Autonomy, Ethics Scandals, and the Madness of Crowds

Aaron, you’re missing a basic fact; organizations tend to circle the wagons when accusations are made, and any coherent plan for dealing with this kind of thing has to take this into account. Organizations will hide information, distort information, resist common sense initiatives, and a whole lot more. Really, I cannot think of any cases where the advice you give here would help. Rather, what you’re saying strengthens the likelihood that a church will circle the wagons when an issue is brought up.

If you want a good example of how to handle something, look at the case of the Extra Strength Tylenol murders of 1982. They took the product off the shelves a week after the first death, only hours after investigators connected the murders to their product, and introduced tamper resistant packaging which is the standard to this day. Another good example is the Penn State scandal with Jerry Sandusky, where clear evidence that President Graham Spanier and Coach Joe Paterno had overlooked Sandusky’s behavior led to their forced resignations only four days after Jerry Sandusky’s indictment. Two weeks later, former FBI director Louis Freeh was hired to do an independent investigation.

Again, I’ve never, ever heard of an organization suffering because they took criticism seriously. Never. I have, however, heard story after story of organizations suffering because they didn’t, and chose instead to circle the wagons, insist on their right to “handle it inside”, accuse the critics of having “madness of crowds”, and the like. That’s what dug the hole for Penn State prior to the indictments, that’s what’s digging a cavern for Michigan State, and that’s what dug huge holes for ABWE, BJU, New Tribes, and the Catholic Church.

It is long past time for churches to open their eyes and realize that the big risk they face when scandals become public is not responding too much to claims. It is circling the wagons in a defensive posture. Again, 1 Timothy 3:7.

Aaron, what an exceptional article! Your points are well taken.

Bert, your points also have merit, IMO. Hiding information, cover-ups, etc. can be the response to scandalous accusations.

But I think disagree with this statement, but I may be misinterpreting it:

I’ve never, ever heard of an organization suffering because they took criticism seriously.

Technically, that might be your experience, but I know of situations where I think church leaders too things TOO seriously. Of course, it is hard to tell sincerity from pretext as an outsider, but many pastors have been fired over trivia. There are knit-pickers, control freaks, people who are not balanced but give the image of being normal, and people with agendas in our churches, and they can create havoc and make mountains out of molehills.

If, on the other hand, you mean accusations that are clearly serious (like adultery or sexual solicitation, for example) with substance behind them, then I agree with you.

To pick those nits, Ed, I’d argue that what you were seeing was precisely circling the wagons. In those situations, those wrongly fired had simply learned the hard way who the real leaders of the organization were, and what their priorities were. Members had gotten used to the situation and would never mention it; many astute outsiders would figure it out instantly.

Two examples serve to illustrate this. John Maxwell noted that in his first meeting in his first pastorate, he figured out that one deacon was the de facto leader of the church. So he cleverly worked with “Floyd” to make sure each of his ideas were seen by “Floyd” as his own.

Another example from my life; one of the first meetings I attended as a deacon in a church in Colorado was of a finance committee that was really making most of the big decisions for the church, and they’d been doing so for years. I noticed this and told the head deacon that we had two deacon boards—and within a couple of weeks, the finance committee was disbanded—and amazingly, it worked out great. The members simply viewed it as their responsibility and were glad to move on to ministries they actually enjoyed.

So I would argue, per 1 Cor. 11:31, that the first job of the leaders of a ministry in an awkward case is not to set boundaries on how much one can, will, or should do. It is to take an honest look at the tendencies of the organization and take steps to mitigate those tendencies. Organizations will circle the wagons, they will attack accusers, and often organizations are the worst at seeing their own weaknesses. So when problems arise, it’s almost always wise to get someone from the outside to take a look. Or, put in the old lawyers’ adage, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. He’s simply not going to see what he needs to see.

The trouble I see with Aaron’s advice is that it directs attention away from what is most critical in a crisis; self-examination, and directs attention towards real or imagined defects in the complainants. And to be blunt about the matter, one of the surest signs I’ve seen that a crisis is going to turn harshly against the accused is that the leaders of the institution start to personally attack the accusers.

Sorry, Aaron, but while some of the things you say are technically true, the thing you’ve missed is so critical that any board that takes your advice without taking “circling the wagons” seriously is strongly likely to do the exact wrong things. All of those things about “excellence” and “we’re not required to do this” are just going to feed the fire.

I have a few comments along this line, in no particular order. I believe my perspective is relatively unique. I didn’t grow up as a Christian. I’ve been a Pastor (and, Lord willing, will become a Pastor again in 20 days - more on that if it happens), and I’ve also been in law enforcement, and in leadership in military and state government. Right now, I manage the Regulatory Investigations Unit for a Washington state agency - with statewide jurisdiction. Here are my thoughts:

1. Some pastors and church leaders are not intelligent people, and they’ll make unintelligent decisions when faced with difficult situations. This is a fact.
2. There is no set of safeguards (e.g. written guidelines and/or a seminary class) that will prevent abuse situations from occurring within Christian families in a local church, or insure they’re reported correctly. Guidelines are only good if you follow them. Having a “paper plan” is useless if you don’t intend to use it.
3. Christians are sometimes out to lunch when it comes to the marriage and divorce issue. I suspect some of the bad advice that’s unfortunately stereotyped as normative from conservative Christian pastors (e.g. see Paige Patterson’s remarks that have been floating on the internet the past few days) stems from an idea that “divorce = unpardonable sin.” This issue is obviously quicksand, but Christian leaders should be willing to challenge assumptions and study the divorce/re-marriage issue. Don’t reach for a book written by your favorite pop theologian; get a pen, paper, and a Bible and start making some notes on Gen 2, Mt 19, Eph 5, 1 Pet 3 and 1 Cor 7. Throw Song of Solomon in there, too. Full disclosure; I counseled a Christian woman to divorce amidst a terrible situation, and later performed her marriage ceremony to a good Christian man. They have an excellent marriage today/
4. A pastor needs to understand what his mandatory reporting requirements are, in his local jurisdiction.
5. The police are your ally, not your enemy. It’s appropriate and prudent (if circumstances warrant it) to work parallel to the state in matters of domestic abuse. Criminals should be made to feel the consequences of their own actions. If appropriate, report the offender to the authorities and encourage the spouse to do the same. Work with the couple (or, barring that, at least the victimized spouse) from a spiritual standpoint (which includes confrontation about the need for honest confession of sin and repentance), while you allow the state to handle it’s own end.

Dear Tyler,

Keep us up to date on the pastorate situation!

I appreciate your comments very much, but in defense of Aaron, I think it is important to point out that he was talking strictly about matters that are not legal infractions. He is talking more about in-house church matters, like unfaithfulness, etc.

I appreciate your reminder that the police are our friends.

With marriage and divorce issues, I suspect we would be similar in thought. I ran into a pastor friend once at the post office, and asked him what his position was on divorce. He said, “The Biblical one.” I thought, “Good grief. Serious, Bible-believing interpreters have developed a number of viewpoints on this issue. We all want the Biblical one, but to claim we own the rights to it is not reasonable.” Ok, the wording was not that kind in my mind :) . As a matter of fact, I thought his statement to be condescending toward those with other studied convictions.

A church can, however, determine some of its own requirements for a leader in addition to the Bible, as long as it is understood that those requirements do not come from the Bible (which, sadly, is often how it is portrayed). One example would be a degree from a Bible college or seminary. A church can also require its pastors, elders, or deacons, to have never been divorced. However, when this is tied to I Timothy 3:2, it must be recognized that — although we may have convictions as to what this verse means — there are many solid Bible people who (without agenda) would interpret this differently.

I think Aaron’s comments about autonomy deserve to be heard. Ironically, our brethren who are so passionately championing outside intervention are destroying the principle of congregational (nay, organizational) autonomy. The state is not the answer. Intelligent, prudent leaders are the answer, along with a willingness to follow a good set of policy guidelines for these situations.

At the heart of it, this is a leadership issue. That’s all it is. Leaders re notoriously hard to find. It’s an intangible thing, but we all know it when we see it. A guy may be able to preach well, but this doesn’t make him a leader. We need more than technicians in our pulpits. Every organization struggles to find good leaders, and sometimes the slots are filled by technicians, instead. These aren’t the same thing.

Show me a case where a local church handled a domestic abuse situation badly, and I’ll probably show you a terrible failure of organizational leadership. In many cases, it more than that - it’s criminal incompetence and negligence (e.g. ABWE and Ketchum). You can’t solve this with a class. You also can’t solve that with “paper guidelines” that sit on a shelf.

What is the solution, then? I’ll make these brief remarks:

1. A 22 year old with a bible college BA is not equipped to lead anybody to do anything. He’s equipped to learn, and put his newly acquired tools to the test, instead. It isn’t his fault; he’s just young.
2. Ditto for the 26 year old with an MDiv, who’s been at university since he was 18. It isn’t his fault; he’s just young.
3. Ditto for the 22 year old who’s been married for six months. It isn’t his fault; he’s just young. How on earth can a 22 yr-old with a BA, married for six months, offer any meaningful advice to a couple married for 20 years with six kids, when the husband says, “Our sex life is awful. She doesn’t meet my needs. That’s why I turned to pornography. I tried to initiate sex with her the other morning, and she refused. She doesn’t care about me!” Multiply that inexperience factor when it comes to allegations of spousal abuse.
4. If a local church isn’t committed to doing some discipleship with promising young men, and is counting on seminaries to train future leaders, then it’s already failed.
5. Pastors who have stayed within the cozy Christian sub-cultural “bubble” sometimes live in an alternate reality from the rest of their congregation, and don’t understand the “real world” very well. There is an intangible, but very real benefit, from being bi-vocational or having real life experience outside ministry.
6. Local churches often have no idea how to find a pastor, and their criteria often doesn’t include “leadership.” Even if it did, Deacons may not even know what leadership looks like anyway. Associations should help their member churches find competent pastors.

None of this is easy, or sexy. It’d be easier to “solve” the problem with another required seminary class. Except, that’d solve nothing. This is a leadership problem, and it stems from how we prepare our young men in local churches (not seminaries), and what we expect when we look for new pastors to fill vacancies.

We need leaders, not mere technicians. Even then, you can’t stop stupid, so these things will continue to happen.

Tyler, you are making a lot of sweeping statements, but missing the point. See Ed’s comment. You are arguing with your mental image of the point, I think.

on th issue of reporting/handling in house, when criminal conduct is suspected, I think it is pretty clear that those with knowledge must report, especially ministers. However, many situations are not so cut and dried. It seems like we are developing a new breed of Pharisees who know better than God how to handle domestic problems.

Aaron, if you want evidence that what you’ve written empowers abusers. It’s the simple fact that if you see yourself as sovereign, you will start to act as one. Place yourself in the position of someone who’s got something to hide, and who’s designed their organization to hide it.

“Oh, I can shut down an independent investigation by appealing to this doctrine? Hey….. Oh, external people do not have a stake in the results here, even though my books are sent by Amazon and CBD all over the world? Sounds good….”

Sorry, brother, but this is not that complicated. Your theory of radical autonomy of the local church has little to do with the New Testament, and it has always been used to empower those who will not play by Biblical rules. It’s time to modify it to reflect the fact that the New Testament largely exists due to the efforts of the Apostles to infringe on that radical autonomy that some (Diotrephes, sectarians of 1 Cor, etc.) tried to use to their advantage.

Don:

Aaron’s series came from a discussion on this “sexual and physical abuse reporting” issue in another thread. That’s why my comments are oriented towards that context. For example, see how Aaron ties it back to this context in his second installment.

My main point is that these scandals are often a result of poor leadership. Another seminary class won’t fix this, and neither will a knee-jerk referral to an allegedly neutral third-party organization - and we shouldn’t expect these options will fix such a systemic problem (to the extent that it actually exists, and isn’t being blown out of proportion by eager Christians on social media). One solution is to make sure we’re actually appointing leaders, not mere preaching technicians, as pastors in our churches. My long comments are elaborations on that theme.

• Do you believe the root issue is leadership, to the extent these accusations are credible?
• What do you mean by your comment “[i] t seems like we are developing a new breed of Pharisees who know better than God how to handle domestic problems.”

You know, for years I have heard axioms that equate so much weight to leaders. We have developed an entire science of leadership based upon particular individuals, and we try to develop principles we see in them and/or emulate them.

So little of this comes from actual Bible command. The Bible describes many leaders (Moses, Balaam, Samuel, Samson, Eli, Saul, David, Paul, etc.) who were put in those positions by God, some good and some not so good.

In the NT, we see the idea of rank (e.g., Apostle), and, within that rank, some rose to great influence (Peter, Paul, and John, for example) while others (like Thaddeus, for example) did not seem to be as notable.

Without getting extensive, I think this leadership science — while valuable in some ways — is not really developed from Scripture. Thaddeus was a leader and an apostle. So was Paul. We know more about Paul, but if Thaddeus was called to a small, not-so-influential ministry and we knew it, would we emulate him? I think not.

To take one sort of leader and ignore other forms of leadership based upon greater results or notoriety and make that the model for all misses the point. The church is a body. Every leader leads in his own way, and that may not fit the popular templates.

I think the Bible encourages all men to:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

Whether you are 22 or 62, that is God’s call. Age may influence wisdom, but not courage. You don’t have to be a great influencer to take a stand and act like a man. And that is what is needed among board members, etc., during such times.

I began my pastoral ministry at age 22 with a BA from Moody Bible Institute. Back in 1979 when I began, I don’t know that I would this scenario any differently. It was tough to handle then, but no easier now.

Ditto for the 22 year old who’s been married for six months. It isn’t his fault; he’s just young. How on earth can a 22 yr-old with a BA, married for six months, offer any meaningful advice to a couple married for 20 years with six kids, when the husband says, “Our sex life is awful. She doesn’t meet my needs. That’s why I turned to pornography. I tried to initiate sex with her the other morning, and she refused. She doesn’t care about me!

My first pastorate was in Chicago in an inner-city storefront church, where I served exactly 4 and 1/2 years — the longest tenure of any pastor in its 50 year history. The messy situations I may now be able to label better, but I cannot say I would give any different direction than I would have back then. There was one exception, a couple dealing with impotence. That one threw me for a loop, so I referred them to an older, more experienced pastor friend ( which is what a young pastor should do). And that — making friends with experienced pastor(s) and asking for advice — is what can really help a young man (or not so young man — I still do this on occasion) face some of those challenges.

Ed, I agree with this. I’m not arguing for a science of leadership. Perhaps leadership isn’t the best term to describe what I’m getting at. I’m using it as a shorthand to describe a whole constellation of necessary characteristics. I’ll refrain from elaborating further, because that isn’t the point of this article. But, suffice it to say I’m not arguing for “leadership” as an illusory chimera in a secular sense, as if we should all head to a Tony Robbins seminar.

I will say that people know if a man is competent to lead others. We can see it in them. We recognize it. Some pastors are more preaching technicians than leaders. Lack of leadership = lack or courage to follow an appropriate course, no matter the consequences = wagon circling = the recent scandals we’ve seen.

Again, I caution folks to remember this - you’re wrong if you think you can understand the facts of the situation from reading internet articles and Twitter feeds. We must avoid copying the worst impulses of the leftist socialists, by forming social media mobs to rail against alleged failures by churches or para-church organizations. You likely don’t have the facts, and those “facts” you do have likely have an agenda behind them.

Wait before rushing to judgment. This is why I don’t say anything about Phelps, Wilson, Hybels or any of the other matters that have been in the public eye. There’s little point. The best we can do is watch, read, and consider how we can avoid the same “mistakes” (we may never know if they really were mistakes, though) in our own ministries.

Aaron, I was referring to this comment, from the Hybels discussion. My apologies if I misunderstood the context of your articles, here.

Funny, in the “Thesis” section, I read that (a) organizations should not view themselves as obligated to have an outside investigator and (b) organizations ought not give undue weight to public outcry. Notice that both contentions are profoundly negative, and the end result is going to be that those who begin with this point of view are extremely likely to end with it as well. . In the same way, when one refers to the “madness of crowds”, one is (again) beginning with the assumption that their complaints are not valid and may indeed be a sign of mental illness.

Not a good place to start an investigation, to put it mildly, and this is exactly why I state that this article actually enables those who break the rules. The ground rules are phrased to discourage a good look around.

That doesn’t mean that every allegation is true, or that an independent investigator is always the solution, but let’s contrast that with a positive phrasing:

(a) Independent investigators can be a valuable resource to restore church credibility when evidence exists that church controls have failed, and (b) public outcry can be a valuable, though not infallible, indication of an organization’s need to investigate. It means almost the same thing, but again; it’s positive and will tend to lead towards action.

Another dangerous way to phrase things is “you don’t have all the facts”. Technically true, but only God knows everything, and we need to work on partial evidence. Regarding Hybels, get those 1100 emails, and we all know the full story most likely. It’s also significant that members of WC’s accountability board resigned in protest of the investigation—or lack thereof. Proof of guilt? Not yet, but definitely proof of a halfhearted investigation.

It’s little clues like that that break cases, and it’s little clues like this that non-independent investigators tend to miss because they’re used to looking at it. Churches need to learn not to discourage people from looking.

The thesis is STILL in a negative tone, and that will set the tone for what we’re discussing. I would further argue that in any ethical scandal that becomes public, an outside investigator should be STRONGLY encouraged if there is any significant evidence that in-church accountability structures have already failed.

I’m going to walk through your arguments as well, as I disagree almost completely. For starters, excellence is not what you do in special cases; it is what you do from day to day. Nobody buys Lindt chocolate or a Lexus because of what they do in special cases; they buy because every day, the whole company comes together to build the best chocolate/car they can. If you reserve excellence for special cases, it will not be there. That’s why companies get certified with ISO, after all.

Going further, I would invert your claim that organizations know better than outsiders what’s going on; the reason I say this is that survival in an organization is often a matter of accepting how that organization works, including its flaws. A well run organization sometimes will come close to what an outside auditor will see, but you’ll see they make a point of getting outsiders in who are not used to how the organization works. Example: ISO certification.

MYOB; OK, when someone like Bill Hybels is allegedly embarrassing the cause of Christ by sexually abusing subordinates and friends, exactly how do we claim that this is not the business of others in the catholic (universal) church? Sorry, doesn’t fly. In the same way, any parent of kids in sports is—or ought to be—concerned about scandals like that of Larry Nassar.

(this really covers your argument of fire, disenfranchisement, and others….sorry, everybody ought to be concerned when Chuck Phelps hides what happened to Tina Anderson by sending her to Colorado, as it could happen to their loved ones, too)

Argument from unwisdom of crowds: you give no examples, I’ve given plenty of the idiocy of groups circling the wagons. I think the preponderance of evidence says that not only is this a claim that is going to deter people from taking necessary and prudent steps to handle problem rightly, but also that the idiocy of wagon-circling groups appears to be more powerful than the unwisdom of crowds these days, to put it mildly.

Bert, the Gospels are full of partial truths. There is nothing wrong with only dealing with part of a subject. One is not obligated to deal with it all (or nothing). This is the logical issue between you and Aaron.

Aaron’s article is fine and it stands on its own. The negative is part of the equation. If he were claiming that his article were the whole truth and it dealt with matters in a full way, that would be a different story.

Balance-phobia is common in the Christian world. It forces us to predicate everything with, “I’m not saying this…but I am saying this.” In a format like SI, with the mature nature of our participants, this should be understood a priori without the constant disclaimer.

I contend these reason why these issues (spousal abuse, sexual abuse, etc.) are sometimes mishandled by churches is because of poor leadership, which is an umbrella term for a whole host of inter-related problems (e.g. cowardice, resulting in wagon-circling, etc.). I agree with Aaron’s thesis. Congregations must hold their pastors accountable to be good leaders, and the deacons must do likewise. The pastor, deacons and the congregation should provide a mutual set of checks and balances. I’m aware this sometimes doesn’t happen.

1. RE: Hybels. There are no allegations of sexual * assault *, but there are several serious allegations of sexual harassment - remarks about the poor condition of his marriage to other women, requests for massages and such, remarks about women keeping themselves fit and pretty, etc. I am not following it closely, but there is a lot of smoke there to indicate real issues there that needed to be dealt with a long time ago.

2. As for this:

“In response to purely ethical scandals, organizations should view themselves as free to find solutions internally; further, they should be wary of attaching too much significance to public outcry.”

I seem to recall Paul taking the Corinthian church apart in chapter 5 simply because of this very problem… They were not acting on a very serious blot on the name of Christ and destroying their own reputation. He does not spend too much time on the man’s sin, but does hammer the church repeatedly for not dealing it. There is a principle there we need to pay attention to, especially in cases where the “investigation” is neutered by those in charge or cannot proceed at all for similar reasons. Personally, I think the church of Christ ought to be as open, transparent, and honest with all of these types of matters. Things decided in darkened rooms tend to generate fear, confusion, gossip, and all sorts of other sins.

I don’t think Aaron has been in that kind of situation before, as I and others have, so his advice simply isn’t helpful for people who are trapped in the kinds of situations where the leadership is the problem. Of course most of the pastors/deacons/elders on this site are going to agree with that perspective. I don’t mean to denigrate Aaron in any way, just acknowledge the fact that situation is VERY different when you are the church leader investigating something vs. the accuser/victim who has been offended by the church leader.

Ed, I’ve got to disagree, once again, that Aaron’s thesis is of any use simply because it starts out with such strong predispositions to doubt allegations and to insist on handling things the BJU/ABWE/New Tribes/MSU/Willow Creek way. Keep it inside, let the truth dribble out, pay no attention to the rest of the Christian world that suffers when the world sees that pastors and such are allowed to get away with these things, etc.. This is especially the case when I consider that I can provide counter-examples to each of his points. The factual basis for his claims is just not there.

And as Jay notes, when people who have been close to a situation see that pattern, they recognize it. Like it or not, but Aaron has done a capable job of…..describing one of the big causes of the problems we’ve seen.

Aaron’s method works if you have leaders with integrity and courage. Of course such leaders would know to bring in the law for anything that violates the law.

I view this like church government — about any system works if you have leaders with integrity who value the organization and righteousness above their own preferences. But even Biblical government fails if you have bad leaders with their agendas.

I would go a step further. Coming from Cicero, IL, during the days when the Mafia and corruption controlled the city, the police were themselves corrupt and took payoffs.

I do agree, however, that law enforcement was not typically like that elsewhere, and is one of the most dependable institutions we have. Still, it makes the point.

I’m sorry, but Aaron’s method does not work, will not work, and can not work. A great way of summing it up is in the claim that things would be solved with leaders of integrity; OK, let’s parse this out Biblically. Are our leaders greater than Peter, who was rebuked by the outsider Paul for his dalliance with the Judiazers, or David, whose dalliance with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah was rebuked by the outsider Nathan?

Of course not. Smart leaders know that corporate culture eats corporate initiatives and corporate leaders for lunch, including in the church, and hence they need to pay careful attention to the tone that is set in their pronouncements.

Here’s a good picture from this column by Ed Stetzer. If you read it from the perspective of corporate culture, it is absolutely chilling to see what Stetzer describes. More or less, he’s saying that the blind spot is shared by the entire denomination. In other words, organizations very often are the worst judges of their own problems, just like Peter and David could tell you.

And if we think we’re any different, we are fooling ourselves. Outsiders who make complaints are not suffering from “madness of crowds”, and it is not the duty of leaders to downplay what they’re saying. Rather, we know a priori that they care enough about us to bring their concerns before us. We owe it to ourselves to take these seriously, even if in some points they might end up found in error. Anything that tends to create an assumption that we ought not take these things seriously needs to be avoided.

Really, Aaron, all you have to do do to better than your plan is to not do what you suggest, more or less. What you’ve suggested, in a nutshell, is that certain testimony is automatically inferior to insider testimony—and that’s simply not true, and it simply boggles the mind that someone who watched his alma mater wander through a GRACE investigation would believe that.

Really, it’s the same thing that medieval judges did; esteem nobles’ and mens’ testimony over that of peasants and women, and it’s no more justifiable. You need to stop talking this way, and making claims about the “madness of crowds.”

Rather, you concede that while an outsider doesn’t have an insider’s view, neither does he have the tendency to accept things simply to remain a member of the group. You’ve got to admit that this is a powerful incentive to downplay very real ethical and moral offenses, seen (again) abundantly at ABWE, BJU, New Tribes, MSU, Paige Patterson’s behavior, and most likely Willow Creek. The outsider is, after all, complaining about your group—often to the group directly—because he cares enough to spend the time to complain. He deserves a straight answer, if not directly to him, to the world.

Finally, in light of the ability of many outsiders to see things that insiders never notice or care about, you’ve got to admit that an outside investigation into serious allegations is not just a good idea when there are criminal charges. Infidelity of a pastor, especially with an unbeliever, generates civil suits and general disgrace to the church as a whole, not just one’s own local body. Hence, if the facts are not 100% clear, why not bring in an outsider investigator who won’t be as tempted to shade the truth? You don’t say “you don’t need to”, but rather “this can be a valuable way of restoring a ministry’s credibility.”

In other words, recognize that BOTH claims in your thesis are negative and will tend to prejudice any investigation, and moreover the claims that you’re using to “back them up” are not only dubious at best in light of modern church scandals, but also as written will tend to prejudice any investigation, internal or open.

Sorry, but thankfully, most organizations do NOT follow your advice. I guarantee you that if you showed your advice to most Title IX coordinators or sexual harassment staff in companies, they would immediately throw it in the circular file where it belongs. What you are not getting is that if a policy contains the presumption that certain types of testimony are inherently less valuable than others, or that certain actions are not required, you’ve prejudiced the investigation against certain complainants and against certain types of intervention. Real Title IX documents state clearly that outside information is welcome and encouraged. Yes, I’ve read one—MSU’s.

The closest thing to that is language in the Federal DOE guidance that encourages use of a trained investigator and the requirement that there be no conflict of interest.

Aaron, that’s the whole point that Bert and I are making. A church that handles matters like sexual abuse “in house” have an inherent conflict of interest. That’s why people like Rachel Denhollander are pushing for independent investigations and reviews of Sovereign Grace Churches and Michigan State University.

Well, you might say, the investigation is being managed by someone in the church with no ties to the person in question. But they do have a conflict simply because they are investigating their own church.

Furthermore, neither of us are arguing that all investigations must be handled by third parties - simply that there are times when it’s warranted and even wise. Again, if the church is going to be the pillar and ground of Truth, then we ought to have nothing to fear from investigations or criticisms, because we don’t hide the truth and because we want to be as good as we can be when it comes to protecting the innocent and prosecuting the guilty.

From Wikipedia:

A widely used definition is: “A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.” Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officer. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests.

Or Merriam-Webster:

legal Definition of conflict of interest

1 : a conflict between the private interests and the official or professional responsibilities of a person in a position of trust

[Jay] Furthermore, neither of us are arguing that all investigations must be handled by third parties - simply that there are times when it’s warranted and even wise.

But if Bert and I aren’t saying that, then who is? Why introduce that into this discussion at all? Even Rachael Denhollander and many of those victims from MSU don’t say this.

There are big differences between:

Third party investigations should happen in particular instances (SGC, WCC, BJU, MSU, etc).

And

We must always have a third party review of every allegation.

I added that organizations may seek assistance from outside investigators when they think it maybe helpful, but they are not obligated and the public doesn’t have authority to demand this, and organizations do not have to obey public demands.

Aaron, I think that when an organization like SGC or BJU has flubbed the handling of abuse cases, it is incumbent on the ‘public’ (alumni and supporters) to demand changes so that it doesn’t happen again. I get what you are saying because you’re probably thinking of the public as in non-believers and enemies of those institutions. But as Christians and as alumni, we ought to hold these places to the standard of “it must never happen again here” as stakeholders (however loosely) in that organization’s purpose and mission. Isn’t this what the NIU debates were about?

I have to admit that I find your position a little contradictory, as the purpose of SI is to:

Our aim is to provide a place where Christians can interact thoughtfully and respectfully on a wide range of topics, including our articles and the news items and blog samples we post daily.

And yet now you say things like:

The simple fact is that organizations of any kind that care about ethics, truth, and their mission, must balance their desire to maintain their own ethical standards and their desire to stay in control of their pursuit of their own mission with the demands of the public and the media.

If the purpose of SI is to foster a community of Fundamentalists that doesn’t talk about issues like Paige Patterson’s tolerance of physical abuse or his objectification of college co-eds, then why run and maintain a discussion board at all? I say this as your friend and former co-worker, not as an enemy or someone who wants to burn the whole thing down. We just have to have the dross burned off, and we ought to welcome that dross being removed. It’s better that we do it to ourselves than God does it to us or unbelievers do it to us as well. We ought to welcome radical transparency and owning our mistakes / errors.

I get not bowing to the ignorant mobs demanding blood from Christians that have messed up. I’m not convinced that the people here fall into that category, or that other Christians should just ignore these things and look away. Doing that fosters all the wrong things that allow abuse to spread and continue.

Aaron, once again, and I’ve said it before, I’ve not argued what you’re claiming.

Now read carefully this time. My objection to your writing is that it does indeed prejudice those who take your position against the very notion of outsiders coming in. You state, without evidence (and against evidence I’ve presented) that insiders know better that’s going on than outsiders. You state, without evidence and against evidence I’ve presented, that those objecting from outside suffer from “madness of crowds” and that it is “shouting mobs.” You start the discussion by saying something is “not required”, and understood in context of how we work in fundamentalism, that means “it won’t get done.”

That’s why I object to what you say. It’s not the same thing I’m saying at all, because you are loading the discussion with perjoratives that any organization is going to act on.

Now let’s phrase it in a better way, and pay close attention this time.

1. Although outsiders by definition do not have an insider’s view, they often see things that insiders overlook. Insiders overlook things because they have gotten used to them, and quite frankly because overlooking certain things is often an implicit condition of membership in the group.

2. Because outsiders see things that insiders overlook, and because they do not have a reason to shade the truth to retain membership in the group, their participation in dealing with ethical or other issues is generally a valuable tool. This is why sensible organizations have routine audits by outsiders in mission critical areas so they can find their blind spots before those blind spots erupt into major issues. (e.g. ISO, financial audits, Title IX audits, etc..)

3. Hence any organization that speaks perjoratively of the influence of outsiders is being foolish.

Someone has a problem with reading comprehension.

Just sayin’. That note without evidence is a pot-shot.

I, and about 40 other managers from my agency, had to attend a two-day seminar on leadership this past week. One major problem I saw, as we worked in groups to tackle issues within our agency, is that people are reluctant (for some reason) to go beyond abstractions. For example, here is a literal recitation of how a group conversation went (and, bear in mind we’re all senior leaders, with years and years of management experience):

• FACILITATOR: The employee survey says we’ve got a problem with information sharing, so we have to find a way to fix it.
• PEOPLE: Agreed!
• FACILITATOR: How can we fix it? Let’s brainstorm … [ten minutes of madness ensues, during which time about 30 different problems are brought up]
• ME: This is too abstract. I don’t know what we’re talking about
• FACILITATOR: What do you mean?
• ME: I mean, what specific information isn’t being shared? We can’t figure out a solution until we figure this out. And, I was in the two-day focus group of people from all over the agency, from all levels, that went over this survey. Everybody agreed information sharing was a problem, but nobody could actually explain what that meant. I’m not even convinced it’s a real problem, at this point
• FACILITATOR [looking skeptical]: Well, let’s just continue with what we have …

It shouldn’t surprise you to know we accomplished nothing on this alleged problem. Another example:

• FACILITATOR: We’re here because the Chief Deputy wants us to figure out how to take better ownership of our programs.
• ME: What does that mean? Are we not taking ownership? How are we failing? Is this an organization-wide failure, or are specific divisions struggling? I don’t know what this means; it’s too abstract, but it sounds good on a PowerPoint, to be sure!

I could go on, but you get the point. I’ve seen this over and over, throughout the years, in a variety of contexts (both ecclesiastical and secular). That’s the case with this discussion, here. I see well-meaning, impassioned arguments about how to handle serious situations inside local churches; situations where law enforcement may have to be notified. That’s lovely, but we’re stuck spinning our wheels on theoretical problems.

1. I get what Aaron is saying, and I agree with it.
2. I’m not quite sure what Bert wants local churches to do
3. I’m not sure if there really is a substantial disagreement between the two viewpoints, at this point

Unless and until we work through a case study, we’ll get nowhere in advancing this discussion. I’ve come to the point, in a variety of contexts, where I think it’s a waste to spend a significant amount of time dealing in theoretical abstractions. Think of a plan of action and response in general terms - that’s fine and necessary. But, put it down on paper and get down to brass tacks as soon as possible. Work through realistic scenarios and test whether your theoretical plan is workable or prudent.

Bert, I must be honest, I have no idea what you are saying local churches should do, and under what circumstances they ought to do it. Please tell me, as specifically as you can, what your idea looks like for an independent Baptist church with a membership of 35.

Just ignore the people that are here to stir the pot. This is a worthwhile conversation, and like others, I do think that Aaron, Bert, Tyler and I are all a lot closer than it may seem - we’re just approaching it from different angles.

Tyler, how would you manage a situation in your hypothetical church like the ones Bert or I suggest? Or, for that matter, if Larry Nassar had been a pastor in a church instead of a medical doctor, or something like the ABWE fiasco? Would you want an outside review by GRACE or someone like that? I think I’ve been pretty vocal that for something like ABWE, an outside review is almost mandatory due to the scope of the issues there. Aaron, same question for you.

For a hypothetical church of 35, I think I’d ask elders/pastors from a church of like faith and practice to come in and review the situation, our policies, and anything else that they felt the need to look into. I think they should seek the input of fellow believers that are outside of the church to review their issues and situation.

Jay:

Nassar was a medical professional, and I can’t conceive of a parallel situation where a pastor would be giving medical examinations to young women in a church. But, let’s say a pastor is sexually assaulting young girls. Fine.

You wrote:

For a hypothetical church of 35, I think I’d ask elders/pastors from a church of like faith and practice to come in and review the situation, our policies, and anything else that they felt the need to look into. I think they should seek the input of fellow believers that are outside of the church to review their issues and situation.

A few questions:

1. Are you speaking from the perspective of the situation already having been resolved, or is this hypothetical man still the pastor?
2. Are you, in effect, recommending a council of elders from the local Baptist association or pastor’s fellowship get together with the Deacons of this congregation to do an after action report?
3. Who else from outside the church would you ask to come in? Are you referring to specialists (in something, not sure what), or just nice Christians? What are their credentials or expertise? What do you expect to get from this outside consultation? That is, what is the scope of their consultation and what do you want at the end of it?
4. What kind of documentation are you looking for, about these consultations (either the local association or an outside group)? Would you make these consultations public? If so, how? If you would provide written reports on these consultations in a public manner, why?
5. If you want written reports from these consultations, how would you mitigate charges of cover-up from victims in the community? After all, it was just other pastors who got together with you to talk about your procedures; they’re on “your side,” right?
6. If you’re actually recommending an outside organization to do these consultations, how do you expect a congregation of 35 will pay for these services, and do think a church this small needs this kind of formal consultation?
7. Do you actually expect a church with a membership of 35 to survive in a community if the pastor sexually abuses young girls? The church may die very very quickly, which would make the steps you outlined superfluous.

I’m ignoring the parachurch organizations, right now. They aren’t churches.

This discussion began with what seemed like Bert asserting outside organizations must always be called in. Aaron seemed to say, not always. Discussion ensued. Aaron said, I will write two posts outlining my position, which he did, essentially saying, not always. Bert argued a lot with both articles. Jay chimed in, also arguing. Aaron kept saying not always. Bert (and now Jay) kept on arguing. Finally we now have Bert and Jay saying, we never said always.

And I say, “What are we talking about?”

Like I said, time for some bonehead English

A few questions:

1. Are you speaking from the perspective of the situation already having been resolved, or is this hypothetical man still the pastor?
2. Are you, in effect, recommending a council of elders from the local Baptist association or pastor’s fellowship get together with the Deacons of this congregation to do an after action report?
3. Who else from outside the church would you ask to come in? Are you referring to specialists (in something, not sure what), or just nice Christians? What are their credentials or expertise? What do you expect to get from this outside consultation? That is, what is the scope of their consultation and what do you want at the end of it?
4. What kind of documentation are you looking for, about these consultations (either the local association or an outside group)? Would you make these consultations public? If so, how? If you would provide written reports on these consultations in a public manner, why?
5. If you want written reports from these consultations, how would you mitigate charges of cover-up from victims in the community? After all, it was just other pastors who got together with you to talk about your procedures; they’re on “your side,” right?
6. If you’re actually recommending an outside organization to do these consultations, how do you expect a congregation of 35 will pay for these services, and do think a church this small needs this kind of formal consultation?
7. Do you actually expect a church with a membership of 35 to survive in a community if the pastor sexually abuses young girls? The church may die very very quickly, which would make the steps you outlined superfluous.

Fair enough. Here’s my answers:

1. No longer the pastor.

2. Yes, in essence. I believe that there is Scriptural merit for this (We see inter and intra-church cooperation in the book of Acts, teachings on the universal Church in Ephesians 4-5).

3. Ideally, the church would have money to hire someone like GRACE or whoever. If not, then I think they have to look to the leadership of local churches in the area of like faith and practice in the area, or even asking grounded seminary professors to help from afar. If the church is serious about the testimony of Christ, and is serious about dealing with this, there will be an attitude of self-reflection and openness to review.

4. In a church this small, I think that it’s a good idea to have the findings of the AAR written up and made available to the congregation or attendees. It would include - a short (two paragraph) recap of the situation and then a bulleted list of recommendations going forward.

5. People can’t credibly charge you with a cover-up if those findings are written and available at the church.

6. I think I already dealt with this.

7. It might have died, yes, but it’s worth doing anyway for those who remain and for the sake of the testimony to the outside community.

Am I being naieve or overly optimistic? Sure. But I’d rather hash this out via cyberspace now and make mistakes than be forced into some kind of situation like this in real life and not have time to think, study, or plan how I would manage it. Plan your work, and work your plan, so to speak.

We generally don’t cover any kind of crisis management in undergrad or seminary, and with today’s culture and the rapid spread/dissemination of information via the internet, we need to have a plan of some sort. Or even an idea of how to proceed.

Tyler actually came up with the right term - an After Action Review or Action Review. I got this from KSToolkit.org:

Brief Description:

An After Action Review (AAR) is a simple process used by a team to capture the lessons learned from past successes and failures, with the goal of improving future performance. It is an opportunity for a team to reflect on a project, activity, event or task so that they can do better the next time. It can also be employed in the course of a project to learn while doing. AARs should be carried out with an open spirit and no intent to blame. The American Army used the phrase “leave your rank at the door” to optimize learning in this process. Some groups document the review results; others prefer to emphasize the no-blame culture by having no written record.
AAR is a form of group reflection; participants review what was intended, what actually happened, why it happened and what was learned. One member of the group facilitates, capturing results on a flip chart or in a document.
AARs can be short, frequent group process checks, or more extended, in-depth explorations. They can be conducted in person, on the telephone or even online, either asynchronously (meaning you don’t have to be online at the same time with email or web forums) or synchronously (meaning you are online or on the phone at the same time, using tools like chat or instant messaging – IM). Because these reviews can be valuable throughout processes, they are sometimes referred to as Action Reviews (AR).

[Bert Perry]

1. Although outsiders by definition do not have an insider’s view, they often see things that insiders overlook. Insiders overlook things because they have gotten used to them, and quite frankly because overlooking certain things is often an implicit condition of membership in the group.

2. Because outsiders see things that insiders overlook, and because they do not have a reason to shade the truth to retain membership in the group, their participation in dealing with ethical or other issues is generally a valuable tool. This is why sensible organizations have routine audits by outsiders in mission critical areas so they can find their blind spots before those blind spots erupt into major issues. (e.g. ISO, financial audits, Title IX audits, etc..)

3. Hence any organization that speaks perjoratively of the influence of outsiders is being foolish.

An outside group would be especially valuable in checking out resumes. A pastoral committee is not likely to have investigative experience, but if they would hire an experienced investigator, they would find any ethical problems before the man even gets called by the church. Organizations often hire headhunting companies to look for a CEO.

If a candidate graduated from the same school that the church supports, or has been influenced by the same men that the church respects, then the pastoral committee might be biased in favor of that man and overlook relevant details. An outside group would not be hampered by such bias.

The Bible gives clear indication of outside help in the installation of pastors. Titus was told to appoint elders in the churches of Crete.

Very good comment, Kevin. How exactly are we to find, per 1 Tim. 3:7, that a prospective elder has a good reputation among outsiders if we do not consult outsiders? That is at the core of what an FBI background check is about, no? You talk to other churches, employers, get the FBI background checks done, etc..

Regarding cases a church might face, you could have the case of someone like Donn Ketcham, who did very similar crimes like Larry Nassar, but if that happens, you’re going to have so many police agencies crawling around your building you won’t be able to get anyone else in. At least unless the FBI completely drops the ball, as they did with the Nassar case and continue to do. They seem to be trying to make Michigan State look smart in comparison, sigh.

I would argue that the most important time to do an after action report or 8D is not in those cases, but rather when the problem is significant but not yet legally actionable on a civil or criminal level. That’s when you have the breathing room to say “OK, what are our issues that we need to address?” without them becoming found in discovery.

And for the umpteenth time, I’m not arguing that outsiders need to be brought in every time. Where Aaron goes grievously wrong is that he justifies the notion by making unfounded statements about the usefulness of outsider information. When you start with the point of view that your leaders know better than any outsider, accuse the crowd of madness, and the like, you basically create a mindset that is incredibly hard to penetrate, no matter how good the argument is for an outside investigation. This is precisely the mindset that MSU is dealing with now—they think they’ve got it covered, and hence they are doing misstep after misstep.

Is that so hard to understand? If you assume a priori that an investigation will have no value, go figure that nobody will see the value in it.