Responding to the Scandal

In any really serious and sensitive matter like this one, there are going to be two dangers to avoid, two sets of wrong responses that are at opposite ends of our array of choices.

The sex abuse matter is no exception.

One extreme is the one Kevin has warned against here: that of pretending there is no problem, blaming victims, dismissing accusers, etc. He’s right to warn against it, and I don’t blame him for focusing on countering that error. Up to now, it has (way) more history in fundamentalism than the other.

But the other extreme is just as real: that of embracing a witch hunt mentality in which accusers are automatically right, alleged victims cannot be doubted in any respect, where anyone who questions any of the premises of accusers is immediately lumped in with the presumed-guilty, and—in this case—where we ascribe spiritual authority to legal, psychological and sociological authorities.

(Kevin does allude some to the reality of the witch-hunt danger, mentioning that some have probably been wrongly accused, for example. Because where I sit I see more of the witch-hunt extreme, I tend to focus on countering that one. But I have no desire to defend those truly guilty of the other.)

Just want to point out that there are two sets of wrong responses to the issue and we truly need to be alert to both, and avoid both.

Baptist fundamentalism has endured dark episodes in the past, but none has been blacker or more ugly that the present hour. We have no one else to blame. We have been too lax for too long. If the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, then we should welcome the purifying effect that the exposure of sin will have upon us, and we should respond rightly.

That is the most powerfully accurate statement made about Baptist fundamentalism by a leader.

Adam, I agree with you that there are two possible extremes (and many responses in between!). However, I believe Dr. Bauder is addressing the response that will be most prevalent within fundamentalism—the response of refusing to admit there is a problem. My husband, a pastor, has already received e-mails from other pastors to this effect (“we are being unfairly persecuted!”). The second response—the witch-hunt extreme—seems more prevalent among those who no longer identify with fundamentalism or who, while they may still attend a conservative church, have been personally hurt/affected by one or more of the abuses within IFBism and are therefore leary of the movement. In the context of this site, Dr. Bauder’s warning addresses the more probable of the 2 extremes.

May God give us wisdom and humility.

I’ve read SharperIron for years and have resisted the urge to join, but this post pushed me over the edge to go for it. I wanted to just say to Dr. Bauder: “Thanks!!!” This is the most honest, loving, and humble response from a fundamentalist on this topic thus far. Let the other side take shots at us as they would like, but the more we sit in our ivory towers defending our actions, we prove ourselves to be the people they claimed us to be. The longer we take shots at the victims, the longer we perpetuate their view that we have no compassion for the hurting and no love for the weak.

We can argue the details (are the police responsible, consensual or rape, 15 or 16?!?).

We can argue the validity of the logic of the 20/20 program (e.g. Surrett).

But in the end, who cares?

The right response elevates love for the victims, humility over our sins, desire to change, and ultimately deepens our view of the Gospel. The Gospel doesn’t minimize sin. The Gospel doesn’t try to ignore it or pretend that it never happened. In the Gospel we see how big our sin is so we can see how big our Savior is! When we treat sin lightly, we do an injustice to the Gospel that we claim to preach.

Thank you, Dr. Bauder, for bringing us back to the Gospel.

Dr. Bauder’s excellant article should have been a stand-alone, comments-closed piece to reflect upon personally. I hope this doesn’t become another football or war zone.

I appreciated this article and have been blessed to hear from a number of friends outside of the IFB camp who appreciated it as well. A number (large or small, you choose) of IFB leaders resist any criticism and when they are found to be incorrect sound like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE] Fonzie in Happy Days.

The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.

Thanks, Dr. Bauder, for this article! I would just add that many of these scandals might (and its a big “might”) have been avoided had the fourth “response” been a a basic teaching at the beginning of ministry preparation. Then maybe, just maybe, none of these “responses” would have been necessary on quite as large a scale.

I would propose that our Fundamental Baptist educational institutions (as well as informal mentoring and discipleship opportunities which are part of ministry preparation) need to spend even more time teaching such basics as (1) Bible as the Sole Authority of Faith and Practice (after all, there are not too many Biblical teachings more basic than Humility…and pride is at the root of all of the sins listed in the quote); (2) Priesthood of the Believer; (3) Equality of Clergy and Laity; (4) Importance of the Congregation, etc., etc.. And all of this ON TOP OF the teaching of personal integrity as Dr. Bauder points out in his first “response” All of these distinctives/beliefs impact the issue in question. I think these teachings ought to be basic (read, constantly and strongly taught) in ministry preparation…”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” “Run the fence at the top of the cliff rather than running an ambulance at the bottom.” etc.

Again, I want to thank Dr. Bauder for showing, in a very eloquent manner, the seriousness of this issue. Let’s pick it up from here and make sure that we not only “respond” properly, but also prepare for the future in such a way that we don’t ever fall into this dark chapter again.

[Dr. Kevin Bauder] The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.

For me it all begins with the text of Scripture.

It is quite possible to see how other forms of abuse — including the abuse of leadership and the abuse of people — could be fostered in an environment where, first of all, we (I am speaking very generally here) tolerated the abuse of the text of God’s Holy Word. We have all heard the allegorical sermons on the floating axe head, the four anchors, finding different members of the Trinity speaking at different points of the OT, etc., ad nauseum. In this and other areas of abuse, no one had the courage of conviction to stand and announce that the emporor had no clothes.

Add to that mix an unhealthy over-emphasis on separation — one by which we would divide from people more Biblical than ourselves because they were not aligned with us politically — and you do indeed have some of the marks of cultic behavior. Abuse can be hidden in such an environment. It is long past time for fundamentalists — if that is what we truly wish to be — to take these matters very seriously. Only then will we have an environment where the other needed correctives can be fully implemented.

Obviously, this is a huge area of concern, and only God knows all the details. Finding answers will be an immense task. I am sure that the support for the victims and those who have suffered in any way is overwhelming.

Having said that, however, the 20/20 story was about what I expected… Very sloppy journalism, very one-sided, filled with non-sequitors, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for fundamentalists to find a means of response (not silence) that shows complete sobriety and can begin to restore a measure of confidence.

but I do have one *small* concern that in my mind is pervasive in the whole movement and in some sense, allows for tragedies like this to occur.

My concern is rooted in Dr. Bauder’s first suggested response:

Our first response must be to refocus upon personal integrity. Many accusations are true, but in the present atmosphere the possibility of false accusations ought to strike fear into every minister. All it takes is one, unsupported claim to end a ministry. Consequently, we have a duty to live our lives such that no credible charge can be leveled against us. We must go out of our way to ensure that we avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How? By common sense precautions. We will install windows so that people can see into our offices. We will never be alone with any female other than our wives and daughters. We will never be alone with a child, even of the same sex, other than our own children. We will never touch a minor in any way except in full view of other adults—and we will guard those touches carefully against misunderstanding.

My question then is this: Why is the need for increased “personal integrity” discussed only in terms of possible false accusations? Shouldn’t we take these precautions, not because we’re concerned about others’ deceitfulness , but because we’re concerned about the deceitfulness of our own hearts? It’s easy enough in the current tragedies to demonize the abusers as inhuman souls whose only bent in life ever was the destruction and manipulation of young girls. And that WE would NEVER do such a thing; WE are not tempted those ways; WE are above those sins. When are we honestly going to say, “there go I but by the grace of God.”

His argument seems to be that “personal integrity” is mainly about protecting our good name, not guarding against our own sinful hearts. As pleased as I was by Dr. Bauder’s response, this underlying presupposition is very dangerous and lulls many good men into a false sense of security if they have taken all the appropriate outward precautions. When are we going to call men and women to recognize the sinfulness of our own hearts and take precautions against that?

I think the real problem here is that TOO MUCH of what has been said in Kevin’s article, and on the the 20/20 Program is true.

We have work to do.

My question then is this: Why is the need for increased “personal integrity” discussed only in terms of possible false accusations? Shouldn’t we take these precautions, not because we’re concerned about others’ deceitfulness , but because we’re concerned about the deceitfulness of our own hearts?

I think you missed the larger context. The essay on the whole emphasizes the “own hearts” problem.

But since most of us are never even tempted to abuse a child, it is reasonable to focus on integrity as a feature of our relationship with the general public, which would include what happens if we’re accused.

I haven’t been following the thread, but hear there were some questions about the nature of clergy confidentiality and reporting laws. These vary from state to state. Some links to resources have just posted in Filings.

http://sharperiron.org/filings/4-18-11/18697

[RPittman] Whereas the whole of IFB is not responsible and accountable for the sins of a few, we are responsible for tolerating and even promoting false teachings that are contributing factors in producing an environment where the sin may be practiced and hidden. The craze of Gothardism skewed our view of authority. Authority is not blanket coverage for the benefit of the individual in authority. Rather authority is a God-delegated power within a specific, confined context for the advancement of the work. Gothard et. al. misled many with his concept of the “umbrella of authority” that was absolute and pervasive. Pastoral authority (i.e. limited, specific, and Biblically defined) is balanced by the authority of the congregation, similar to our “checks and balances” in our government. Pastoral authority, however, gives no special perks or privileges, although we owe our respect to the position. Paul asked, ” Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man (1Corinthians 3:5)?” Thus, we must remember that our leaders are mere men.

No real quibble, but I’d just like to point out that Hyles et al was abusing his role long before Gothard hit the scene. Of course, abuse of authority isn’t really a new problem either (III John, among other passages.)

The real problem, of course, is that IFB’s didn’t separate fast enough from men that do abuse their positions, and now we’re all tarred and feathered together.

Aaron,

Perhaps I’m responding to a larger culture that I associated with Bauder’s comments. As a movement, the “personal integrity” card has been played mainly to protect against the accusation of immoral conduct not against the temptation to immoral conduct. Usually it is discussed in context of the more “normal” sin of adultery, not in the the current extreme of child abuse, but the philosophical argument is the same in both cases. My only point is that the that whole concept is illegitimate and misleads people about the nature of sin. You say “most of us are never even tempted to abuse a child” but how do you know what each individual struggles with? (I GUARANTEE you that confession is not going to come out at the next pastors’ luncheon.) And so instead of teaching people how to fight sin in their own hearts, we teach them how to avoid being accused of sin.

My point (as minor as it may be) is that we cannot assume our hearts wouldn’t stoop to this sin or any other. On the whole Bauder seems to be saying “yes, we have sin in our midst; we need to deal with it.” I’m just asking that the FIRST thing we say is “yes, we have sin in our hearts and we need to deal with that.”

I completely agree with your input here. It is all too easy to distance ourselves from some heinous sin, as if we are somehow immune. And no one wakes up in the morning contemplating abusing children who hasn’t already gone there in their imaginations and choices of entertainment for quite a long time before the thought becomes action.

I mentioned on another thread that we are to “flee fornication”, but after talking to many Christian friends, IRL and on the net, there isn’t very much fleeing going on. When Twilight is being marketed in some Christian circles as a basis for abstinence curriculum, you know that several sets of marbles are bouncing around on the floor. And we have the gall to wonder why sexual sins of all kinds are so prevalent?

When my wife and I first watched the recent 20/20 episode to which this post in part address we were horrified. Horrified that this kind of stuff happens in any kind of church period and horrified that it comes from the kids of churches that have for so long claimed to be obeying God’s Word more than others.

Then, we saw people that went to and attend my wifes church growing up who basically had all of the wrong responses Bauder presents here. That was horrible as well. They were more concerned about the public nature of these sins and that the label of IFB churches was given as a broad brush stroke to all Independent Fundamental Baptist churches then they were about the victims and the abuse they endured both sexually and by their church.

Bauder has done here what I was waiting for someone to do within these circles. As Bill Roach said above, too much of what the 20/20 interview said is true. This needs to stop and this is not something that should be named among any church or organization.

I doubt Dr. Bauder reads through these…I don’t usually myself. However, I received this in my email from him as many others of you do on Friday I think, and since that time something he wrote here has been nagging at me a little. It isn’t a big thing. I agree with nearly everthing he writes. So much so, that maybe I read his writing a little too critically looking for something with which to disagree. Like many others, I tend to do that with people I respect because I learn more about how they came to their conclusions. So if this comes across to you as a bit nit-picky, please overlook my critical eye.

What Dr. Bauder wrote was this: “The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.”

What is causing me some concern is that the main focus of the scandals, at least in these particular cases, are not really from the side of fundamentalism that follows these “models of leadership.” While I whole-heartedly agree that the bluster, demagoguery, etc. is a serious problem, I don’t think that was a cause for what happened in the cases presented by 20/20 and I don’t think it was an underlying problem in the ABWE situation. Rather, in the criminal cases on 20/20, the majority of the stories presented were from our side of fundamentalism, the side that blanches at the pomposity and egotism Dr. Bauder is writing about here.

While the 20/20 show did show some of these kinds of pastors preaching (if you could call it that), the scandals were ours. Marquette Manor was being led by Pastor Simmons at the time of these crimes and he wrote a chapter in From The Mind Of God To The Mind Of Man, not something being sold in the bookstore at First Baptist in Hammond I suspect. Moreover, the problems at Marquette during that time, which are mind-numbingly incredible, have no connection with the IFB groups that so many on this blog are piling on (again, most of the time, rightly so).

So while I’m not defending these IFB pastors who are this way, I repudiate these violations of 1 Peter 5 as much as anyone..my own church family would concur with me on this…I have to say that in this particular case, they are not the problem here.

My point is that if we are going to own up and say that fundamentalism needs fixing, and I think there is an overwhelming agreement on that point here, then we have to own up to what actually caused this to happen. Frankly, it was a toleration of sin in lives of the pastors/deacons. I’m reminded of the opening paragraphs of Richard Baxter’s Reformed Pastor when he asks those piercing questions about the spiritual lives of pastors. What I have taken away from this is a renewed desire for wisdom to avoid compromising situations, grace to live a crystal clear life above reproach, and humility to admit when I fail the Lord in these matters. I don’t want to come to the place where after I have preached to others, I myself have become a castaway.

Matt

NOTE: Not all the pastors at Marquette at the time were involved in this stuff or were even aware of it.

I have resisted commenting on this controversy until now, largely because I am unfamiliar with any of these situations. I guess I’m a bit removed from the IFB orbit. The only thing I know about the Trinity, New Hampshire situation is what I have read on three or four blogs, and until the 20/20 program, that wasn’t much. I was unaware until the past few days of a scandal at Marquette Manor, so it appears that I am really out of the loop.

That being said, I would like to offer two comments. 1) When these things happen, it is wise, good, and helpful to do some soul searching to see if there are weaknesses that contribute to such sad and sinful situations. 2) We must remember that the sin nature remains in all Christians, and we shouldn’t be terribly shocked that it manifests itself in appalling ways at times. I personally doubt that IBF churches produce more of this than others, though perhaps it may be so. However, I have seen a fair share of this kind of shameful behavior in other groups as well. It’s easy to point the finger at those with whom we disagree, and feel a bit vindicated that we warned about that. “I told you so” is a common human foible which we all share.

Perhaps IBF’ers are so separated that they don’t know about similar situations in other groups. Perhaps IBF’ers are so convinced that they have the truest form of Biblical Christianity that they are shocked to find such sin in their midst, though not surprised to find it in others. Maybe the good that can come out of these tragedies is to show IBF’ers that they are not superior to all other Christians. My background is IBF, and technically, I am still IBF, though do not fellowship exclusively in IBF circles. Because of this, many of my IBF brethren do not want to fellowship with me. Familiar story? No matter. My life is too full, and my ministry too busy to fret about such matters. I have found many good and godly men within the IBF, for which I am grateful. I have also found many good and godly men outside IBF circles, with whom I enjoy warm fellowship. I have also found too many shallow and petty men within the IBF, and have found much the same outside IBF circles. Guess what? We are all sinners! No need for superiority. We’ve all got too much remaining sin to be judging the servants of another. I’ve got my hands full keeping my own remaining sin in check. If I become careless, I fall. That’s true of all Christians in all camps. It may not be an IBF “thing” at all. It’s probably a “sin thing.” When we think we stand, we must take heed lest we fall. Perhaps there is too much pride of “we take the right stand.” May these tragic falls teach us all greater humility and vigilance.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

[handerson] Aaron,

Perhaps I’m responding to a larger culture that I associated with Bauder’s comments. As a movement, the “personal integrity” card has been played mainly to protect against the accusation of immoral conduct not against the temptation to immoral conduct. Usually it is discussed in context of the more “normal” sin of adultery, not in the the current extreme of child abuse, but the philosophical argument is the same in both cases. My only point is that the that whole concept is illegitimate and misleads people about the nature of sin. You say “most of us are never even tempted to abuse a child” but how do you know what each individual struggles with? (I GUARANTEE you that confession is not going to come out at the next pastors’ luncheon.) And so instead of teaching people how to fight sin in their own hearts, we teach them how to avoid being accused of sin.

My point (as minor as it may be) is that we cannot assume our hearts wouldn’t stoop to this sin or any other. On the whole Bauder seems to be saying “yes, we have sin in our midst; we need to deal with it.” I’m just asking that the FIRST thing we say is “yes, we have sin in our hearts and we need to deal with that.”

I understand, I think.

I would put the whole thing in slightly different terms. The “we have sin our hearts” part goes under the heading of repentance. The “we conduct ministry in a way that accusations are unlikely” goes under the integrity heading (along with other things) and the “we take steps to avoid temptation,” I’d put under precautions. The last two really are almost inseparable, though. It’s pretty hard to take precautions against temptation and not simultaneously safeguard against accusation, and vice versa.

[GNB] I personally doubt that IBF churches produce more of this than others, though perhaps it may be so.

I agree. That is, if we assume that most IFB people are Christians, I have to believe we have less of this problem than the general population. Otherwise, Philip.1:6 (and a bunch of other passages) would appear to not mean much. And I think “systemic” problems in IFB that contribute to this as a church problem are not unique to IFB either. Surely no one believes that IFB has a corner on the markets of, say, authoritarian leadership, bad theology, pride, misogyny, etc. These things were around before IFB.

I suspect these problems are not unusual in all highly-independent groups (and some not-very-independent ones).

I think we’re also pretty murky on what “IFB” is. We know the oppressive, cult-like leader plus obsessive dress code plus translation obsession plus doctrinal neglect plus sky-scraper preaching (story upon story) flavor of IFB is out there. People who have done their homework also know that lots of churches exist that are none of those things though still Baptist, independent and fundamentalist.

So are we including all of these widely differing folks in the “IFB” bucket? To me, the distinctions are so numerous and substantial it’s almost meaningless to refer to them all as a single group.

All that to say that the question “does IFB have a sex abuse and coverup epidemic?” depends on how you define “IFB.”

I appreciate your note on judgmentalism also. It could be my imagination, but it seems like there’s been an almost gleeful eagerness to cast the first stone in this whole business. Isn’t there something a bit off when our first impulse in response to any brother’s mishandling of a situation is to publicly accuse him of sin and call for his repentance? (Perhaps the term is “self righteousness”?)

I think Kevin’s essay here, though, shows none of that.

[RPittman] In light of these conditions, do IFBs have a greater problem than others? The answer is obviously NO but there’s no comfort or resting in being less wicked than others. We must deal with the problem that we do have but there’s no cause to single out and castigate IFBs. .

Surely abuse/molestation in the average IFB church is far less than, for instance, than the abuse/molestation incidence in the public housing project in which I do some ministry. Believe me, I know. I’m on the phone often to Child Protective Services. It’s harder to gage how often it happens in relation to the general population. For instance, if I extrapolate from my experiences at Hyles-Anderson College, I can say the incidence of ultimately successful prosecutions was far higher than the general population. And that was in the early 80’s, when molestation reporting was far less mainstream. Whether that extends to all IFB at the same level remains to be seen.

But I think the issue is that church is supposed to be better. Believers ought to have a life that is distinctly better (that’s not elitism, just Scripture). The church ought to be better in its pursuit of protecting the weak and giving justice to the oppressed, wherever it’s within our purview (I know that sounds very “Kingdom Now”-like, which I do not embrace, but it’s still true).

It’s kind of like if a Jewish couple sent their son to a Boy Scout meeting, and he was sent to a gas chamber. The family’s shock would be far greater, because they would expect that from a Nazi, but not a scout leader.

Similarly, I was kind of hoping churches would be better than the world at some of this stuff. I’m sure Jesus was too.

[RPittman] However, there are two inherent factors that converge and make us particularly vulnerable—authority and trust. It does not have to be extreme authoritarianism or overly trusting to set the trap. We do ourselves disservice by portraying this as extremes because this points the finger at the other guy meanwhile ignoring the potential threat in our own midst.

I suspect it is problematical not just because the leaders demand such trust and authority, and not just because the polity is structured to grant it, but also because the personality of many people who attend IFB churches has a certain streak that is vulnerable to it. I’m thinking of the behaviors outlined in, for instance, The Authoritarian Personality, Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, et al. 1950.

In all of our discussions, I fail to hear some basic Biblical issues. Scripture clearly teaches that “… every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (James 1:14-15).” Child molestation and sexual lust is like every other sin.

Thank you! Properly recognizing the source of sin and the process of temptation is where we must start in dealing with these tragedies. This issue is what I was struggling with when I questioned Bauder’s approach to “personal integrity.” Personal integrity is more about the spiritual fight against sin than about avoiding accusations. (Christ Himself couldn’t avoid false accusations and if He had followed typical expectations, He would never have spoken to the the woman at the well or met with publicans and sinners.) So personal integrity is not a list of rules, but an honest, humble evaluation of our own sinfulness, confessing our struggles to brothers and sisters in Christ, Spirit-dependence, and accountability.

Beautifully, when our main concern is fighting sin in our hearts, it in turn, leads us to careful accountability in our church ministries - not because we want to avoid accusations, but because we want to avoid allowing for situations that would tempt us or others around us. If we learn anything from these tragedies, it is the deceitfulness and destructiveness of sin. We also learn that we must be “killing sin, or it will be killing us.”

I was not suggesting that child abuse is less frequent in IFB churches than the general public. I should hope so! I was suggesting that it is no more frequent, and hopefully less than in other Christian groups.

That being said, the fact that it is found at all in conservative, Bible-believing churches is a reminder that: 1) sin is everywhere, even in churches, and we ought not be terribly surprised when it manifests itself. That is part of our fallen condition, and will continue to plague us until we are fully sanctified in heaven. 2) to the extent we practice sloppy churchmanship, the problem will be magnified. Evangelistic methodologies that encourage unconverted people into church membership needs to stop. Styles of leadership and church government that are weak on accountability need to be changed. Pulpit ministries that lack serious exposition of Scripture need to be eliminated. Inconsistent and unBiblical practices of church disicpline need to be strengthened. Greater emphasis upon inward holiness rather than external standards needs to be encouraged.

In short, we need a revival of serious, Biblical Christianity.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

I found everything to be good in Kevin’s splendid article except the very first sentence: “We used to think that the problem of child molestation belonged to other people, but not to fundamental Baptists.” Really? Was my church so unique? First I read an article about the problem among Christians in the Baptist Bulletin in 1982. Then I got a call from a family in the church weeks later: child-molestation. Fortunately, the girl had gone to Child Protection (or whatever the agency name was in those days). In order to get advice, I telephoned three pastors, all older than myself. The first one told me that a minister could spend a lifetime without encountering the sin in his church (obviously he had not). The other two responded in silence, then said “Yes.” That was the early 1980s. In all three situations, the perpetrators went to prison. While the father of our church family was incarcerated, a visiting couple gave a wonderful testimony about their soul-winning efforts in my SS class. I was, of course pleased at the positive input. Weeks later their (Baptist) pastor told me that the man was under investigation for child-molestation. Being involved in the experience makes you feel pretty sick. These were two of multiple matters of sexual immorality that I had to deal with (not to mention all the ones I learned about that were not mine to deal with) over a period of seven years. That was now nearly 30 years ago. Kevin, maybe you thought that child molestation did not occur among fundamental Baptists, but I have not been under that false assumption since 1982 (and neither has the Baptist Bulletin).

I just never got interviewed by 20/20.

Let’s remember that some IFB churches not only may be guilty of sexual abuse but many are also guilty of spiritual and emotional abuse through dictator and legalistic pastors. There are many wounds that are as deep as sexual abuse and if not for the grace of God these Christians will not heal. We should not judge these people who are hurting but offer them a hand up to help them heal from this abuse. I am one who but by the grace of God would not have healed from abuse. It is a long road of recovery and it does not happen overnight. May all IFB churches do some spring housecleaning and make sure there ministry is above reproach or else groups such as 20-20 will tear us to shreds.

I agree, Bro. Pittman, and am always a bit confused by the idea that a pastor or church leadership can be given so much control over one’s life that a person will willingly submit to the micro-management of their private lives, and even to the point of being verbally and spiritually abused. I’ve had conversations with people who were literally ‘afraid’ of their church leadership, because they would ‘make their lives miserable’ or ostracize them. But if you aren’t doing anything that is immoral, unethical, illegal, or clearly unScriptural, then church leadership is out of line to take any action against anyone. What are they really going to do anyway? Slash your tires? Burn down your house? It’s like the dynamic in high school- control by intimidation but without real teeth. People can’t control you unless you allow them to do so. And if they quit talking to you- so what? Having people like that out of your life will be the best thing that ever happened to you.

I also agree with Bro. Brown that child abuse is nothing new. It has been redefined in some ways- I’ve heard some really strange things labeled as abusive, like expecting kids to develop a work ethic and live without unrestricted access to tvs and computer games. And while abuse has gotten more media attention and garnered quite a bit of indignation, it hasn’t lessened to any degree that seems significant. We’ve reported suspected abuse just in the last week- the police show up, take a report, and the kid goes right back home into that environment- while neighbors threaten us for calling the cops. Isn’t that just peachy? But are we going to stop doing right based on unpleasant outcomes?

People, in general, are too busy trying to preserve the status quo instead of asking hard questions about right and wrong and taking appropriate action.

[RPittman] I keep hearing the cliche “dictator pastors.” Pastors may be domineering, aggressive, gregarious, controlling, etc. but they are hardly dictators. In America, we have religious liberty. No one is required to attend any one church. We choose with whom to associate. If we make poor choices, then it is the result of our own choice. Sometimes, people choose to associate with a church having a domineering pastor. However, they are free to leave at will. It appears to me that we are trying to blame someone else for our poor choices.

Clearly you are correct. If a situation is intolerable, the proper solution is to refuse to tolerate it. An armed uprising (such as in Libya) is hardly necessary. Send a letter removing your membership. Find another church.

But I take exception with what you say in two ways…

1). I think the term “dictator pastor” is a great way to say what the Scriptures express in I Peter 5:3. It’s the attitude of the pastor in question in that verse, not the submission of the people. Though you are correct that the submission to a “dictator pastor” is the fault of the people under such spiritual abuse (at least the adults), the spiritual abuse of authority is entirely the fault of the pastor, who is in the Word all the time, and should, we would think, know better.

2). There is a psychological trick involved in the ultra-submissive behavior of the crowds under the sway of the “dictator pastor”. Too often, he controls and defines their total reality. Departure will be costly. They will lose friends, perhaps family-ties, and (in the most extreme cases) suffer a church discipline that will feel completely valid to them. They may view themselves as “in sin”. Remember, these folk have been raised in an attitude where all of Scripture is twisted to make that over-reaching authority seem like “God’s Will.” So let’s not be too hard on those who suffer in these settings. And we mustn’t discount their psychological distress as they recognize the ways in which they were used and manipulated.

A short story to illustate. I do not offer this to open a debate about BJU or their rules. I simply state what happened to illustrate how when you are surrounded by an environment and the control it exerts, your mind can be tricked into forgetting the real relationship.

About 1985 I was at BJU. I had met Scott, a young man who had been a Christian for just a few weeks when his pastor sent him off to BJU. Talk about total immersion in a culture! A few weeks into the new semester, one evening, we heard a clattering behind the speech building (I have no idea if it is in the same place now). We walked behind the building, to find Scott perched on top of the fence-post (disregarding the barbed wire), ready to make his leap for freedom. “Scott,” I said, “What are you doing?” Reply: “I can’t take it anymore. I’m going to go crazy here! There’s rules for everything! I have to escape!” “Scott”, I said, “It’s a college, not a prison. If you really feel that way, go back to your room and pack. Tomorrow, go to the administration building and withdraw as a student. Walk out the gates tomorrow afternoon with your bags in hand.” There was a long pause. “Oh, right.” And he climbed down. He also stayed all year.

[Mike Durning]

2). There is a psychological trick involved in the ultra-submissive behavior of the crowds under the sway of the “dictator pastor”. Too often, he controls and defines their total reality. Departure will be costly. They will lose friends, perhaps family-ties, and (in the most extreme cases) suffer a church discipline that will feel completely valid to them. They may view themselves as “in sin”. Remember, these folk have been raised in an attitude where all of Scripture is twisted to make that over-reaching authority seem like “God’s Will.” So let’s not be too hard on those who suffer in these settings. And we mustn’t discount their psychological distress as they recognize the ways in which they were used and manipulated.

I entirely agree. We are all familiar with the concept of mental conditioning. We applaud it when it shapes our children to be good thinkers or our soldiers to be stalwart under fire. However, we need to remember that a conditioned person has literally surrendered some level of personal will. Susan, this is the point I think you are missing. Many people in dictatorial churches (I will let others decide which churches fit this description) have reached a level of conditioning that includes significant surrender of will. They believe that their church is the only church within 100 miles that pleases God and that going to any other church will call down God’s wrath on them. They further believe that their Christian duty is to obey the church leadership without question or complaint, and that the church’s authority extends to just about every aspect of their life.

I have personally tried many times to get friends and family out of such churches. In almost every single conversation, the same question arises: “But where would I go?” These people are literally unaware of the dozen other gospel-preaching churches within 10 miles of their house, and they’re too afraid even to visit another church. Here is where the “taboos” come into play. Their church has so many taboos that it really would be virtually impossible to find another church that met the criteria for “godliness” laid down by the church leadership. The church member is conditioned to reject immediately any church that employs the wrong music, Bible version, dress standard, etc..

Furthermore, when pressed about the glaring problems in the leadership, these members begin rationalizing their church’s/pastor’s behavior. It’s Stockholm Syndrome. Like addicts, or like victims of Stockholm Syndrome, these people are no longer able to exercise sufficient personal will to leave. They surrendered it in bits and pieces over many years. Now, they need intervention from the outside. Even if they do leave and relocate to a healthy church, it will take years to erase the programming and rebuild their autonomy (the good kind). I’m not speaking hypothetically; I’ve been down this road with both friends and family.

I’m not entirely missing that point, Bro. Charlie. I think we agree that even when there is mental conditioning taking place over time, the person at some point willingly surrenders to it. And there are some who, even under truly life-threatening circumstances, would not succumb to the pressure. That makes it a choice. So while I agree that a form of coercion is at work here, Stockholm Syndrome is that of willing captivity because their captors are nice to them, not abusive. A more accurate comparison IMO would be http://www.rainn.org/get-information/effects-of-sexual-assault/battered…] Battered Woman Syndrome .

RPittman,

You raise some great questions, the most pointed being how to help people that may not want help. First, we should admit that there are people who need help but don’t want it. Most addicts, for example, need significant support and even pressure to get through their delusions and rationalizations.

However, this doesn’t come up with me very much. I don’t go out of my way to make happy people unhappy with their churches. Normally, people contact me for help, through email or facebook or even SI. They’re confused, because crazy things are happening in their churches, and they think something’s wrong, but they can’t bring themselves to do anything about it. These people are living with loads of cognitive dissonance. For example, they will tell me some really awful things that a church leader has done, but then say, “But he’s such a godly man.” When I reply, “Do godly men do that?” I can see the pain in their souls. Some of them will admit that their churches are horribly sick and even abusive, but still refuse to relocate to a healthier situation. The point is that even people who call out for help or send out signals that they want help, often resist help when offered.

Now, why is my intervention, which includes bringing people to my way of thinking, any morally superior to what their pastors do? Well, my goal is to help them reach a place of autonomy, whereas their pastors want to keep them under control. Also, I refuse to use guilt, shame, and fear as manipulation tools, whereas their pastors specialize in those activities. I suppose someone could call it re-brainwashing, but all the people who have relocated have told me that they are much happier and freer than they used to be.

A few decades ago, it was fashionable to kidnap cult members and de-program them — soft of “unbrainwashing” via lengthy sessions with family and a counselor.

Some of this discussion raises the ugly prospect that someday, somewhere, (if it hasn’t yet happened) someone will kidnap a member of an IFBx church (KJVO, Dictator pastor, extremist views) and try to deprogram them.

Would we approve? Well, I suppose it depends on which views were being deprogrammed.

Mike,

That’s good! Lol!

Is there biblical support for kidnapping an adult and holding them captive until they admit their religious beliefs are wrong?

[dan] Is there biblical support for kidnapping an adult and holding them captive until they admit their religious beliefs are wrong?

Only if they’re “young fundamentalists”. Then there’s probably all kinds of support that no one’s ever seen before.

/sarcasm

Unless you have been snowed by certain people in the IFB to believe you were going to a good church to minister as an assistant pastor you will not understand what it feels like to be stuck in a situation where you have to live day in and day out with a pastor who dictates what you may do and not do, how to raise your children, and the list goes on and on. Yes Pittman you are right sexual abuse does hurt more but unless you have been in a spiritual and emotional abuse pastoral relationship don’t throw your wisdom around. You have no idea what it’s like to live under that pressure for a LONG THREE YEARS until God moved us away. It’s not as easy as you think to get away from the abuse. Those who think pastors don’t act like dictators explain to me how it’s right to say your above the law of the land to clearly disregard church policy concerning the will of the congregation- what about telling members touch not God’s anointed to run away from allegations that he was involved in a questionable activity with someone of the opposite sex? I could go on and on but I will not. I was not the only staff member that was hurt- there were other good people hurt.

I did not confront because I was counseled by the president of the university I graduated from to leave when two brothers cannot walk in agreement. Everything in me wanted to confront the situation with the church but it would have ended up destroying a good church and good people. I don’t have the time or liberty to tell you the whole situation and I’m leaving it at that.

I’m getting tired of Christians who want to open up wounds and shoot the offended rather than offer medicine to the hurt.

I refuse to comment further anymore on this issue.

I think the counsel you received from the university president is the kind of thing that helps perpetuate the environment that leads to situations like the ABWE.

Protecting the leader always seems to be the goal.

John 3:19-21

We should obviously minister to the wounded, but at some point they need to stop picking the scab.

Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.

A friend of mine was telling me about attending a service in a Baptist church on Easter where the visiting preacher was talking about Peter and John at the tomb, and how Peter got a bigger blessing because he went inside (“Let’s go all the way for God!”) and John stayed outside and missed it- apparently because he was distracted by ‘the bawling woman’. (that would be Mary Magdalene for those of you in Rio Linda). Apparently lots of men are distracted from serving God by emotional women. “Can I get an ‘Amen’!” Har-dee-har-har-har. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif The facts of the passage were completely ignored in order to support the outline. I think it was even said that “it ain’t in the passage but it’s in my outline!”. Uh-huh.

Is it bad form to throw hymnbooks at the speaker? ‘Cause I’d’ve been seriously tempted. But then I’m a woman and that would have proven his point! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sick014.gif

Pastoral authority extends no further than the right to proclaim and implement the teachings of Scripture. Pastors must recognize the God-ordained authority of the congregation, and congregations must hold pastors accountable. Churches must seek pastors who focus upon the exposition of Scripture, who are gentle in their dealings with people, who are open and transparent, and who welcome criticism and accountability. Most of all, churches must reject numerical and financial growth as a measure of success and realize that the very first qualification of any minister is that he must give evidence of knowing and loving God.

Nice formula. Would that more churches embraced it.

Roland, forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but are you saying the only way a pastor can abuse his authority is by physical abuse?

Susan,

Where do you get those emoticons? The fainting woman near the end of post 49 almost made me spit out my coke when I realized what it was.

I get most of them at http://www.freesmileys.org/ http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-cool21.gif

[RPittman] Just read a couple of weeks ago Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership by McIntosh and Rima, two Biola professors. Although I don’t accept their use of Humanistic Psychology (and this is the specific theory, not just a rant because they followed Maslow, the father of Humanistic Psychology), the book brings out some pertinent points about failures in leadership. Every leader has his dark side, which harbors the very traits of successful leadership in extremity. Some leaders are better at controlling their dark side. However, the leader’s dark side is provoked by his followers. The constant emphasis on growth, expectations of new things, lack of accountability, adoration and adulation, etc. tend to bring out the dark side.

I’m emailing this to my board. They need to understand this.

This is was many posts ago now, but earlier I observed that I didn’t think IFB had more cases of sex abuse than the general population or that authoritarian leadership, etc., is unique to it.

Just to be clear, what I’m not saying: I’m not saying IFB doesn’t have a serious problem it needs to deal with. The general population is not our standard, nor are “other highly independent groups,” as I think I put it.

So I’m attempting again to reject some of the hysteria (which says IFB is special in having this problem) but, at the same time, not deny that there is a problem.

It’s also really hard to measure the problem in a loose knit group of independent congregations. Nobody’s really polled all these churches or even examined a well chosen sample to project stats from. Add to the mix that there is much more awareness and openness on the whole issue today—that in particular makes it hard to measure how “new” this problem is.

I think Kevin’s reasoning that the number of reported cases in recent years cannot be coincidence is clearly right. But that’s far from having solid numbers.

And if we suppose that there is a huge surge in cases over the last several decades and/or that they are more numerous in IFB than other places, why would that be the case? The 20/20 broadcast suggested a factor is that we believe in hierarchical family structure and some use of bodily discipline of children. This is almost funny to me now, because 200 years ago everybody in the western world believed that—going all the way back to the middle ages and beyond. (Vargas and co. acted like this was some novel new—and heinous—concept. lol)

I’m just randomly musing, I guess.

In all this analysis we need to not lose sight of the obvious: each church & ministry should do everything it can to prevent this sin and properly handle it when it happens. That part’s really not controversial and probably is 90+% of the solution.