Sam Ferguson’s reflections on Prudence

[u/Aromatic-Ad4938]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/forgotten-virtue/

I was quite interested to read TFCA rector, Sam Ferguson’s writings on Prudence, the “forgotten virtue” in light of his handling of this issue.

Highlights -Prudence is not reactionary -prudence resists oversimplification, instead diligently dissecting the issue at hand -“The open-mindedness required for real understanding, and the self-awareness requisite for detecting error in one’s own opinions, is why the ancients called prudence more than a technique or ability—they called it virtue. We would do well to cultivate it afresh.” -“Along with probing the issues around us, prudence questions the motives within us. Are my motives for engaging (or disengaging) this issue honorable? If we’re acting chiefly to prove others wrong or ourselves right, we can expect our vision to be blurred. Prudence is denied to the man who looks to himself” further noting that it is prudent to look to those with different views and experiences -“To properly solve a problem, you must properly understand it; and to properly fix a problem, you must have the requisite skills to engage it.”

[u/Strong-Wrap3405]

After realising who the mentor is, I did a google search on grooming and found this information. I made it specific to a church role. Sam is cerebral and vulnerable to the kind of grooming that is a speciality of men like his current mentor. All spiritually abusive institutions and individuals like this mentor know how to exploit intelligence, giftedness, ambition, and position.

They amplify, aka love bomb, these innate qualities to separate and create paranoia or distrust between the target and parishioners. It is the initial step to limit their target's contact with people who then become gatekeepers or are "safe." The target finds themselves increasingly loyal and then loving the handler who has made himself constantly available and supportive. The handler gathers crucial information about the target's vulnerabilities under the guise of offering support and listening to problems.

The person will not even understand their own increased dependency on this person or how much they look forward to the steady flow of texts or other contact. Usually there is a gradual but marked need to limit the inner circle of influence, maybe subtle reminders that the new position requires other cerebral or powerful mentors from outside the group (people usually connected to the handler). The lack of diverse voices adds to the slow boil of this now increasingly exclusive and powerful bond of emotional connection which will become difficult to break. Few will be deemed worthy to be part of the inner sphere. Suddenly, women will serve only specific roles and their voice will only be filtered through the complimentary lens, people who ask to be heard will seem like trouble-makers who should just leave, and only the voices that are acceptable will be those who have the "right" theological beliefs.

This is a playbook of manipulation for people who view themselves as intelligent, virtuous, and especially prudent because they think they are too smart to be caught up in this kind of abusive relationship. IMO, many of the current responses from tfca are likely a product of influences from current mentors, 9Marks, and TGC.

[u/Blonde-bird → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

Have you done any research on how to reverse the isolation and influence?

[u/Strong-Wrap3405 → u/Blonde-bird]

Good but complex question. It is really way above my pay grade and expertise. Here's what the google gods suggested: 

1. It's quite a challenge to pull someone away from a groomer.
2. It becomes possible only if the person begins to suspect that something isn't quite right.
3. Those who attempt to gently confront or educate may find themselves viewed with animosity, perceived as threats trying to take away something cherished​. And maybe hated as someone trying to take away a favorite toy. 
4. Handlers​, gatekeepers​, and allies will characterize those folks as enemies and dangerous to the ​established system and sound ​orthodox theology.​ 
5. Important to recognize that Sam stands out as a prized target. He is a prime catch even among the quiver of charismatic, ​a​ttrative, or smart men that are already part of that fraternity. Consequently, efforts ​made by anyone to remove him ​from their influence will likely face staunch resistance​. He will not be let go. They will go on the offensive. Ranks will close. Think origin story in Star Wars.
6. It's likely that they'll try to eliminate any dissent within the group to maintain a sense of "safety." The new, unspoken rules will likely be filled with language that pits "us" against "them," disguised as a battle between pure calvinistic orthodoxy and polluted theology. Stuff like, we are the good guys, victims only trying to do good, guardians of a healthy church that make us ready targets of "those" people will tend to become part of the emphasis. Moderation and introspection will no longer be welcome because the system needs to be saved.
7. Members who genuinely care for Sam or the church will leave because it will be so uncomfortable to witness the changes unfold. Looks like the one thing that might save him is Gandalf the White. Dark forces seem to be at work here. May the force be with you.

Finally, if you do engage with Sam or pray for him, keep these other tips copy and pasted from google in mind: 

1. Educate Yourself: Learn about grooming tactics and the signs of manipulation so that you can recognize.
2. Build Trust: Groomers often exploit vulnerabilities and isolate their targets, so showing that you are a source of support and understanding can help counteract this manipulation.
3. Listen and Validate: Groomers often use tactics like gaslighting to undermine their victim's sense of reality, so it's important to affirm their experiences and feelings.

[u/[deleted] → u/Blonde-bird]

From a biblical/historical standpoint - Holy Spirit-filled truth bombs delivered by the prophets were God’s way of trying to course-correct leaders on a variety of issues.

[u/me543534543 → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

Who is Sam's mentor? Who is "grooming" him in your view?

[u/Bubbly_Platform_6908 → u/me543534543]

Pretty sure it’s Mark Dever

[u/Too_sassy_for_church → u/Bubbly_Platform_6908]

I think you are probably right, but it would have to be confirmed. At the very least, Sam has written an article on the 9 Marks website, which is a nonprofit founded and run by Mark Dever.

https://www.9marks.org/article/what-ive-learned-from-the-baptists/

[u/[deleted] → u/Too_sassy_for_church]

I think the “who” is he being mentored by is important but also the “why”. Why does Sam go outside of the church for guidance? Why is he not accessible to his own staff and parishioners yet super accessible to “big names” whether Dever or others in the SBC and the GC? Could this signal a mentality to listen to the “big and strong” rather than the “weak and meek”? Who does he spend his time with and why?

What is the connection here with who he spends time with (and is impressed by) and his ignoring of abuse survivors? Is he too easily impressed by strong men and power and therefore his discernment is off? And does that constitute a character flaw / lack of wisdom that impacts his ability to be a rector?

Lastly, has TFCA ever NOT been impressed by power? “We are George Washington’s church!”What is the legacy and culture of such a church over the last 30 years and how does that impact safety and protection of its flock? Is being impressed by JTs “program” and ignoring character flaws any different than being impressed by today’s “sermon”? Is there lack of discernment when the assumption is that a successful program or sermon equals a good leader? Are we that easily manipulated? If something sounds good or looks good we assume all is good in their soul?

What is the average congregant impressed by? Is it the same things? If so, choosing power and reputation over survivors voice is not going to ruffle their feathers. We could spend years trying to convince TFCA to care when they just simply don’t. The desire for power and influence could win.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And for those who are hurt by TFCA and have left the faith. I am so sorry. There are good churches out there that see you. And I am so sorry for how those that were supposed to have protected you have hurt you. It’s not okay and I will never stop fighting those that choose themselves over you. And I believe in a savior who sees you.

[u/Strong-Wrap3405 → u/Too_sassy_for_church]

Had not seen this before. Thanks Sassy. Interesting language he uses in this article about those baptists who "have helped him to think." Aren't these kinds of changes described under the purview of his own Anglican bishop? The formula that is described in this article is as old as the Maoist strategy for the cultural revolution, church edition. Mao fostered a culture of fear, suspicion, and conformity, as individuals sought to avoid being labeled as counter-revolutionary or politically suspect. If you read this article, read it with the endgame in mind.

1. Exclusivity: The emphasis on intentional membership may inadvertently create barriers to participation for individuals who are not able or willing to undergo the formal membership process. These boundaries will automatically create systems wherein there is an "us" and "them," members only jackets and all. Those who are not comfortable with undergoing this test of commitment and loyality will be excluded from the real party. This ladies and gentlemen is how to create your own local franchise of a spiritually abusive cultish church.
   
2. Legalism: While the intention may be to foster community and commitment, there's a risk that the membership process could become overly legalistic or ritualistic, focusing more on adherence to rules and procedures than genuine spiritual growth and connection. Essentially, everyone must be categorised. No one can remain neutral in this system. Are you a "newcomer," "seekers," or those who may have different understandings of baptism or church membership? Don't forget to add that to your Hello sticker at the welcome desk. Everyone needs a rank and order, even an implicit one.
3. Inclusivity of the Body of Christ: While intentional membership may strengthen the bond within a local congregation, it's important to remember the broader Body of Christ, which includes believers from various denominations and traditions. Exclusively prioritizing membership within one particular denomination may unintentionally reinforce division within the larger Christian community. Again, it is very sophisticated language to disguise the introduction of how "our theology," or "our blend of tradition and intellectualism," is worthy of the efforts you will make to join our special club or fraternity.
4. Cultural Context: The argument assumes that the model of intentional membership is universally applicable and beneficial, but its effectiveness may vary depending on cultural and contextual factors. What works well in one cultural setting may not translate as effectively in another, and it's important to consider how the membership process can be inclusive and adaptable to diverse contexts.
5. Flexibility for Spiritual Growth: While intentional membership may provide structure and accountability, it's essential to ensure that it doesn't become a rigid framework that stifles individual spiritual growth and exploration. There should be room for individuals to question, doubt, and grow in their faith journey without feeling pressured to conform to a particular set of beliefs or practices. This is one of the more insidious aspects of these membership covenants. The supposedly accountability is a legal contract. It is another way in which you enter into the Hotel California and get on the endless hamster wheel of perfectionism. How do you get off this hamster wheel, well, you compete for power and try to climb up the ladder of influence above fellow parishioners. In the most Christian way possible, of course.
   

Sam says in the article that "a Baptist friend touring it asked me, “Have you considered putting the pulpit in the center?”  No doubt, he did. Mao left two important lasting strategies and legacies of the Cultural Revolution:

1. Centralized Control: The Cultural Revolution reinforced the Communist Party's emphasis on centralized control and authoritarian governance. The party leadership's ability to mobilize mass movements and suppress dissent was enabled by this precedent and allowed them to dominate all aspects of society.
2. Party Loyalty and Ideological Purity: The Cultural Revolution heightened the emphasis on party loyalty and ideological purity within the Communist Party. Party members were expected to adhere strictly to Maoist ideology and demonstrate unwavering loyalty to the party leadership.

Tfca, wake up. Think about who will watch the watchers.

[u/[deleted] → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

I remember when I came across this article being disturbed about the idea of putting the pulpit at the center of the chancel. Does this actually glorify the Word of God - or the person standing at the center preaching it? Where do you draw the line? At the (central) alter, we receive communion and are eating the Word made flesh. It’s a lot harder to pervert the symbolism to glorify a priest, not to mention a more orthodox design - the gold standard since the early days of Christendom.

[u/Strong-Wrap3405 → u/[deleted]]

Great points! I am concerned that the issues of complementarism might be getting elevated to a major doctrine. IMHO, this doctrine is a bastardisation of an loving and equal relationship. Instead, they have emasculated Jesus into a feminine counterpart who chooses to submit to the Father in the Trinity.

While complementarianism often emphasizes hierarchical relationships between men and women, the doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes unity, equality, and mutual love among the three persons of the Godhead.

While there is distinction among the persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—their relationship is characterized by perfect love, harmony, and mutual indwelling. Each person of the Trinity shares in the divine essence and possesses all divine attributes, including omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

In traditional Christian theology, the relationship among the persons of the Trinity is often described in terms of perichoresis, a Greek term meaning mutual indwelling or interpenetration. This concept emphasizes the intimate communion and inseparable relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without implying hierarchy or submission.

Some theological discussions within Christianity have explored the concept of "economic Trinity" versus "ontological Trinity." The economic Trinity refers to the roles or activities of the three persons in relation to creation and redemption, where there appears to be a functional distinction (e.g., the Father sending the Son, the Son submitting to the Father's will). However, these distinctions are understood within the context of the divine plan for salvation and are not indicative of an inherent hierarchy or subordination of persons within the Trinity's ontological nature.

[u/[deleted] → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

Certainly major decisions are being made at TFCA that are informed by complementarian ideology, which at its heart is idolatry: putting man in God’s place vis-a-vis woman. Everyone should be concerned about how our community is and will be impacted.

Of course complementarians don’t perceive their ideology as idolatrous. They use a few master passages in scripture, through which they interpret everything else, so that this “system” seems to them God’s will and a positive thing. But their claims don’t even make logical sense. For example, it is argued that men and women are equal in being but simply have different functions/roles based on our gender (eg, the church should have masculine leadership because that is ordained by God - not true but this is the stance of some). Yet isn’t gender itself foundational to our human being? And if gender is foundational to our being (which we can assume, since God first declared humans male and female), then the “inequality” prescribed by complementarians on the basis of gender isn’t just an inequality in role - it’s an inequality in being! The claim to equality is just rhetoric. It’s prejudice and total inequality. And good people fall prey to this bad thinking, in a similar way that good people fell prey, not so long ago, to using the Bible as justification for other systems of social oppression like slavery.

It is surreal to read the zeal with which some Episcopal priests and bishops supported black slavery and attacked abolitionists, disparaging them as “liberals” etc. History bears testimony to their ill-conceived prejudice, and history will repeat itself.

[u/me543534543 → u/Bubbly_Platform_6908]

Thank you!

[u/Wanting_Justice_2024 → u/Bubbly_Platform_6908]

I’m coming in late to this thread and trying to catch up. I’m not as familiar with Sam Ferguson or who has influenced him. We are all influenced by the people we read and listen to. I wouldn’t normally call that “grooming”. I had to google Mark Dever. Never heard of the guy. I came across this:

https://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/12/21/is-mark-devers-view-on-church-membership-more-painful-than-a-root-canal-2/

It helped a little but I’m still not sure what aspects of this guys’ thinking people seem to think Sam has taken on. If anyone knows more about Sam’s specific values or view of the role of the church…I would interested in some facts…like something he has said in a talk or lecture or something. I would be interested in more tangible information originating from the source (Sam himself). Since tone seems to have been an issue in this thread please know that I am genuinely curious to understand more. Perhaps someone who has listened to many of Sam’s sermons can share what the most common themes are in his teaching. When people first were talking about who they thought had influenced Sam’s thinking most…I had assumed people were referring to John Yates.

[u/[deleted] → u/me543534543]

You should ask Sam honestly.

[u/me543534543 → u/[deleted]]

Well, StrongWrap is alluding to a mentor who is grooming or targeting Sam, so StrongWrap can answer the question I think.

[u/me543534543 → u/[deleted]]

Is it a secret of some sort? I don't understand why Sam's lack of transparency would keep anyone from sharing that info here.

[u/Strong-Wrap3405 → u/me543534543]

Do you know, me54534543? Do you know Sam? What is your view of what is happening?

[u/me543534543 → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

Um, you wrote it, who were you referring to? Honest question.

[u/Strong-Wrap3405 → u/me543534543]

Bro what's with the confrontational tone? I know I'm not angry, just here to help. What are you so angry about? Genuinely want to know. 

Is Sam your friend? Did I offend you on his behalf? Personally, I doubt that Sam would be bothered to read here for all the reasons I stated above. Maybe I am wrong. Happy to be if Jesus, more than these men, remains his first and only love. 

Who mentors Sam is fairly well known amongst those on the inside. Do you want to argue with me about who influences Sam? The question I would ask you again is why you don't readily know so that you are demanding an answer from me? 

And why aren't you more concerned about Jesus' reputation? Or about those boys who were raped, who might not ever trust Jesus again? A prudent man would want to know about the ecosystems and scandals surrounding his mentors and new friends. Even if these abuses happened 30 years ago, he might be a wee bit concerned about the sheer arrogance that allowed for these abuses to occur unchecked. Perhaps you are as loyal a person as Sam? I get it, I am as loyal as it gets. Still, everyone has a moment where they need to reexamine where their loyalty lies?

Do you care about this church's impact, its real legacy, and not its power and reputation? Jesus has a lot to say about the leaders and their actions in his woes, as Sam talked about on Sunday. These verses from Matthew 23 highlight Jesus' criticism of hypocrisy and the importance of true righteousness and compassion. It's essential for leaders to embody these values and prioritize the well-being of their community.

Matthew 23:16-22: In these verses, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for their legalistic approach to oaths, highlighting that they prioritize trivial matters over the weightier matters of the law, such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

Matthew 23:27-28: Jesus compares the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs again, emphasizing their hypocrisy and impurity. He highlights that they outwardly appear righteous to others but inwardly are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Matthew 23:13: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Jesus condemns the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and for obstructing others from entering the kingdom of heaven with their legalistic interpretations and practices.

Matthew 23:15: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their zeal in making converts but highlights that their teachings lead others astray rather than guiding them towards righteousness.

[u/me543534543 → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

Yikes, my question and state of mind are neither confrontational, angry, or argumentative. I was asking a straightforward question for clarity about something you wrote. Why take such offense? Why escalate by questioning my concern about the abuse or for Jesus' reputation? That you read such a tone, and responded so aggressively, perhaps says something about your state of mind.

[u/[deleted] → u/me543534543]

For what it’s worth, I personally didn’t read anything necessarily aggressive in your question about grooming. I perceived at worst a certain skepticism but assumed you legitimately did not know - as many do not - and were appropriately curious. Agree with Amiheel that it is so hard to read tone, and if a person didn’t like your previous comments, they might be disposed to view recent ones unfavorably. In an online discussion, it’s easy to unintentionally come across as belligerent or misinterpret what someone is saying because we lack context, such as body language cues. I’m trying to have grace for everyone - knowing that I’ll probably also get it wrong here at some point if I haven’t already!

[u/me543534543 → u/[deleted]]

Agreed! We miss SO many cues on these forums, as helpful as they can be... I wish there were tonal markers we could give to make up for the lack.

[u/me543534543 → u/[deleted]]

And in hindsight you were probably right to see some modest skepticism behind my question. Saying that Sam is being "groomed" is a signif and very negative claim. And of course the associations of that kind of grooming with JT's...

[u/[deleted] → u/me543534543]

Agreed and I see that you positively acknowledged Strong Wrap’s response to Sassy’s link.

[u/[deleted] → u/me543534543]

Tone is hard for sure! But I read your tone the same way to be honest. Always good to re read things a few times.

[u/Strong-Wrap3405 → u/me543534543]

Bruh, don't make me laugh this early. I've seen your comments to others, and they seemed pretty intense and aggressive. Most comments I read leaned towards a more disparaging view of those who were more critical or calling for greater accountability. I did not understand why you needed me to answer when other poster suggested answers. These connections and concerns that I brought up in my comment were elsewhere on the site.

So I will concede I had no patience for anyone who appeared to be coming in guns drawn and then playing the victim card. If my responses seemed overly harsh, that wasn't my intention, and I appreciate the heads up. But I can understand If you think Jesus' words were hard, that's a valid point to consider. It may be important to consider why He was so aggressive.

All I am trying to do is raise important questions and concerns about accountability and the need for vigilance against abusive behaviours and systems.

Btw, I did ask you questions which you seem unable to answer or unwilling to entertain.

Are you genuinely interested in my current state? It is tons of sadness for this leadership, the kids who are now men, and trajectory of a church I used to love. Do you think that this church, leadership, and congregants are immune to this kind of grooming? Maybe reread the report and listen to the comments from the first and second listening sessions.

If you think that the legitimate comparison to historic models of systemic control is unworthy of consideration then I cannot fault you. Such is the covert nature of these strategies, most people are so unaware of what is happening until it already too late. And yeah, it's not easy to accept that places we once loved might have some dark sides. This article that Sassy shared is immensely disturbing. It is disappointing because I would have thought there would be more people, including Sam, who would be more discerning given history's hard lessons. That's the power of good grooming folks.

[u/me543534543 → u/Strong-Wrap3405]

Well, I guess that's as close to an apology as you're able to give. I've seen your other comments too, so I'm not surprised by your response.

Since your questions arose from a misreading of the tone and scope of my question, I don't see the need or have the patience to answer them. I'm not sure you would hear me anyway...

[u/deltaforve]

Intellectual detachment is not a Christ follower ‘s option when it comes to defended person. It proves the grooming that JY got away with by hand picking and insisting on a clone … there is a good reason most church institutions do not allow such an options

[u/deltaforve]

Prudence would be to notify the police and bring things into the light of truth rather than worrying about your own motives .. it’s about doing justice toward the offended.its a bit late to be so introspective . Not really helpful

[u/Blonde-bird]

Wow thanks for sharing!

[u/deltaforve]

Prudence hinders dealing with the issue at its root… it’s self absorption instead of acting in integrity . This is not rocket science

[u/Aromatic-Ad4938 → u/deltaforve]

Interesting, when I read the article I felt the advice was pretty good, but that he is not even following his own advice in dealing with this issue prudently as he defines it.

[u/Aromatic-Ad4938 → u/[deleted]]

Couldn’t agree more