talked with Mickey [Connolly] on August 24, I told him that you, the SGM Board, did not include me in any discussions regarding arbitration and did not respond to any of my earlier proposals regarding the same. And since talking to Mickey, six weeks ago, you have continued to cut me out of all negotiations or any kind of interaction. Therefore all the arrangements, decisions, and determinations for arbitration/adjudication have been unilaterally made by you and imposed upon me without any consultation or consideration.

Therefore, I hope this document signed by Dave and Tommy is not another iron fisted attempt to impose a heavy handed, unjust, reductionistic process upon me that is contrary to every promise made in the past. I pray to God this is not another expression of your manipulation, lording, control, and deceit.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:47 PM

To: Mickey Connolly

Cc: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert; Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas

Subject: RE: Next Step

To the Sovereign Grace Board,

Mickey says “I am sorry you have chosen not to take my call.” Honestly, that is a pathetic and totally irrelevant response. He should be saying, “I am sorry we have not answered any of your questions, have not invited you into the process, broken all our promises, and are forcing an partial and unjust process upon you.”

When will the manipulation and domineering stop? Each day you become more despotic.

I will make a decision regarding adjudication when you answer my questions and respond to my proposals. For months you have totally and completely ignored every attempt by me to interact over the terms and conditions put into place for evaluation and adjudication. I talked to Mickey about this very issue on August 24. No matter…you don’t respond. You are totally indifferent. You totally ignore me. Conversations like the one with Mickey are meaningless. They are just water off a duck’s back. And inevitably, I find out later how you use them for public relations ploys that are deceptive.

It comes down to this.

Are you going to continue to be evasive and unaccountable and refuse to answer me?
Are you going to violate all your previous commitments?
Are you going reject all my proposals without any interaction?
Are you going to shove a proposal down my throat which is blatantly partial, unfair, limited in scope, subjugates evidence, provides no definitive accountability for the SGM Board, and promises no open, honest, and thorough reporting of findings to the SGM pastors and churches?

The ball is in your court, not my court. Whether I participate is up to you. You can change your ways or you can continue to bully. As I’ve said before, “I have made no decision regarding my participation in arbitration. That decision awaits answers from you to these questions.” I hope you will stop being manipulative. Instead, follow through on your previous commitments. If you do, we can put a process together that is just. So stop trying to force me into subservience by saying, “I want you to know that if you decline there will be no alternative plans offered.” The plan you offered is a terrible plan, a self-serving plan, a plan contrary to all previous commitments, and a plan we have never discussed. Don’t be so arrogant. Let’s create a just plan by working together and going back to original agreements.

Brent

From: Dave Harvey

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 5:59 PM

To: Brent Detwiler; Mickey Connolly

Cc: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert; Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas

Subject: RE: Next Step

Hi Brent. Hope you are enjoying God’s grace today.

I trust this perspective will help you understand the ‘how’ and ‘why’ in the steps we are taking. When we contacted Ambassadors of Reconciliation, we were acknowledging that, for many reasons, our efforts at creating a process that would afford both you and CJ a fair hearing had been unsuccessful. We thought it best for you, CJ and SGM that we involve an outside, impartial ministry to help us create a fair process to evaluate your concerns. From the first time we talked with Ted Kober, he expressed an intention of fully engaging you even as he helped us create a process to fairly adjudicate the charges you brought against CJ.

Brent, you may not recall that after talking with Ted, you informed us that we could continue with our plans but that you would not be participating – you indicated that you would only interact with Ted via email. Nevertheless, we continued to work with AOR to develop a process that would be fair in the hope that you might change your mind. In developing the process, Ted Kober recommended Bryce Thompson as the facilitator and Bryce has now taken on the oversight of the process. Also, the adjudication process now established is in keeping with the protocol that many church bodies have adopted when a senior leader is accused of wrongdoing. We’re very grateful it is now available to all of us and we really hope you will use it in resolving your concerns for CJ.

Please remember as you continue to express your disquiet over this process that we have encouraged you to communicate your concerns to Ted, and now, we’d encourage you to speak with Bryce.

In Grace,

Dave

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 9:10 PM

To: Dave Harvey; Mickey Connolly

Subject: RE: Next Step

Dave, you are completely mistaken and that is easy to establish. You totally misrepresent the facts. I don’t know if that is due to deceit, or incompetence, or a combination of the two; but it is most certainly the case. This is a predictable pattern for you. It has happened time and time again over the last two years. You make claims, assertions, or charges but you never provide any evidence to back them up. You constantly distort the truth. As a part of the evaluation promised me, I want to present a large body of material regarding you to a fair and impartial group of evaluators. You must be assessed. Your fitness for ministry must be reviewed. There is a mountain of evidence that must be evaluated because I have found you extremely manipulative and repeatedly deceitful.

Back to the main point. My August 12 email below is the only time I referenced limiting my participation to email. Read it in context. It was written after Ambassadors of Reconciliation agreed to be involved. I was raising the issue of conditions once again. Neither the SGM Board or Ted Kober ever responded to this inquiry or any of my other inquires, comments or proposals regarding conditions. You avoided all such discussion and cut me out of process entirely. I never removed myself from the process. Your claim is bogus.

Let me reiterate. Your recollection and reconstruction is entirely errant. It is true revisionism and that is easy to prove. The facts are blatantly obvious. You have acted in this manner so many times. You need to take responsibility for your dereliction or duplicity but you cannot unilaterally impose upon me a process that is unjust, partial and contrary to all your commitments and then exonerate yourself and blame me for your self-serving proposal. Minimally, you need to acknowledge you have dropped the ball and handled the situation with great ineptitude and start over by negotiating with me rather than imposing upon me a fiat that is abusive. If you were really interested in my participation you would have sought my counsel and worked with me rather than exclusively apart from me.

I copied this August 12 email to Ted. I never heard from him. If Ted “expressed an intention of fully engaging” me from the beginning then he failed miserably. He was supposed to be operating independently and looking out for the interest of both parties. He has not looked out for my interest. I talked to him once on July 14 and the last I heard from him was on July 21 when he said “At this time, we have not agreed to provide mediation services for you and SGM. If mediation is provided, such a provision may be negotiable” [i.e. digital recording of conversations]. That’s it. I never heard from him after July 21 even though I have copied him on all my correspondence.

The truth be told I was never part of the equation. You and Ted crafted a proposal without any involvement by me and without due consideration of the conditions I put forward. AOR has been negligent. And worse, from my vantage point, it appears they have been biased.

So are you going to manipulate? Are you going to bully? Are you going to distort the truth? Are you going to blame me for your errors? Are you going to break all your commitments? Are you going to deceive? Are you going to pressure?

Dave, you need to start over and talk to me for the first time about a just and impartial proposal rather than impose upon me a proposal that violates all your previous commitments to be equitable, accountable and sweeping in securing an outside evaluation of SGM. What is it? The pursuit of truth and impartiality? Or more authoritarianism and cronyism?

Don’t ignore this. Don’t pass me off to Bryce Thomas. Don’t play dodge ball. Be accountable for a change. The ball is in your court. I expect answers and I hope for a just process that we work out together.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:55 AM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Cc: Ted Kober

Subject: Participation

Just a reminder of the conditions I’ve set forth regarding my participation in mediation/arbitration. If not met, I will limit my participation to email interaction with Ted regarding my documents. I have been taken advantage of so many times in the past. Therefore, these conditions are necessary.

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:45 AM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Cc: Ken Sande; Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert;

Subject: Suggested Proposal for Just, Impartial and Thorough Evaluation of C.J. and SGM

I formally request the following proposal be adopted by the SGM Board. If any parts of this proposal are unacceptable, please provide the reasons why and offer alternatives.

Sincerely,

Brent

A Suggested Proposal for an Impartial, Just, and Thorough Evaluation of C.J. and Sovereign Grace Ministries

Ken Sande serves as facilitator for the evaluation process.
Ken selects three judges or lawyers and two pastors who are evangelical believers and highly respected with little or no knowledge of SGM to serve as the evaluators.
This five man panel will hear evidence for and against C.J. and SGM. They will post a summary of the evidence and give their legal/pastoral opinion as to C.J.’s fitness and the fitness of other leaders like Dave [Harvey], Steve [Shank] Bob [Kauflin] and Gene [Emerson]. They are also welcome to post their assessment of me.
C.J. and I will negotiate the terms and conditions with Ken for this thorough going evaluation of SGM and its agents.
If necessary, Ken will serve outside of his official capacity as President of Peacemakers if the terms and conditions of the agreement do not meet, or differ with, the specifications of Peacemakers and thereby prevent his official involvement. In such case, he will act as a qualified believer.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:24 AM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert

Subject: FW: Sovereign Grace Ministries Group Reconciliation

Dave,

I have already done a two hour interview with Ted Kober on July 14. During that time I outlined all my concerns for C.J. and SGM which included lying, deceit, manipulation, lording, hypocrisy, sinful judging, no due process when evaluating, favoritism, etc. I also directed him to my Facebook page, my blog (BrentDetwiler.com), provided him all my documents, and copied him on all relevant correspondence to the present. Therefore, no need exists for another interview. I will, however, listen to the “Getting to the Heart of the Conflict” seminar online.

Mostly, I will be praying that you and the SGM Board repent and pursue a fair, impartial, and thorough evaluation of SGM with published results as promised me by outside evaluators.

Sincerely,

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:35 AM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Subject: Truth or Consequences

If you don’t allow me to make my case against C.J./SGM with the help of witnesses before an objective panel of evaluators in an open and thorough going manner as previously promised then we need not proceed any further. The AoR [adjudication] proposal is unacceptable because it violates all these conditions. It is lame, parochial, and partial. You must choose. You either carry out your former commitments or you break them. I am not going to be manipulated.

Dave, Steve, Bob and Gene need to be assessed as do others. I have brought serious charges against them. So have others. Churches have come apart because of them. Leaders have been ruined by them. Large numbers of people harmed by them. Nevertheless, C.J. defends these men and accuses me of wrongly implicating them.

Along with C.J., these men must be evaluated by an outside panel because SGM has repeatedly shown itself to be biased, play favorites, and act unjustly. For example, it is laughable that a SGM Board Member will be planted on the evaluation panel when that person has already stated C.J. is above reproach and fully qualified for ministry based upon their review of all my evidence. That’s a very serious crime in the court system. It is called jury tampering. If you tried to pull that off in a trial you would go to jail.

If you don’t immediately repent and agree to your previous promises, I will present my evidence to the Body of Christ like I was forced to do with C.J. because of his/your obstinacy, deception, and corruption. Nothing has changed. I see no fruit of repentance. You continue to game the system. You gave me a deadline of October 10. I’ve already answered. The AoR proposal is unacceptable. Now, you have the same deadline. Are you going to do what is right or continue your Chicago style politics? I await an answer on, or by, Monday.

Sincerely,

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:20 PM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Subject: RE: Truth or Consequences

I am pursuing former pastors and leaders, who have, or may have, an interest in testifying as part of the adjudication process between me and C.J./SGM. The calling of witnesses was promised to me by the SGM Board. It must be an integral part of the hearings. Many of these men have already agreed to participate and find it a much more promising venue than the Group Reconciliation process with which they have numerous concerns. I pray you will walk in the light and not forbid their testimony by whatever kind of crafty reasoning or maneuvering.

From: C.J. Mahaney

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:11 PM

To: Bryce Thomas

Cc: Brent Detwiler

Subject: Adjudication

Dear Bryce,

Thanks for making time to speak with me today.

I have no further questions and I am satisfied with the process approved by the SGM Board. I am willing to submit to this procedure as a means of dissolving the dispute raised by Brent Detwiler.

Attached is a copy of the signed agreement.

Thanks,

C.J.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:28 PM

To: C.J. Mahaney; Bryce Thomas

Cc: Ken Sande; Edgar Keinath; Ted Kober; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert

Subject: RE: Adjudication

What dispute did I raise? I don’t know you what you have in mind. Please provide supporting documentation.

From: Bryce Thomas

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 6:07 PM

To: Brent Detwiler

Subject: Re: Truth or Consequences

Mr. Brent Detwiler,

I have received this email by copy. I understand your last paragraph to mean that you are not going to agree to the adjudication and adjudication procedure approved by the SGM Board and forwarded to you this past Monday. I also understand you have until this Monday, 10/10 to decide.

I may not be accessible on Monday as I have a hearing in court. I am not sure when I will be available during the day should you have any questions. If you do have anything you would like to ask or discuss with me, I should be available in any event after 5 pm (although I may get out of court sooner). And I should be home all weekend. Feel free to call or email me.

But to be sure I have understood you correctly and just assuming something, are you saying you do not intend to agree to this procedure and participate in this proposed adjudication?

Blessings,

Bryce Thomas

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 9:05 AM

To: Bryce Thomas

Subject: Questions

Hello Bryce

I could change my mind. I’ll give you a final answer on Monday. Here are a few questions for you.

How many witnesses may I call? I’ve asked for 25.
Is there any time limit on the length of the adjudication process? I’ve asked for 6 weeks.
Will the proceedings be recorded? I’ve asked for a reliable record.
May this recording be shared with the public? I’ve asked for open court proceedings.
Will the panel produce a summary of the evidence for the public? I’ve asked for public accountability.
Will the panel write up their individual findings/opinions for the public? I’ve asked for individual accountability.
Will I be able to present evidence against other agents of SGM who worked for C.J. and followed his injurious counsel? I’ve asked for this also.
Please define the “dispute” C.J. references in his email below. This is new terminology.

Thanks so much for your assistance.

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 9:49 AM

To: C. J. Mahaney; C. J. Mahaney

Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Ken Sande; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Joshua Harris; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell

Subject: Personal Appeal to C.J.

Importance: High

C.J., would you please change your mind and accept this proposal, or some similar proposal, we can work out together that incorporates your previous desires for impartiality, accountability, and thoroughness? Please provide me an answer. Please respond to this appeal. Please say “yes.”

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:51 AMT

To: Bryce Thomas

Subject: What Dispute?

Bryce,

It appears C.J. will not supply me an answer.

Here are the facts. C.J. has never disputed my claim that he should not be the President of SGM. I’ve asked him several times about this moot point. He has never responded. I cannot possibly consider adjudication if he does not offer a disputation. Would you please ask him to formally outline the content of his dispute and its basis in reason and fact. I need to have a basic understanding of his position.

Thank you,

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 12:56 PM

To: Bryce Thomas

Subject: Crucial Questions

Hi Bryce,

Thanks for the answer you have already provided. Here is one more and a follow up.

Part of the problem is the fact I’ve had no say whatsoever as to the terms of the “Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure.” I’ve not heard from Ted Kober since July 21. Therefore, this procedure was put upon me by the SGM Board without any discussion regarding it tenets.

I’d like to follow up on C.J.’s response to you. I know you are trying to get an answer from him. Here is the opening sentence of the procedure.

C.J. responded to you in the following fashion.

From: Nora Earles [C.J. Mahaney]

Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:11 PM

To: Bryce Thomas

Cc: Brent Detwiler

Subject: Adjudication

Dear Bryce,

Thanks for making time to speak with me today.

I have no further questions and I am satisfied with the process approved by the SGM Board. I am willing to submit to this procedure as a means of dissolving the dispute raised by Brent Detwiler.

Attached is a copy of the signed agreement.

Thanks,

C.J.

I’ve asked C.J. many times if he feels qualified to serve on the SGM Board of Directors and whether or not he considers himself above reproach according to 1 Timothy 3:1 and blameless according to Titus 1:6. He has refused to answer these questions.

This statement by C.J. brings out into the open his self-assessment based upon the self-evaluation he has been doing since his leave of absence on July 6. I take it to mean he feels fully qualified to serve as the President, Chairman or a Board Member and considers himself above reproach, blameless and fully fit for Christian ministry. As a consequence, he plans to argue against my “dispute” that he is currently unqualified.

I must register another major concern. Group Reconciliation (GR) has not even started. It may take 6 months to complete. It is incomprehensible that C.J. would proclaim himself qualified for ministry before hearing all the complaints against him that will arise in the process.

Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that C.J. wants to begin arguing against me and start defending himself before weighing all the accusations people are about to make against him.

Lastly, I don’t understand why in the world the SGM Board is pressing me to begin the adjudication procedure immediately. It should wait until the Group Reconciliation is over. As a result of GR, the SGM Board may feel compelled to fire C.J. based upon all the evidence that is presented. And if there is an adjudication hearing to follow between C.J. and I, all the evidence from the GR should be supplied to me.

I also need to raise another crucial issue. We read the following in the AoR Consultation Report on page 19 from August 20.

4. Thus, the issues to be decided should be limited to the following:

a. Should C.J. Mahaney be allowed to continue serving as President of SGM, or should he be removed from his position as President?

b. Should C.J. Mahaney be allowed to continue serving as Chairman of the SGM Board of Directors, or should he be removed from his position as Chairman?

c. Should C.J. Mahaney be allowed to continue serving as a member of the SGM Board of Directors, orshould he he be removed from serving as a member of the SGM Board?

Now I read the following in the Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure from October 1 (paragraph 7). Take note that point 4 c. regarding C.J.’s role as a member of the SGM Board has been removed as an issue.

The issue to be determined by this adjudication panel is:

Is CI Mahaney disqualified from serving Sovereign Grace Ministries Inc. as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors based on the criteria listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9?

This removal is in complete contradiction to what the SGM Board said in response to the Consultation Report on August 25 when they publicly agreed to follow all the recommendations in full. Instead they have left out a crucial ingredient; whether C.J. is qualified to serve on the Board of Directors in any capacity. You can see their embrace of all recommendations on the SGM blog, “The consultation report from Ambassadors of Reconciliation,” August 25, 2011 by Dave Harvey.

Today we received the consultation report from Ambassadors of Reconciliation. It includes three areas where they and others will be involved in helping us:

1. Adjudication of allegations against C.J. Mahaney

2. Group reconciliation with others who have offenses

3. Follow-up consultation and recommendations

We plan on following their recommendations in full. The document is very thorough so for the most part I’ll leave you to review it and ask any clarifying questions.

Two requests in conclusion. First, would you continue following up with C.J. to confirm he plans to argue he is fully qualified for ministry and above reproach/blameless? And second, would you please find out why the SGM Board excluded from the Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure, this recommendation from the Consultation Report, “Should C.J. Mahaney be allowed to continue serving as a member of the SGM Board of Directors, or should he be removed from serving as a member of the SGM Board? C.J. should not a Board Member, President or Chairman.

Thanks for your assistance Bryce,

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 6:52 PM

To: Bryce Thomas

Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

Importance: High

Did you receive the email [above]? If so, what did C.J. say when you followed up with him? What did Dave say about removing “Should C.J. Mahaney be allowed to continue serving as a member of the SGM Board of Directors, or should he be removed from serving as a member of the SGM Board?” from the adjudication procedure? Were you able to contact both men? Did they supply you answers?

Thanks

Brent

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 8:14 PM

To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Subject: Crucial Questions

I sent this “Crucial Questions” email [above] to Bryce Thomas today. He was not able to answer my questions and directed me back to you. Please read it first and then I have some simple questions at the end.

Crucial Questions

C.J., have you concluded you are above reproach and therefore qualified to serve on the Board of Directors?
C.J., do you plan to argue this position during the adjudication hearing?
C.J., are you willing to postpone such a hearing until the Group Reconciliation process is over?
Dave, is the Board willing to postpone the adjudication hearing until the GR process is over?
Dave, have you accepted or rejected my counter proposal whereby Ken Sande serves as facilitator in an adjudication hearing empaneled by impartial and outside evaluators. I’ve also allowed for alternative suggestions to parts of my proposal
Dave, why did you remove “Should C.J. Mahaney be allowed to continue serving as a member of the SGM Board of Directors, or should he be removed from serving as a member of the SGM Board?” This must be included. Why was it excluded? Its removal means I could win my case against C.J. but he could still serve as a Board Member. Are you going to live up to your public commitment to accept in full all the AoR recommendations or break your word and remove this critical clause?

Tomorrow is the deadline for all of us. I can’t comply until I get answers with these questions. Once I receive them, I will give you my final answer regarding the acceptance or rejection of your Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure proposal.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 11:54 AM

To: C. J. Mahaney

Subject: FW: Crucial Questions

I hope you will provide me some honest answers today [C.J. never responded]. Your answers (or the lack thereof) will have a major bearing on how I proceed. I need to hear from you today since today is the deadline you imposed upon me for an answer regarding adjudication.

Thanks,

Brent

From: Dave Harvey

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:45 PM

To: Brent Detwiler; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

Hi Brent, hope you are enjoying God’s amazing grace today.

I’m very sorry that you appear disinclined to accept the adjudication procedure developed through the leadership of Ambassadors of Reconciliation. We had hoped that offering you and CJ a hearing with a blind-drawn panel would have been acceptable to you. But in the few hours before your final decision, I wanted to take a few minutes to remind you of how we arrived here. I think that will help you understand why this is our final offer of adjudication.

For many months prior to the release of your documents CJ appealed to you to meet with him and discuss your offenses. When you refused those offers unless CJ met your subjective and preferential demands, CJ and the Sovereign Grace board offered to find a mutually acceptable mediator to help you resolve your differences. At that time you insisted that CJ engage you only in writing via email. CJ complied with your demand, and, after reading your first two documents, he offered you two written confessions of sins committed against you. (These were confessions to personal and relational sins.) CJ did not agree with many of your accusations, nor did he agree with the narrative that you developed about his character and the character of other leaders in Sovereign Grace. But he did hope that through his good faith effort, God would be pleased and that you would be willing to meet with him through the assistance of a mediator.

This year, we again appealed for mediation. You rejected our appeal and specifically told us that you could not accept Ken Sande because of his deep history of involvement with Sovereign Grace. Ken later agreed that he was unsuitable--he did not think he could offer Peacemaker Ministries to help with this dispute. So Ken recommended a number of other mediation/adjudication ministries that would share our evangelical values. We chose Ambassadors of Reconciliation because they came highly recommended by Ken and they had no history with us. CJ chose to take a leave of absence from the board and his role as president of Sovereign Grace so that we could demonstrate to you and to our member churches that we wanted to provide you a fair and just process – a process where CJ would have no opportunity to influence the plan, the adjudication or the results. It was only after the decision on the leave of absence was made that we discovered from leaders around the country that a leave of absence under these circumstances was both unusual and inadvisable because it implied complete culpability. We now regret the leave of absence, but we still remained determined to provide a just process.

Ted Kober, President of AoR met with us and recommended a two-fold plan that would (a) provide you and CJ with a fair hearing and (b) offer an opportunity for other people who had concerns or offenses with Sovereign Grace to speak with a neutral third party where their concerns would be processed by AOR to help shape AOR’s recommendations for necessary changes in SGM. You may recall that subsequent to talking with us, Ted had a two hour phone conversation with you. After this call you wrote to Ted and rejected our offer of adjudication saying that you would continue to correspond with Ted via email and continue to write about us. But you did not want to participate in Ted’s proposed plan.

Nevertheless, under the guidance of Ted a process of adjudication was developed that would provide a fair hearing. We all hoped that you might change your mind and participate in an adjudicatory process. Ted then recommended Bryce Thomas as the facilitator. As you know, Bryce has a long history as a respected attorney and left his practice to help churches and groups pursue peace. Prior to being contacted by Ted, Bryce had no knowledge of CJ and no knowledge of Sovereign Grace Ministries. Based upon Ted’s input and Bryce’s guidance, a process was finalized that was in keeping with standard procedures for such matters and that complied with standards of fairness and impartiality that AOR and Bryce require in all of their dealings. This process actually arrived at advocates the use SGM sr. pastors on the panel, the very pastors you sent all of your documents to, presumably in your effort to hold CJ accountable.

Bryce sent you this proposal on October 3 and asked you to respond regarding your willingness to participate by today, October 10. During the past week you have sent us emails attacking our credibility and the credibility of our plan. You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries.

Along with these e-mails, you suggested a different proposal to have Ken Sande facilitate an adjudication process with a five member panel comprised of three judges and/or attorneys and two pastors who are not a part of Sovereign Grace. This is confusing since you had already refused Ken’s participation in such a process and Ken had already recused himself and recommended other ministries to serve, which is how we ended up with AOR.

Brent, we believe the efforts of AOR and the SGM board to provide you the offer of a fair hearing for your charges have been fair, well-intended, and thorough. The SGM board has tried to talk with you through a variety of contexts for 18 months with the goal of giving both you and CJ a just context to explore your charges. Your response has been to slander CJ and Sovereign Grace through publishing your accusations on the Web and through continuing to publish our private correspondence. You have vilified CJ and Sovereign Grace publicly even as we have made little public comment on the content of your accusations or of your unrighteous practice of discrediting us. We wanted to protect the process by not trying the case in public.

This brings us to today. If we do not hear that you accept the offer of adjudication with the plan developed by Bryce Thomas by 5:00 PM today, we will conclude you remain uninterested and consider our attempts to seek reconciliation with you as declined.

Brent, we do pray for you and we continue to hope for reconciliation in the future.

Sincerely,

Dave

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:56 PM

To: Dave Harvey; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris

Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

A few brief comments for now. I am heading out the door to celebrate our 30^th anniversary.

You are factually wrong about many things. Your response is full of SGM spin which has come to define you as a Board of Directors. This is not hard to show if anyone is willing to study the evidence.

I never rejected Ted’s offer for adjudication. The only adjudication proposal to reject was put forth just last week.

Asking Ken to serve now as an advisory for adjudication is very different from the proposal for his involvement in the past. And so what…things can change. Don’t throw him under the bus. Anyway, he favors you. Use him rather than posit dumb excuses.

I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything. What an absurd accusation.

I have not vilified you. I have simply pointed out the facts in public after years of cover-up and stiff neckedness. I never desired to do so. But you broke all your promises and thereby “vilified” yourself.

You know I’ve been eager to meet from the time I sent you RRF&D on March 17, 2010. You have always concealed this fact and never conveyed this to the SGM pastors, churches or public. It is one of your many cons.

C.J.’s responses were extremely partial. You and he violated your word to provide honest and thorough responses to RRF&D, AFA, and CR. If you had followed through on your promises we would have met long, long ago. Further, you never agreed that C.J. need to make a public confession.

You have not answered any of my crucial questions. Now or in the past. Your lack of accountability and evasiveness has permeated the process over the last 19 months.

You have rejected without comment my counter proposal which is genuinely fair, just and impartial. In so doing, you have violated your many promises and commitments including the use of a non SGM panel for the evaluation.

You have forced upon me an adjudication procedure without any discussion or negotiation. You remain dogged and unwilling to consider any alternatives.

Time and time again, I’ve asked you to correct anything I’ve written and I’ve asked you defend yourself against any misrepresentation. I’ve begged for these two things. Nevertheless, you have never provided me any correction or defense except those few I included in The Documents. If you now attack me in public without offering any input in private you show yourself to be great hypocrites. I’ve given you every chance in the world to be honest with me. If you are now “honest” in public (on how patient you’ve been) without any opportunity to hear you in private, you show your true motives and intentions if you don’t allow me to correct myself or respond to your criticism. If you do this it is another expression deceit and manipulation.

There is much more to say. You have rejected my proposal for adjudication. You have forced upon me your proposal for adjudication. I cannot accept it. C.J considers himself above reproach in spite of all the past evidence and before all the new evidence from the Group Reconciliation Interviews has been gathered. You support this incompressible act of indifference and arrogance. With your full support, C.J. is now bound and determined to fight. He stoutly believes he is above reproach/blameless and must argue for his position as President of SGM.

Brothers, your arrogance, deceit, and manipulation is destroying Sovereign Grace Ministries. You don’t listen to hundreds/thousands of witnesses against you. You don’t confess any serious sins to SGM. You make no public restitution. You try to finagle and talk your way out of this mess. I hope you repent instead.

Brent

Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure

October 1, 2011

This is the Adjudication and Adjudication Procedure to be used in the dispute involving the issue raised by Brent Detwiler challenging C.J. Mahaney as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Sovereign Grace Ministries, Inc. The intent and purpose of this adjudication and adjudication procedure are to provide a Christian, Biblical process which seeks to resolve and/or reconcile this issue, that is just, fair, and grace-filled, and which glorifies God, serves the parties, Sovereign Grace Ministries, the member churches within Sovereign Grace Ministries, the Body of Christ, and all affected.

The following shall constitute the procedure to be followed in the current dispute:

1) The Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation (hereafter referred to as RPCC) of the Institute For Christian Conciliation, a division of Peacemaker Ministries of Billings, MT shall be applied unless other provisions are included within this document, in which case they will supplement (if no contradiction between them) or supersede (if there is contradiction between them).

2) In keeping with these RPCC, the term and position "Facilitator" shall be defined herein, but shallalso be considered as the "Administrator" as used in these RPCC, beginning with Rule 2 and following. In other words, the facilitator shall include the duties, responsibilities and authority of the administrator. However, the role of facilitator shall be broader than the duties, responsibilities and authority of administrator, as will be later discussed herein. This supplements and supersedes Rules 2, 3, & 5.

3) Duties of facilitator include:

To ensure that this process is fair, balanced and impartial in keeping with the intent and purpose indicated above, and thus the facilitator shall have the ability to make decisions or rulings consistent with this; to facilitate the conduct of this adjudication and being responsible as facilitator in establishing a time and place for the hearing; coordinating any witness presentations of information concerning the issues involved in this adjudication; coordinating the presentation of any additional information such as documents; assisting the parties in presenting their information or testimony; conducting any meeting with the parties to discuss how the process will go and learn what their needs are to properly prepare and present any testimony or information during the hearing; to assist as a nonvoting chairman of the panel (that is, it is the panel of 5 who decides the issue before it) in reducing to writing a decision in response to the issue before them and giving a reasoned decision, which simply means giving not only the decision but the reasoning leading to the decision. It is not the role or responsibility of the nonvoting facilitator to make this decision or participate in the decision-making relating to the issues involved in this adjudication. However, it is the responsibility of the facilitator to assist the panel on questions of procedure, their responsibility under this process, how they are to carry out their responsibility, and may include a review of the written decision to ensure it constitutes in form a proper reasoned decision which provides the Board of Directors with sufficient information to determine the appropriate remedy(ies) or action to be taken based on the decision of the panel. This supplements and supersedes Rules 2, 3, & 5.

4) Although the procedure is voluntary under Rule 3 B., Sovereign Grace Ministries elects to use it and thus this shall be the exclusive method of resolving and/or reconciling this dispute.

5) The facilitator for this adjudication is Bryce Thomas of Hickory, North Carolina. This facilitator is a Certified Christian Conciliator who is not a member of Sovereign Grace Ministries nor of any church or congregation which is part of the association of churches connected with Sovereign Grace Ministries and thus is an independent third party to the parties and Sovereign Grace Ministries; this facilitator possesses expertise in Christian-based adjudication and arbitration with actual experience in teaching, training, and arbitrating such matters using the "Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation" of the Institute for Christian Conciliation of Peacemaker Ministries, Billings, MT. It shall be the responsibility of Sovereign Grace Ministries to pay the costs and expenses of the facilitator and of this process and not that of either party. This provision for payment of the costs and expenses supersedes Rules 8 & 9.

6) onstitution of the Panel re Rule 26:

a. A panel of 5 (4 non board members and 1 board member) shall constitute the adjudication panel which decides the issue presented in this dispute.

b. Panel of 4 selection:

1. Three regions of approximately comparable size shall be created from the existing 8 geographical regions of Sovereign Grace member churches. The facilitator shall approve the determination of these 3 regions. From each of these regions, the facilitator shall conduct a blind draw selecting 4 potential panel members for a total of 12. Each party shall be entitled to strike 4 potential panel members leaving at least 4 panel members. (If a potential panel member is struck by both parties, then the earlier of the remaining blindly drawn shall constitute the panel member).

2. Before a potential panel member is included in the blind draw:

a. He must be an ordained senior pastor with at least 5 years of ministry experience within Sovereign Grace Ministries.

b. Upon being determined qualified for this blind draw, all each eligible shall becontacted and it be determined that, if selected, he would be willing to serve, having been provided with a brief description of the process and what is being asked of him and inquiring if this potential panel member believes that he is or has been involved in unresolved or unreconciled conflict with either the initiating orresponding party, or Sovereign Grace Ministries, its employees, leaders or agents.

c. Board Panel Member Selection:

1. Three board members shall be selected to this panel by blind draw by the facilitator. Brent Detwiler and C.J. Mahaney shall each be entitled to strike one, leaving at least one member to serve on this panel. Similarly if there are two unstruck board members, the earlier picked shall constitute the panel member. In the event that panel member is unable to serve, the remaining unstruck board member will then become the panel member.

2. Before a potential board member is included in the blind draw:

a. He shall be required to have a board term beginning in June of 201101later and have not served previously on the board.

b. Upon being determined qualified for this blind draw as a board member, each eligible to be included in the blind draw shall be contacted and determined, if selected, would he be willing to serve, having been provided with a brief description of the process and what is being asked of him and inquiring if he believes that he is or has been involved in unresolved or unreconciled conflict with either the initiating or responding party, or Sovereign Grace Ministries, its employees, leaders or agents.

This supersedes Rule 26.

7) Re Rule 25: Description of Issues and Remedies

The issue to be determined by this adjudication panel is:

Is CI Mahaney disqualified from serving Sovereign Grace Ministries Inc. as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors based on the criteria listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9?

The remedy or action taken based on the answer to this issue shall be determined by the Board of Directors. Thus the Board shall be entitled to receive and review the written decision in determining the remedy or action to be taken. Receiving and reviewing this decision by the Board will not constitute a violation of the confidentiality of this process under Rule 16. Further, the distribution of the issue and the Panel's answer to the issue to the member churches of Sovereign Grace Ministries shall not violate confidentiality. Finally, any board member not on the panel shall be entitled to observe this adjudication. All other provisions of Rule 16 and Rule 17 shall remain as is and supplements and supersedes these rules. This supersedes Rule 25.

8) Re Rule 32: Delivery and Notice

Notices and documents may also be transmitted by email. This supplements Rule 32.

9) Re Rule 34: Arbitration Proceedings

The general format of the arbitration shall be:

a. Have an opening prayer, devotion, or both.

b. Review with parties what issues are to be decided in arbitration.

c. Opening statement by each party to give brief outline of their position on each issue.

d. Presentation of information in support of each party’s position on each issue (live testimony, documents, etc.) with the initiating party presenting first and allowing the responding party to ask questions of the information presented by the initiating party. Then the responding party may likewise present information allowing the initiating party to ask questions of the information presented by the responding party. It is also appropriate for the facilitator or any panel member to ask clarifying or summarizing questions at any stage.

e. After the parties have concluded presenting the information they wish to present, proceed to closing comments by parties.

f. Close the arbitration with prayer.

This supersedes Rule 34.

10) Re Rule 40. Decisions

It is the sole responsibility of the panel by majority vote to decide the issue before it. The nonvoting facilitator shall in no manner participate in the decision-making on the issue to be decided, although, as indicated above, the facilitator can advise the panel on its responsibilities, assist in ensuring, for example, they have the information provided by the parties for their review, instruct on how to draft a reasoned decision and review the draft of the decision to ensure it is in proper form, and perform any other duties delineated herein or necessary to carry out these duties. The panel shall write a reasoned decision, in which the parties are informed of the reasoning by which the decision is reached. This supplements Rule 40.

11) Parties Agreement to this Procedure

The parties to this adjudication and adjudication procedure agree to conduct this hearing on thisissue based upon the above provisions and agree to abide by them. Each party is to indicate this agreement by signing this document below and returning it within 5 business days of receiving it. Each party may ask questions of the Facilitator Bryce Thomas about the process prior to signing it. Bryce Thomas' cell number is 828-612-6623 and his email address is brycethomas@charter.net. As soon as this procedure is formally agreed to by the parties, then the facilitator will contact bothparties and discuss jointly or separately dates, time needed to prepare, etc.

12) If either Party or Both Do Not Agree to this Procedure

If either party or both do not agree to this procedure, the Sovereign Grace Ministries Board of Directors will consult with AOR independently and then consult with the Facilitator independently to determine what prudent steps may be taken.

13) If Both Parties Agree to this Procedure, But Either Party or Both Do Not Appear for the Adjudication Hearing

If both parties agree to resolve and/or reconcile this issue by the above procedure, upon duenotice of the adjudication hearing date, time and location, and a party or parties fail to be present and fail to obtain an adjournment, the SGM Board of Directors will consult with the Facilitator and determine what prudent steps may be taken, including whether or not the procedur shall proceed without the appearance and participation of either or both parties. This supplements Rule 37.

This adjudication and adjudication procedure is approved by the Board of Directors of SovereignG race Ministries this 1^5t day of October, 2011

David Harvey
Interim Chairman of the Board

Tommy Hill
Secretary of the Board

I agree to accept and abide by this procedure in having the above issue determined and understand that it is the exclusive remedy for having this matter determined.

This is the _____ day of __________, 2011

______________________________

Brent Detwiler, Party

I agree to accept and abide by this procedure in having the above issue determined and understand that it is the exclusive remedy for having this matter determined.

This is the _____ day of __________, 2011

______________________________

C.J. Mahaney, Party

Print Article

View Printer Friendly Version

Email Article to Friend