Hammond, Accountability and Legalism
The pastoral scandal in Hammond has sparked many conversations about why these disasters keep happening, what the phenomenon says about independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches and ministies, and what ought to be done to fix whatever exactly is broken. The idea of accountability has figured prominently in several of these conversations.
But if IFB and other branches of Christendom1 are going to use accountability effectively, we’ll have to arrive at a clearer understanding of what accountability is, what it’s limitations are, and where its real value lies. My aim here is to make a small contribution toward that end.
Defining “accountability”
For some, accountability has an almost magical power to keep all bad behavior from happening. Whenever some kind of shocking sin comes to light, their first and last response is “we need more accountability.” In these cases the term “accountability” tends to be defined vaguely if at all. At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that accountability is only something that occurs in response to wrongdoing and that has no power to prevent it (see the conversation here, for example).
From what I’ve seen, though, most understand the idea of accountability in a more nuanced way.
Merriam-Webster2 defines accountability as follows.
: the quality or state of being accountable, especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions
accountability>
On “accountable,” the same source provides the following:
1 : subject to giving an account : answerable
accountable for the damage> 2 : capable of being accounted for : explainable
Other dictionaries have similar entries, such as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary’s entry for “accountable.”
1 required or expected to justify actions or decisions.
2 explicable; understandable.
In ministry settings
In my experience, when people speak of accountability in church and ministry settings, they usually have one of two things in mind.
- Structured diffusion of power
- Personal mentoring or discipling relationships
In the first case, it’s common to hear the sentiment that if only IFB (and similar) pastors were forced to make decisions jointly with other pastors or elders, these leaders would be less vulnerable to the temptations of power. In this case, advocates use the term “accountability” for diffusion of a leader’s decision-making authority.
In the second case, many are confident that we’d see less of this sort of pastoral failure if all Christians—but especially leaders—had close, mentoring/discipleship relationships with people who ask them tough questions about their walk with God, their marriage, their family life, the temptations they’re struggling with, etc.
A third group sees the solution as a combination of both of these forms of accountability.
What these understandings of accountability have in common is limitation on a person’s ability or willingless to act independently. In one case, he is structurally prevented from at least some independent actions. In the other, his conduct is restrained by the anticipation that he’ll be expected to defend it.
Some limitations of “accountability”
At this point, I feel like joining the crowd shouting “Vive la accountability!” But we need to temper our expectations.
First, accountability can never be comprehensive. Unless we’re prepared to handcuff every pastor to a practically sinless accountability partner who watches his every move, he’ll be able to find ways around any accountability mechanism if he really wants to. And unless the accountability partner is also a mind-reader, the leader being monitored will still be free to be as internally proud, malicious, greedy or lustful as chooses to be.
Second, there aren’t any perfect accountability partners or perfect elder teams. When you take a pastor who is a sinner and join him with another pastor and rename them “the elders,” you now just have two sinners instead of one. And yep, the math works all the way up to infinity—or at least up to the total number of men who can be enlisted to be elders. As a safeguard against a naïve confidence that multiplicity is inherently more righteous than individuality, consider how many “bishops” worked together at Trent to reject the doctrine of salvation through faith alone.
Third, there seems to be a character trade off here. If our accountability method actually prevents a leader from committing a particular sin, we have to conclude that he would have committed it without our accountability program. If we weren’t looking over his shoulder or forcing him to share decision-making with a group, he’d freely choose to do the wrong. If that’s the case, what sort of leader is he? What sort of Christian is he?
The real value of accountability
Some of the conversations about events in Hammond have included an interesting irony. Some of those who passionately oppose “legalism,” and broadly devalue rules, are equally passionate that IFB leaders need more accountability.
Don’t see the irony? Let’s see if I can help.
Though it may not seem so at first, accountability and what many like to call “man made rules” are two species of the same genus. As such, their value and limitations are almost perfectly parallel. In some cases, rules—and the penalties connected to them—really are accountability measures.
But this is not a vote against accountability. It’s a call to understand that the value of accountability is ultimately inseparable from the value of rules.
- Both rules and accountability measures are external restraints. They cannot, by themselves, change a person’s heart.
- In other words, both rules and accountability are limited to regulating conduct, not affections.
- Both rules and accountability measures involve human discernment and judgment. (People are accountble to someone who is not God.)
- Both rules and accountability measures can become objects of pride or refuges for people engaging in superficial conformity to standards.
- Both rules and accountability can be poorly devised and executed, and can be counterproductively excessive (in both quantity and quality).
So those who see rules as unfortunate necessities that ought to be kept to an absolute minimum ought to believe—based on all the same arguments—that accountability is an unfortunate necessity that ought to be kept to a minimum.
Real value
But there is genuine importance in both rules and accountability.
Since not sinning is always better than sinning, both rules and accountability measures have value in keeping believers from harm they would otherwise suffer and in preventing dishonor to the Lord’s name that it would otherwise suffer. Since a believer’s spiritual vitality is always harmed more by sinning than by not sinning, both rules and accountability measures can be instrumental in helping Christians thrive. Both can help develop good habits. Both can help prevent the suffering of victims. Willingness to submit to both can be, along with other things, a measure of godly maturity. Both can limit believers’ exposure to temptations.
At the same time, both are less necessary for the strong than for the weak. The more genuine godly character a believer has (that is, the more God has deeply changed him) the less need he has for external restraints, whether these take the form of imposed rules or imposed accountability.
So, in the case of pastors, the more accountability we say a pastor needs, the less confidence we are claiming to have in his character. If a congregation believes its pastor needs someone looking over his shoulder all the time, that congregation should either rethink its estimation of the pastor’s character or replace him with someone who is the kind of man described in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
Would “more accountability” have prevented the devastation in Hammond and other places? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, sensible accountability measures (whether structured or informal) are vital in order to help good men remain good men and grow into better men. At the same time, no set of accountability measures, however ingenious or numerous, can serve as a substitute for genuine godly character.
Notes
1 Let’s not forget that sex and money offenses by ministry leaders is a problem in congregations and ministries of all sorts whether independent Baptist, independent something else or not independent at all (including, famously, the Roman Catholic Church). For a small sample take a look at this depressing Wikipedia entry.
2 Web version. Accessed 8/14/12.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
The SBC and Calvinist debate are at least a hundred years old.
As for MacArthur please see:
http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/07/navigating-muddied-waters/
[Ron Bean]My “”confront with the goal of restoration” comment was in the context of groups who criticize brethren without ever contacting them personally. For instance, has the FBFI ever personally contacted anyone in the SBC, Dever, MacArthur, known Calvinists, etc. before publicly criticizing them?
As to the “have you contacted them” question, the answer is yes. Like Jim, I’ve sent emails (most recently asking about the supposed firing of Jim Binney) and have also received no reply. Hey, in the olden days, I even called and sent snail mail about Hyles and heard nothing.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[James K] The concept that Wells points out is that seminaries are offering “D.Mins.” today without M.Div. prerequisites, thus circumventing the theological and exegetical training necessary for serious preaching.Mike, I am not sure if you agree with Wells on this or not, but this is academic snobbery at its worst. Serious preaching is done with an MDiv? It is kind of ironic that fundamentalists accuse the New Evangelicals of wanting the academic prestige and then I read this. Pot to kettle: you are black.
Actually, it doesn’t follow that if MDiv provides training necessary for serious preaching then MDiv is necessary for serious preaching.
For example, if I say “Walmart provides the necessary water to avoid dehydration” I am not necessarily saying “Walmart is necessary to avoid dehydration.” I haven’t referenced other sources of water.
The point of the complaint against DMins that circumvent MDiv requirements is that a place that exists to provide necessary training shouldn’t omit a large chunk of it.
Also, the fundamentalist complaint about “academic prestige” is that evangelicals have sought prestige in secular and/or liberal academia—at the cost of orthodoxy. Not the same thing.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Ron Bean]I hadn’t heard that phrase before but have seen it in practice. I was part of a ministry that still publishes a quarterly paper that “projects the light of truth on the issues of the day” by pointing out the compromise of people who, while being Christians, are not as separated as they should be. (You know the type, I’m sure.) The problem is that nobody knows they exist. They just talk to themselves.
If the goal of addressing faults in our brethren is to restore those brethren, it seems that that would involve personally confronting those brethren with that intent.
If the goal of the FBFI is to Proclaim and Defend than they need to do that to more than themselves. As I read Mike Harding’s encouraging comments I wish that I had read about this in Frontline or on the net.
I’d like to address Ron’s second paragraph. It sounds right, but we don’t apply it. No one who criticized Hammond for announcing that Schaap was on medical leave contacted those deacons or the man who made the announcement. If you contacted the church about something in the past, it doesn’t change the fact. You “addressed faults” but did not “personally confront those brethren.”
The problem is with Ron’s statement. To use wording from another thread (and I’m having more fun with this than I should), Ron’s statement is technically accurate, but not the whole truth, and implies something that isn’t true. Technically true — if the goal is restoration, it would involve confrontation (rather than sniping from a distance).
The false implication is that addressing faults in our brethren should never happen without personal confrontation. It is false because there are multiple purposes for addressing faults. I’ll give four. There may be others that I’m not thinking of.
1. Restoration. Matthew 18, II Thess. 3:15.
2. Motivate / challenge others to respond appropriately to the fault. I Corinthians 5 is a classic example — it’s not about restoration, but about exhorting the Corinthian church to respond properly and break fellowship with a professing believer who is blatantly sinning.
3. Example. We see this in Hebrews 3:7-19, where the example of the faults of professing believers is used as an example of what we should not do. Many of the instances in Scripture where the faults of real or professing believers are recounted fall in this category.
4. Warning against false teachers / wolves in sheep’s clothing / apostates. I Timothy 1:20, II Timothy 1:15.
It is not sound to criticize FBFI (or others) for not directly contacting everyone whose faults they have addressed. If you are addressing faults for reasons 2-4, it may still be profitable to contact the person directly to try to bring rostoration as well„ but it isn’t required. There is no indication, for instance, that Paul directly contacted the man described in I Cor. 5.
As to the other thread, and the criticism of the “medical leave” announcement, I’ll leave it to each person to figure out what Biblical purpose his comments fulfilled, and whether his comments at all conveyed that purpose.
Personally, the truth or deceit of the medical leave statement is a minor detail. The problem is that the leadership of this church tolerated false doctrine and false leaders for too long. I can only speculate as to why they would subject themselves to this type of religion and pastoral behavior.
As a church leader, I want the body to know what’s going on. As a church member, I expect to be informed. These people are still in denial over Jack Hyles legacy (evidence the statue) and have a history of deception (inflated numbers, etc.). Case in point, Jim Binney preached there a week ago and was fired and no announcement has been made to the church.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
James,
Sorry for coming across as a snob. Not my intention. I thought Wells had a clever way of voicing a legitimate concern. As far as the pot calling the kettle black, you are dead wrong. That’s all I can say in this venue. If you want credentials I will be glad to send them to you privately.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Ron Bean]Personally, the truth or deceit of the medical leave statement is a minor detail. The problem is that the leadership of this church tolerated false doctrine and false leaders for too long. I can only speculate as to why they would subject themselves to this type of religion and pastoral behavior.
As a church leader, I want the body to know what’s going on. As a church member, I expect to be informed. These people are still in denial over Jack Hyles legacy (evidence the statue) and have a history of deception (inflated numbers, etc.). Case in point, Jim Binney preached there a week ago and was fired and no announcement has been made to the church.
Ron, this is one of the more profitable comments on the “medical leave” statement, in my opinion, because you are talking about what currently “is” rather than an event in the past which has been rectified (they’ve made quite sure no one thinks he is on medical leave).
Obviously, you know more about things Hammond than I do.
Would it be fair to say, then, that you believe that this was just a single action in a continuing line of deceit, and that the firing, public announcement thereof, and the contacting of the police has no real significance in regard to that pattern?
Ron, this is one of the more profitable comments on the “medical leave” statement, in my opinion, because you are talking about what currently “is” rather than an event in the past which has been rectified (they’ve made quite sure no one thinks he is on medical leave).Obviously, you know more about things Hammond than I do.
Would it be fair to say, then, that you believe that this was just a single action in a continuing line of deceit, and that the firing, public announcement thereof, and the contacting of the police has no real significance in regard to that pattern?
I can’t speak for Ron, but it would seem to me, on the basis of the things reported in the Biblical Evangelist articles and other stories and incidents that have been documented elsewhere, that there is a real pattern of hiding and covering over incidents and problems (including criminal activities of child sexual abuse) that should have been properly addressed but were not. This was especially problematic under Hyles, and I’m hoping that they are actively working to deal with issues now in a correct manner, but I don’t know. So that’s why I am going out harder on Hammond than I would on other churches.
In regards to the questions about whether or not I have contacted FBC directly - I contacted Hammond this morning about a few things that I have seen or heard elsewhere about the Schaap case, including this matter of ‘medical leave’. If I hear back from them (I provided my contact information in the email), I will share what I can here.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]Jay, this is exactly why I would be inclined to give some charity to the current leadership (without excusing the sin of lying) when they are attempting to clean things up. Time will tell, but short term, at least, they’ve made a good step, even if other steps have faltered.Could the leadership have not said anything other than “the pastor will be out today?” Yes. However, a pattern of coverup as large as the one you are referring to is not something easy to break in one day. The fact is that however imperfectly, they did deal with the problem, and did so fairly quickly. I’m not an expert on Hammond, but if the overall situation is as bad as you and others are saying (and I don’t really doubt it), then I’m inclined to believe that baby steps are a *good* thing.I can’t speak for Ron, but it would seem to me […] that there is a real pattern of hiding and covering over incidents and problems […] that should have been properly addressed but were not. This was especially problematic under Hyles, and I’m hoping that they are actively working to deal with issues now in a correct manner, but I don’t know.
Dave Barnhart
The Word of God is explicit that public charges be supported by evidence and/or witnesses to the fact(s). None of that has been provided yet charges of lying on this are still being made.
Hmmmm… talking about accountability….
Jay, this is exactly why I would be inclined to give some charity to the current leadership (without excusing the sin of lying) when they are attempting to clean things up.
Dave, I think this is the general feeling. It has just been hard to get some to agree with the part in parenthesis.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I’m all in favor of giving charity, but I’m not in favor of extending charity to organizations that have a proven history of covering up illegal actions. That falls under the ‘increased scrutiny’ category.
This isn’t making me a happier person to talk about this subject. I do it because I think that to demonstrate ‘mercy’ to an agency that has a poor record of handling these things (to be charitable) is not wise.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Aaron Blumer][James K] The concept that Wells points out is that seminaries are offering “D.Mins.” today without M.Div. prerequisites, thus circumventing the theological and exegetical training necessary for serious preaching.Mike, I am not sure if you agree with Wells on this or not, but this is academic snobbery at its worst. Serious preaching is done with an MDiv? It is kind of ironic that fundamentalists accuse the New Evangelicals of wanting the academic prestige and then I read this. Pot to kettle: you are black.
Actually, it doesn’t follow that if MDiv provides training necessary for serious preaching then MDiv is necessary for serious preaching.
For example, if I say “Walmart provides the necessary water to avoid dehydration” I am not necessarily saying “Walmart is necessary to avoid dehydration.” I haven’t referenced other sources of water.
The point of the complaint against DMins that circumvent MDiv requirements is that a place that exists to provide necessary training shouldn’t omit a large chunk of it.
Also, the fundamentalist complaint about “academic prestige” is that evangelicals have sought prestige in secular and/or liberal academia—at the cost of orthodoxy. Not the same thing.
Aaron, here again is the statement I was questioning.
The concept that Wells points out is that seminaries are offering “D.Mins.” today without M.Div. prerequisites, thus circumventing the theological and exegetical training necessary for serious preaching..
The statement does indeed say what I was referring to. The complaint is that the DMins are circumventing something necessary for serious preaching. What is necessary in that statement to serious preaching? Theological and exegetical training connected to MDivs. Your example actually missed the point.
I know the academic desire wasn’t identical to the NEs. It is still the desire for academic prestige that is problematic. The problem lamented is that schools are giving DMins (academic award) out to those who don’t have the supposed training for it. School A is better than School B because we make sure you have an extra 90 hours between your undergrad and the DMin. Only those who have sat through enough lectures and written enough papers can earn this it is being argued.
I will use myself as an example. I have an undergrad in Bible. I have 90 hours of Bible/Theology in that degree. Some of those courses were taken at the master level just to finish by a certain time. Just how many hours do I need to take before I have earned the right to a DMin?
Take someone else as an example. He has an undergrad in History. He has no Bible. He gets an MDiv with say 30 hours of Bible, 30 hours of how to do ministry from a classroom, and 30 hours of languages. He is allowed to move right into a DMin because of the MDiv.
I remember making a pact with several friends about 10 years ago that none of us would accept an honorary doctorate. They serve no purpose but to boost the ego of the recipients and school. This isn’t the world. I do have serious problems in how Christians want to compete with the world in how it measures academics. We don’t want anyone thinking we are a bunch of rubes and hicks. Huh, turns out that is the same thing that the NEs did.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Jay, this is exactly why I would be inclined to give some charity to the current leadership (without excusing the sin of lying) when they are attempting to clean things up.
Dave, I think this is the general feeling. It has just been hard to get some to agree with the part in parenthesis.
Chip, you’re one of my favourite SI members. I’ve appreciated you for a long time, said you should be on SI and was glad when you returned, and consider you a friend. But this is not accurate.
When I specifically agreed with the part in parentheses in comment #82 in that thread, you responded in the very next comment with further criticism — their “moving past it” wasn’t good enough. Well, perhaps it wasn’t, although they made sure no one thought “medical leave” was the issue, didn’t they? But whatever, we weren’t debating excusing lying, were we? Neither of us was doing that.
I specifically said they shouldn’t have gone the “medical leave” route, more than once. Yet you and others argued with me when I called for more charity in light of the steps they have taken AFTER the medical leave error. The discussion was a lot more than trying to get “some to agree with the part in parentheses.”
If someone goes back and looks at that thread, there were plenty of harsh statements before anyone spoke up on their behalf. And the first person who spoke up on their behalf did not excuse the “medical leave” statement, he just said pretty much exactly what Dave said here — give some charity. He got grief for it, as I did later. The strong statements made against Hammond on that thread were not made because it was “hard to get some to agree with the part in parenthesis” — those statements started long before anyone spoke up on Hammond’s behalf at all. It’s all there in the thread for anyone who cares to look.
It’s ironic that in that very thread, an SI member made a blatantly untrue statement, which everyone in the thread should have known was untrue, based on the links SI has provided —including one Jim provided in that very thread. FBCH’s statement was at least technically true, but implied something that wasn’t true. His was blatantly false. Theirs was manifestly not intended to hurt anyone — in fact, it may have been specifically intended to be kind to Schaap’s family. His was intended to make people think badly of professing believers. No one pointed it out for more than 50 posts and 6 days. He never set the record straight or apologised, even after the facts were noted. FBCH set the record straight on theirs in 48 hours or less. No one on the thread demanded he apologise, but they did demand that FBCH do so. No one (thankfully) impugned his motives (he probably believed what he said when he said it) — but the fact remains that his statement was both untrue and unkind. Plenty of people had unkind speculations about FBCH’s motives.
The SI community strongly condemned the one that was far away, and ignored the one in their midst. Not, perhaps, the finest moment on SI. Well, not moment, but two weeks, since there’s still no retraction or apology, nor any call for such until this very comment.
I admit, it’s usually a lot easier to notice untruth among people we don’t like than it is to notice it when it is negative towards those people. But untruth is still untruth. If we’re going to condemn it without grace, attribute negative motives, and ignore the fact that the record got set straight, we should at least start at home.
JG,
Thank you for the kind words, and know I feel the same way. (BTW, I haven’t ignored your email, I’ve just been swamped this week and haven’t had time to respond yet)
Forgive me, but I can’t remember exactly which thread you are referencing so I can’t go back and look at post 82. However, the crux here is the parenthesis (without excusing the sin of lying). I think a number of us have agreed that it is great they stepped up and got rid of Schaap. However, ignoring the lying and just moving on IS excusing it. That’s the point. You seem to agree with that sentiment as you point to an incident from elsewhere in that thread. You recognize that no one ever apologized for that mistake, and they should have. That is the core issue several of us have been pointing out with FBCH. No one ever acknowledged or straightened out what almost everyone has acknowledged they shouldn’t have done.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Appreciate you. Doesn’t matter about the email, now. I got the answer I was looking for somewhere else.
The thread in question.
Your post #83 (in response to mine) included: “Or do you move past it by acknowledging what you did wrong and seeking to rectify it?”
It seems to me they pretty clearly acknowledged that he isn’t (and wasn’t) out of the pulpit for medical reasons. I doubt you could find anyone who is deceived on that point. So, I would say they have rectified any deceit that took place. They’ve undone it and made sure that not only those who were deceived, but those who may not have known about it, know the truth of the matter.
Have they specifically said they were sorry, and called it deceit? I don’t know. Do you? It would obviously be better if they had. We agree. That’s what I’d do if I found myself in that situation, I hope. I’m sure you would, too. But….
Did Peter specifically say he was sorry and acknowledge his pride for saying that if all men forsook Christ, he never would? We aren’t ever told that he did. The closest we get, perhaps, is his refusal to echo “more than these” when Christ asked him in John 21.
Did John Mark ever apologize for leaving Paul and Barnabas? We don’t know. All we know is that he got to the place where Paul said he was profitable.
Did David ever say he was sorry for the lies surrounding Uriah / Bathsheba? The Scripture doesn’t say. He did acknowledge sin, very clearly, but we don’t see any evidence that he admitted that he had wronged Uriah, or for that matter that he had wronged Bathsheba, or his own wives, or his family, or the nation.
We emphasise apologies, and apologies are important, but Scripture emphasises changed behaviour. It isn’t being sorry, but repentance, that matters, and the real measure of repentance is change. When I look at FBCH, if the links SI has provided us are accurate, I see meeting with Schaap Saturday, “medical leave” Sunday, firing Monday, press release Tuesday (by which time the police have been involved by the deacons). That means behaviour was, very soon, significantly different from “medical leave” and in a very good way. But even more, it means a very significant repudiation of the entire cover-up culture of the past.
Is there reason to doubt whether it’s any more than a one-time blip where they felt they just had to do it? Sure, there’s reason to doubt that. But the Christian thing is to have a wait-and-see attitude, rather than blast away.
You know what the tone of the thread should have been? “Praise the Lord for what they’ve done! Too bad about the ‘medical leave’ thing, but it’s hardly surprising with the patterns of the past. Hopefully they’ll do better in future on things like that. Let’s keep an eye on this and pray for them, it looks like the Lord may be working to clean up a lot of problems there after all these years.” THAT would have been God-honouring.
No one, absolutely no one, has provided evidence that Jack Schaap was not on medical leave, no one.
No one has provided evidence or proof that Schaap was dismissed at the time this was told to the congregation. No one.
No one has provided evidence that the Board of Deacons, in issuing this statement, lied. No one.
And up to now that would mean no one, absolutely no one, has the freedom before God (assuming those engaged in this view themselves as before God) to imply one is lying in this case or act upon that implication by treating it as a truth, never mind out right accusing someone of lying.
Sad to say, though, I am not all that surprised that it is not tolerated as acceptable Christian behavior. But hey, it doesn’t count because it involves people that others don’t like, right? I can see it now were it our Lord was in the midst of his earthly ministry today coming to the Lord with their claim…
Jesus: Hello my son. You have accused someone of lying. Where are your witness and evidence? This is a serious charge.
Accuser: Uh…well, I deduced they were lying, I don’t really have any evidence.
Jesus: Oh you deduced it. I see, and you think your deductions are evidence?
Accuser: No, as I said I don’t have any evidence but I am an expert deducer and really, Lord, it is obvious, isn’t it? I mean look, they were in the midst of firing him and right after that week they announced it so they knew he was going to be fired therefore, it just makes sense that he was probably already fired, so they lied!
Jesus: I see. But do you know for a fact that their Pastor was not on medical leave?
Accuser: Uh…no, not in fact.
Jesus: And do you know the exact date he was terminated as the Pastor.
Accuser: Uh…no Lord, not in fact.
Jesus: Could the Pastor have, in fact, been on medical leave at that time?
Accuser: Uh…yes Lord…but…but…
Jesus: But what my son?
Accuser: But…but…it isn’t right. He didn’t have some broken arm or something and they knew he was in trouble and going to be fired.
Jesus: Did they tell you they knew this?
Accuser: Uh…no, I am assuming they knew, I mean it’s obvious!
Jesus: Oh I see, you get to write the rules for the church and not the actual Deacon Board and then condemn them for not following your rules? Mighty Kingly of you.
Accuser: No that isn’t what I mean.
Jesus: Whatever it is you do mean, my son, that is what you are doing.
Jesus: Do you know or have anything other than your opinions and assumptions?
Accuser: Uh, no Lord, not really.
Jesus: You are forgiven. Go and sin no more.
1. Scripture doesn’t just expect a change of behavior; it requires a change of heart. God knows hearts, we can only hear words and see actions. Furthermore, God instructs us to seek forgiveness from those we have wronged, not just ignore it and do better going forward.
2. I don’t think an argument from silence proves that those men in scripture didn’t verbally repent and ask forgiveness.
3. You wrote:
It seems to me they pretty clearly acknowledged that he isn’t (and wasn’t) out of the pulpit for medical reasons. I doubt you could find anyone who is deceived on that point.
I agree as far as your statement goes. They are no longer lying about why he isn’t in the pulpit, and no one is deceived any longer. However, they did lie, and people were deceived. That is the point.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I, with you, am dismayed at the tone and level of criticism, but let’s be clear. He was not put on medical leave because of medical problems, but moral ones, and to announce that he wasn’t there and was on medical leave gave a false impression — that he wasn’t there because of a medical problem. It was hardly fully honest.
Now whether we can assume there was willful intent to deceive is quite another question, and doubt on that point should temper any criticism, as should the succeeding events.
But we shouldn’t be treating this as if it was fully honest. It was at best an unfortunate mistake, in which they failed to realise that it would give a false impression. And that’s the best interpretation you can put on it.
I don’t understand what the hangup is about what kind of leave Schaap was put on while the matter was being looked into. Perhaps medical leave was the only leave available. It’s best to have the facts before acting and two days is not an unreasonable amount of time. The leadership needed to get the details before acting - that is a mature and responsible way to act. Whether there were better leave options - I don’t care. Perhaps there is a lesson to learn.
The ONLY reason I can imagine that someone wants to make this into an issue is because someone is from another circle and relishes in the opportunity to slam on the Hyles circle while they are down. This is inexcusable, in my mind. When there is a sad tragedy like this, we should feel sad and repentant, not pround and self-righteous!
First, “lying.” Lying requires intent to deceive. This intent is unproven. Confusion, sloppy thinking, etc could be alternative sources for what happened. We should not accuse without proof. But even if proven, the rest of my point stands. There is at least one very strong evidence of repentance, changed behaviour. In this case, that changed behaviour is also a confession that the “medical leave” wasn’t the whole truth. So it is effectively a confession.
An argument from silence does not prove those men didn’t seek forgiveness, but it does prove that apologies to humans is not what Scripture emphasises. We agree that Christ told us to do it.
I again refer to II Chronicles 30:18-20, as I did in the other thread. These people had not done all that God required. Hezekiah did not declaim loudly that they hadn’t. He prayed that the Lord would receive them anyway, and the Lord did. Our heart should be like Hezekiah’s. We should be thankful when we see a move that appears to be towards the Lord, and pray that the Lord will continue to work.
Some in SI’s community, I fear, would be saying that Hezekiah condoned their failure to cleanse themselves. Well, I don’t condone what was done that Sunday at FBCH, but I do think it is very comparable to II Chronicles 30. They didn’t cleanse themselves on that Sunday, but Monday / Tuesday, they came to the feast, and I pray the Lord received and pardoned.
And (off topic) I know that there are those who will say separatists haven’t been like Hezekiah. My answer would be that they, too often, are right in that charge.
Finally, I still want to know exactly what, if anything, is wrong with the last paragraph in my post above. And I think I’ll include it in any other post I might make on this until someone tells me what is wrong with it.
You know what the tone of the thread should have been? “Praise the Lord for what they’ve done! Too bad about the ‘medical leave’ thing, but it’s hardly surprising with the patterns of the past. Hopefully they’ll do better in future on things like that. Let’s keep an eye on this and pray for them, it looks like the Lord may be working to clean up a lot of problems there after all these years.” THAT would have been God-honouring.
I agree, in general. I’m only talking about it because there was another long thread with a lot of strong words.
[JG]I, with you, am dismayed at the tone and level of criticism, but let’s be clear. He was not put on medical leave because of medical problems, but moral ones, and to announce that he wasn’t there and was on medical leave gave a false impression — that he wasn’t there because of a medical problem. It was hardly fully honest.
Now whether we can assume there was willful intent to deceive is quite another question, and doubt on that point should temper any criticism, as should the succeeding events.
But we shouldn’t be treating this as if it was fully honest. It was at best an unfortunate mistake, in which they failed to realise that it would give a false impression. And that’s the best interpretation you can put on it.
JG
If he was on medical leave, the reasons are irrelevant if they had not made a decision at that time. The Deacon Board is the one with the authority to grant medical leave and they did, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
And it is clear a decision had not been made about his continued Pastoring.
Therefore it would be premature and unwise to announce, particularly regarding a Pastor, that he is being investigated for a moral indiscretion when a final adjudication has not been made. That makes the Deacon Board liable if something, at the last minute, arose which could exonerate the Pastor.
In fact, the Deacon Board the very right thing, both legally and Biblically.
Simply because someone does not always in very instance give full disclosure does not make them half-honest or suspect of deception. There are many reasons for discretion and here is one.
So I don’t even buy the line that it gave a false impression. It gave the only impression that could be given until the matter was fully adjudicated and the Pastor was either terminated or exonerated.
Imagine a Pastor who is exonerated but someone like those commenting here in their crusdership-mentality demand that the congregation be informed that he is being investigated for immorality. Then, later, he is exonerated. What does that do to him? Right, it engenders suspicion and distrust not matter what is presented which is why the Bible requires a matter to be fully heard before speaking. It damages his person unnecessarily.
The Board of Deacons may have heard much, maybe a great deal but it looks like they had just a bit more before speaking so the Pastor was placed on medical leave which is something they had the discretion to do, both Biblically and legally.
Alex,
You’re changing the discussion again. No one has said they had to make full disclosure. The only argument has been that they not say things that were not true. It is evident from the published articles that Schaap was not at church, and on leave, because of the ongoing investigation. I totally agree with protecting the pastor until the investigation is complete; so there wasn’t any need to announce the allegations. Just don’t make up things.
Def. deceive - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[JG]I agree, in general. I’m only talking about it because there was another long thread with a lot of strong words.
OK, JG. I take it from what you’re saying here that there is a back story that I’m not privy to. I guess I just need to butt out.
Andrew
The announcement that he was on medical leave gave a false impression — that he wasn’t preaching that day because of illness. It would have been better if that hadn’t happened. Not much way to avoid that fact. Intentionally or not, they gave a false impression.
Of course, if they said “he is away today” we’d be hearing that they lied because they gave the impression he was traveling and he wasn’t, and if they said “he can’t be with us today” we’d be hearing that they lied because he could have been there and publicly repenting. Anything they said could be viewed as a lie if we want to view it that way, except for full disclosure that he was under investigation. And you are right that full disclosure would have been wrong.
And when something is built so completely around one man, to have him just not show and not say anything wouldn’t fly. So I recognise their dilemma, but they still gave a false impression, whether they meant to or not. It would have been better to do something different.
Andrew, the thread. FBCH had been dissected, marinated, and BBQed to a crisp by the time I commented. Not saying you should read it, but it’s there if you want to understand it. And I appreciate your contribution on the topic here.
(edit. Almost forgot this)
Finally, I still want to know exactly what, if anything, is wrong with this. And I think I’ll keep including it until someone tells me what is wrong with it.
You know what the tone of the thread should have been? “Praise the Lord for what they’ve done! Too bad about the ‘medical leave’ thing, but it’s hardly surprising with the patterns of the past. Hopefully they’ll do better in future on things like that. Let’s keep an eye on this and pray for them, it looks like the Lord may be working to clean up a lot of problems there after all these years.” THAT would have been God-honouring.
No one has the right to assume illness of their imagination or “use of medical leave” of their imagination and when it ends up not matching what they had on mind accusing people of misleading others. If an explanation is not given you don’t get to assume one. Finally and again, if he was on medical leave them that is a truthful statement and the only misleading is in people’s minds assuming things. If the Board of Deacons decide that medical leave may be used for family and/ or personal emergencies involving counseling, for example, then to state one is on medical leave is honest and accurate. We are not permitted to assume its category or nature and when our assumption is wrong, state that we were misled. We were misled in our own minds.
Was he under investigation? Yes, but no conclusion had been made so at that point medical leave was fitting and honest, especially if he was getting paid medical leave.
I do realize we are on the same page but I have removed Schaap from the equation and am arguing from my years of professional experience and the professional protocols I have used and observed being used as well as and more so boundaries, obligations and limits I see in Scripture. I am a step further in the matter and believe they are blameless in using medical leave.
Chip
I beg to differ there has been criticism that full disclosure was not made.
Alex :)
The falsity was implicit in the statement, not merely subjectively inferred by a few hearers. I stand by the statement I keep repeating, too bad about the ‘medical leave’ thing. I hope it was mere carelessness about the implications, rather than intentional deception, but that’s really between them and the Lord, isn’t it?
Am I correct in assuming that many think that there’s a problem with the leadership at FBCH?
First of all, at FBCH the pastor is THE leader and the deacons have no authority, although, in the absence of a pastor (if you wish to call him that….I don’t) they now have to act like elders.
These deacons have tolerated decades of false teaching and improper practice by their recent pastors and only dismissed the last one when it was evident that he had committed immorality. Their initial response to place him on medical leave (I’m sure Jack is sick) was, at best inept, appears deceptive, and is a long way from transparency. Their silence on further dismissals of other staff does not reflect well on them either.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
You know, friends, I’m a busy tent-maker. Anyone wonder why I’d take so much time on this when most people here apparently don’t want to hear what I say?
It’s because it isn’t about Hammond. Someone asked privately if I was just supporting Hammond because they are “fundamentalist.” They aren’t. Want to know what I think about Hammond? Here. (For those griping about FBFI men not separating from Hammond, Mike Harding of the FBFI publicly called for separation from them in that thread back in 2006.) Here. Here. This one especially. It’s not about Hammond.
This is about what kind of God we have, His heart towards His erring children when they begin to return. The father, when he sees His prodigal returning, doesn’t wait until he’s all the way home, until everything is right. The son was still messed up — he wanted to come back as a servant. The father rejoiced that his son was on the road home, went to meet him, brought him the rest of the way, cleaned him up, set his thinking straight, etc.
That’s the kind of God we have.
I don’t know if the men at Hammond are on the way home or not. It may have been bumpy along the way, but they fired a pastor for immorality, and publicly denounced his sin, just as I Timothy 5 says. I never would have thought they’d do that. They’ve done right specifically where they failed to do right with Hyles and his son. It’s perhaps the biggest test they could have faced, and they passed it. With an A grade? Maybe not, but they passed. Does that mean all is right at Hammond? Obviously not. But does it at least give hope that they are on the way home? Absolutely.
Friends, we must not speak like the elder son. The Pharisees said, “This man receiveth sinners.” Well, yes, praise the Lord, He does. And so, I have not let this go. It’s about who God is. We are liars if our words do not reflect this truth: “The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy.”
There has been little of the Lord’s compassion in some statements. Some give no indication that they hope the men at Hammond are on the way home. Some sound like they want to make sure everyone knows how bad Hammond is, that everything they’ve failed in must be thoroughly denounced in detail. And by the way, in the process we’ll choose the worst interpretation and worst motivation for their actions that we can while we’re at it.
SI is far from the forum I joined years ago. Much has disappointed me. I’ve cited Scripture repeatedly in this discussion. No one bothered to interact with it, to say where I was misinterpreting or misapplying it, or bothered to provide other Scrptures to be considered. This used to be a place where the Scripture WAS the discussion. Not on this topic, not even close. Go back through, if you dare self-examine, and see where you’ve cited the Scripture that supports the approach and attitude you’ve taken on this. Too bad. It’s been a non-Scripture discussion for the most part. That’s a shame.
The double-standard I mentioned in a prior comment would never have been tolerated in the past. It used to be charity was extended to those who were different on both left and “anti-left” (I won’t use “right” for Hammond, given their doctrinal and practical history). SI was a place where actions and beliefs of all could be scrutinized, but harshness in tone would cause those from across the spectrum to rise up as one in opposition. That’s gone. Too bad.
But this, to me, goes beyond all that and is a line I have to draw. I will not stand silent while our Lord’s grace is dishonored in a forum where I am a member.
Say there are still problems. Good. Say you’ll wait to see if they sort out the doctrinal problems, and if they are going to implement decent church governance. Great. Say it wasn’t perfect the way they handled it. Fine. Say that with their history, you’ll need to see a lot more before you could trust them. Fantastic. But if you can’t reflect the grace of our Lord in the way you say it, if you aren’t willing to extend any charity in light of what they HAVE done (which no one could have predicted with confidence), then you’d be better just being silent, especially since there is no Scriptural reason that I can see why anyone on this forum HAS to be speaking about it at all.
I’ve been preaching through Luke. This morning, interestingly enough in light of this discussion, I preached on Luke 15. All three parables have the same general message though there’s variations between them that matter.
An interesting fact. When our Lord (as the narrator of the story) described the younger son’s behaviour, He really said very little. “He wasted his substance with riotous living.” For a more detailed analysis of the younger son’s faults, we look to the older brother’s words.
***
A lady in our church had neighbours who, by repeated and malicious actions, pushed her family to the verge of bankruptcy. He and his family committed multiple assaults against her and her family. They’ve lost everything.
She told me this morning that the man just died. She was deeply distressed at the thought that he’s probably in Hell — she couldn’t even bring herself to say that word. This about a man that wronged her more than anyone has ever wronged me in my life. Perhaps even more than FBCH has wronged most members of this forum.
But then, she isn’t as “advanced” in theology and other stuff as some people.
***
Bryan Bice posted an untruth on the prior thread. It was directly refuted by a link the forum director had just provided. No one cared. No one corrected it until I did 55 posts later. Once I pointed it out, no one said anything about his untruth. We were too busy fulminating how terrible it was that Hammond’s medical leave statement, while technically true, was not fully true. So let’s remove their mote and ignore the beam in our own midst. Their partial truth was not malicious. His complete untruth gave the impression of being so. I pray it wasn’t. I pray it wasn’t intentional untruth. But it was still untrue.
***
Thank you to all who have been friends to me, been gracious to me when I’ve not been all I should have been. There have been many I’ve appreciated here, many who I still appreciate greatly. But I’ll have to bow out now. Please cancel my membership of this forum.
If you wish to first change my ID from JG to Jon Gleason, my reasons for wishing for partial anonymity have receded. I could have, and should have, asked to have that done previously, since I use my full name elsewhere on the Internet now. I know you prefer people to use their full names, so you can change mine so that my posts have that full name, before cancelling my membership, if you wish.
I’m guessing he’s referring to this statement I had made: “Well, they did finally disclose the truth about Schaap, but only after the authorities got involved, and they had no choice.”
If so, rather than being refuted by the previous link, it’s actually somewhat consistent with the article linked by the previous post, which begins: “The First Baptist Church of Hammond has dismissed Jack Schaap as its pastor in the wake of a Lake County police investigation.” Furthermore, it’s consistent with multiple reports I read when this whole thing broke…that someone not inside FBCH heard about the situation with the teen, called the police to see if it had been reported…it hadn’t been & the authorities got involved. Once they got involved, THEN the deacons finally disclosed to the congregation the real reason their pastor was axed.
Another version I read somewhere was that the deacons contacted Gibbs about the situation who told them they had to fire Schaap and, since the girl was 16 & taken across state lines, they needed to contact authorities. Should this version be accurate, it doesn’t change the fact that the truth wasn’t disclosed until after the authorities were involved.
At this point, there are all kinds of stories swirling around about what happened when…which came first…etc. Most of what I’ve read on the SI threads seems to be echoing interpretations of the church’s press release and Voyle Glover’s FBFI interview. JG’s comment in post #70 — “….I think someone said they only came out with it after the authorities got involved. That is not true — they were the ones who contacted the authorities…” reflects one of those interpretations. It doesn’t make my original statement untrue, however. After the authorities got involved, then the medical leave story was displaced.
So the timeline I’ve read outside SI (which has never been disputed or contradicted by FBCH officials) is this: Saturday - Deacons unanimously dismiss Schaap after Schaap admitted infidelity. Sunday - Officials announce to the congregation “Pastor Schaap’s on medical leave.” Monday - outside source (or perhaps FBCH) calls police who begin investigation. Tuesday - FBCH issues press release announcing Schaap’s been dismissed for “a sin that has caused him to forfeit his right to be our pastor.” Wednesday - church meeting discloses more details about Schaap’s transgression & firing, thereby nullifying Sunday’s “medical leave” story.
I’ve remained silent on these threads for quite some time. The reasons are many. First, there’s been nothing truly clarifying from reliable sources for weeks. Second, I’ve expressed my conviction that to announce to the congregation that Schaap was on medical leave when he’d already been dismissed for infidelity was a lie and gave the impression of “image protection” (e.g. “Don’t want to damage to the cause of Christ by announcing to the whole world that our pastor’s committed adultery with a teenager.”) That opinion hasn’t changed. Third, many seem to think expressing that opinion = being pharisaical (the elder brother, etc.), and nothing I say is going to change that…so I’ll not bother.
Bryan, not speaking for Jon, but just my opinion… I really wish that judgements about stories in the news would be reserved until the true facts are known. I don’t know whether your construction of the timeline is correct or not. If it is true, in fact, that Schaap was fired prior to the medical leave announcement, that would put the medical leave announcement in an entirely different light.
However, please note that of all the commentary here on SI, I think most have been assuming that the firing took place on the Monday or Tuesday. You are the only one suggesting it came earlier, as far as I can tell.
[BryanBice] If so, rather than being refuted by the previous link, it’s actually somewhat consistent with the article linked by the previous post, which begins: “The First Baptist Church of Hammond has dismissed Jack Schaap as its pastor in the wake of a Lake County police investigation.” Furthermore, it’s consistent with multiple reports I read when this whole thing broke…that someone not inside FBCH heard about the situation with the teen, called the police to see if it had been reported…it hadn’t been & the authorities got involved. Once they got involved, THEN the deacons finally disclosed to the congregation the real reason their pastor was axed.
On this point, a question: were the multiple reports you read from different, independent sources, or were all of them citing the same source? I think you would understand why that would make a difference. Could you provide links to these sources, or should we just take your word for it?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Bryan, not speaking for Jon, but just my opinion… I really wish that judgements about stories in the news would be reserved until the true facts are known. I don’t know whether your construction of the timeline is correct or not. If it is true, in fact, that Schaap was fired prior to the medical leave announcement, that would put the medical leave announcement in an entirely different light.
However, please note that of all the commentary here on SI, I think most have been assuming that the firing took place on the Monday or Tuesday. You are the only one suggesting it came earlier, as far as I can tell.
Since this is a forum not a dissertation project, I’m not going to run all over the web and try to get footnote documentation for everything in the timeline. Life’s too short & I simply have neither the time, energy, nor interest in such a project. That said, the following is from the Chicago Tribune, Wed. 8/1, which was readily available in my web history (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-hammond-church-fired-pastor-seeks-reconciliation-with-wife-20120801,0,2089975.story):
At a Wednesday afternoon press conference, the chairman of the church’s board of deacons called the pastor’s apparent transgression the “most difficult” issue the church has dealt with.
But chairman Terry Duff said church leaders “had no choice” but to fire Schaap.
“I’ve been in this church my whole life. We trusted that man,” said Duff, who declined to address the specifics of the claims against the pastor.
Duff said the church responded “the minute we found out about this.”
He didn’t elaborate on the timeline other than to say that Schaap was told of his dismissal on Saturday following “two or three” meetings with the board, which Duff said was “100 percent behind” the decision.
Incidentally, that article also states that the deacons “announced the decision to fire Dr. Jack Schaap on Monday night, then reported allegations to the Lake County Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday because it was unclear if the woman was a minor, spokesman Eddie Wilson said.”
This is the end of the line on this topic for me, too, unless compelling evidence causes me to retract my opinion about the matter of deception, which I’ll gladly do at that point. Til then, adieu.
I also need to be moving along now, but let me just state that I am continually concerned about the way FBC Hammond is handling this, and that’s why I’ve been hard on them. I’ve read the Biblical Evangelist articles and portions of the Two Jacks book, and while I HOPE that things have changed for the better, it seems like a lot of the tendencies, policies, and (most importantly) the key players (Eddie Lapina was mentioned in the Two Jacks book on at least one occasion, and I believe that Hyles said that he had personally given Eddie a significant amount of cash in the Evangelist rebuttal) are the same. The idea that FBC Hammond would fire Schaap on Saturday and then call the cops on Tuesday morning (according to the article Bryan linked to) reeks to me of coverup and self-preservation, not handling things in a legal and Godly manner. The fact that it was four days (Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday) before they notified the police, when they had some kind of photo evidence, is also screaming for explanation and is a HUGE warning flag to my eyes.
Some of you are far more hopeful than I am that things are getting better. I just don’t see it, but I hope I’m wrong on this…I’d love to be dead wrong. But I just don’t see it, and I am concerned about the people of FBC Hammond who have been taught to love and respect the pastor to the extent that no many could even feel comfortable questioning the ‘man of God’. That’s as potent a mix for abuse and malfeasance, as we have seen there in the past, as there possibly can be.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[BryanBice][Don Johnson]Bryan, not speaking for Jon, but just my opinion… I really wish that judgements about stories in the news would be reserved until the true facts are known. I don’t know whether your construction of the timeline is correct or not. If it is true, in fact, that Schaap was fired prior to the medical leave announcement, that would put the medical leave announcement in an entirely different light.
However, please note that of all the commentary here on SI, I think most have been assuming that the firing took place on the Monday or Tuesday. You are the only one suggesting it came earlier, as far as I can tell.
[BryanBice] Since this is a forum not a dissertation project, I’m not going to run all over the web and try to get footnote documentation for everything in the timeline.So, in other words, brother, you are going primarily from memory about multiple sources. You don’t have them at hand, eh? So why make the claim?
I note that the article from the Tribune says the firing happened on the Saturday. I will provide other news sources shortly that provide a conflicting account, all of them I believe previously linked here at SI. But before moving to these, let’s note this quote from the article you linked (which you also cited):
[Chicago Tribune] A board of deacons announced the decision to fire Dr. Jack Schaap on Monday night, then reported allegations to the Lake County Sheriff’s Department on TuesdayPlease note that according to this article it was the church that contacted the authorities, not some reported, imagined, or otherwise unknown third party. You have provided no source to validate this claim.
Also note this from your link:
[Chicago Tribune] “The investigation regarding allegations against Pastor Jack Schapp, involving alleged misconduct with a juvenile,” is continuing, according to the statement from the office of Lake County Sheriff John Buncich.“During this entire investigation, officials of the First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles Anderson College have been fully cooperative,” he said.
This is the sheriff saying the church has been fully cooperative. I don’t think an official like this would make this claim lightly. To me, this allays a lot of fears there might be some attempts at cover-up by the church officials. The government spokesman says they are “fully cooperative”. I don’t know how you can read this other than positively with respect to the conduct of the church and its leaders.
Now let’s look at some other sources:
[NWIndiana Times] Sheriff John Buncich said Tuesday afternoon, his department began a criminal investigation Tuesday morning after talking with high-ranking church representatives.This source also states that it was the church that involved the authorities, not some hypothetical other third-party source.
Another NWITimes article says:
[NWIndiana Times] Several church members said they were praying for Pastor Jack Schaap, who was fired from his role as the church’s leader Monday after allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a young girl surfaced.(Emphasis mine)So you see we have conflicting reports about the time-line. This article says the firing took place on the Monday, if accurate, that would presumably have been in the evening (a guess on my part) when most of the deacons would have been available. Reporting to the authorities the next morning, Tuesday, is hardly an unwarranted delay if this scenario is correct.
In still another NWITimes article it says:
[NWIndiana Times] Terry Duff, chairman of the Board of Deacons, said the church is committed to finding out the total truth.He said he spoke with Schaap about the incident Saturday afternoon and that all information has been turned over to law enforcement conducting the investigation.
This quote doesn’t support either time-line possibility, but says only that the chairman of the deacons “spoke” to Schaap on Saturday afternoon. It doesn’t say he was fired or not on Saturday. In my opinion, it implies that the deacons commenced their efforts on Saturday afternoon but had not come to a conclusion as to what to do. While our hindsight could say with what facts were known they should have fired him immediately, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as they confront a shocking situation.
In any case, the least we can say is that news reports are conflicting as to the point at which the firing took place.
This same article says this:
[NWIndiana Times] The church is making available pastoral counseling services to the girl’s family, Wilson said. The girl is a member of the church but is not a student, nor is she affiliated with Hyles-Anderson College, as was previously reported.Some of the discussion here on SI has claimed the church has given no thought to the girl, to helping her and her family as they deal with this. This comment gives the lie to that kind of talk.
In addition, please note that the newspaper corrects its earlier reports “as was previously reported”… this is the sign of a responsible news gathering institution.
[comment continued in a follow-up due to SI length limitations]
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I don’t really care to get into a long back and forth on this, but you need to consider all the sources. You are an outside observer, just as I am. We only know what we read in the newspapers, we don’t have access to the facts. We need to be very careful about the kinds of statements we make when we don’t know and can’t know the whole story.
Quite frankly, it appears to me that many of those posting here on SI on this topic are animated by hatred of FBCH and the people involved. I don’t know that to be true, but to an observer like me, it seems that those condemning the church for lying (“medical leave”) are unwilling to read the news reports with anything but an antagonistic bias motivated by hatred.
I am not saying that this is your personal motivation, Bryan, but I think it is wrong and uncharitable to be making the kinds of claims about this church that are being made on these threads. The time-line is unclear at best. We should be a little more circumspect in the kinds of conclusions we are drawing about this church and its leadership in a very trying time.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So, in other words, brother, you are going primarily from memory about multiple sources. You don’t have them at hand, eh? So why make the claim?
Q1 - Yes, for the most part; Q2 - Not without spending a lot of time digging; Q3 - Because it’s my conclusion from all I’ve read. If people have to spend hours of pulling together footnotes & bibliography before they can express their studied, thought-out conclusions on a blog….well, it ain’t gonna happen.
Please note that according to this article it was the church that contacted the authorities, not some reported, imagined, or otherwise unknown third party. You have provided no source to validate this claim.
That’s OK…I conceded that the church officials may have contacted authorities, but also pointed out that others have claimed an outsider initiated that contact. You’re correct that I provide no source. It’s really not germaine to the “medical leave” spin story.
Now let’s look at some other sources:
Actually, this source doesn’t say that. It merely says that they began the investigation after talking with church reps. Who called whom isn’t clear. The “outside whistleblower” story would argue that the whistleblower called the authorities, who then contacted the church reps who confirmed the reasons for the pastor’s dismissal, which then demanded a police/FBI investigation.
Another NWITimes article says:
Again, there’s no conflict about the time-line. The Tribune article was more detailed in stating Schaap was privately dismissed by the deacons on Saturday, but the public announcement of his firing didn’t come until Monday. The NWI article is reporting what church members are doing after they found out about the firing on Monday; the Tribune article reported what the chairman of deacons said they did in firing Schaap privately on Saturday. Remember, according to the Trib, the only persons who knew prior to Monday’s announcement that Schaap was gone were Schaap and the deacons (I think it’d be safe to say Lapina and some other key staff knew, as well, but that is a reasonable assumption).
In still another NWITimes article it says:
But when you compare this quote with the Tribune quote, why would you conclude that? It seems more reasonable to take the two articles together and conclude that NWI’s vague Duff “spoke with Schaap about the incident Saturday afternoon” = the Tribune’s clear “Duff said the church responded ‘the minute we found out about this.’ He didn’t elaborate on the timeline other than to say that Schaap was told of his dismissal on Saturday following ‘two or three’ meetings with the board, which Duff said was ‘100 percent behind’ the decision.”
In any case, the least we can say is that news reports are conflicting as to the point at which the firing took place….The time-line is unclear at best….
I don’t see the conflict, sorry. Nor is the timeline unclear. The Tribune article is more precise, even specifying they were interested in knowing a detailed timeline, but getting the broad “we the deacons fired him Saturday…publically announced it Monday.” The NWITimes articles are more truncated and vague.
For the record, I don’t have any hatred or malice toward FBCH. Other than knowing people in my past who are/were connected to the place, attending one bizarre Pastor’s School in the early 80s, and 1 even more bizarre youth conf. the same year, I have no connections there whatsoever. I weighed in on this simply because I’ve observed, heard about, and experienced first-hand way too much IFB “truth management” (aka public deception for the sake of the ministry…cause of Christ…positive image…etc.). I simply wanted to express my opinion that, based on all I’ve read about this mess, the “medical leave” spin was just more of the same. I, for one, think it’s wrong.
Again, enough.
Don, I think it is uncharitable to conclude that some who criticize Hammond are driven by hatred. How do you know?
[edit: I know this is getting ridiculous, but that is my point. I just find it ironic that those who say people are being uncharitable towards Hammond are themselves, in my opinion, being uncharitable.]
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[BryanBice]Again, there’s no conflict about the time-line. The Tribune article was more detailed in stating Schaap was privately dismissed by the deacons on Saturday, but the public announcement of his firing didn’t come until Monday. The NWI article is reporting what church members are doing after they found out about the firing on Monday; the Tribune article reported what the chairman of deacons said they did in firing Schaap privately on Saturday.
What part of “was fired from his role as the church’s leader Monday” do you not understand?
Brother, we’ve known each other for a long time. I can’t believe you are clinging to the notion that there is no conflict between the news reports. Why will you hold so tenaciously to your time-line theory based on this report?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Greg Long]I know this is getting ridiculous,
“Getting”???
This conversation has been beyond ridiculous for a long time.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Mike Harding] The concept that Wells points out is that seminaries are offering “D.Mins.” today without M.Div. prerequisites,thus circumventing the theological and exegetical training necessary for serious preaching.
[James K] The statement does indeed say what I was referring to.Instead of trying to exegete Mike Harding’s comment, why don’t we just ask him what he meant by it, since it seems there is a degree of legitimate ambiguity?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
My apologies to all for letting this thread stray so much from the main topic. We already had other threads where folks were talking past eachother about “medical leave” and “lying” and so forth.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that there’s too much passion on these questions right now for folks to even notice where they actually agree with one another. Human nature. I’m not trying to rebuke here… just explaining why we’re going to close the thread.
FWIW, I think few would disagree that the definition of what constitutes a “lie” is murky around the edges. Sometimes you can say something that is fully true but that, in the context you’re saying it, has the effect of communicating a falsehood. And if you do that on purpose, it’s well into that murky boundary between “accurate” and “lie,” if not clean through the boundary into deception territory.
I’m not interested at all in trying to decide where the “medical leave” case in Hammond fits. Is it possible that Schaap actually saw doc or dentist while away? Sure. Is it possible that he was going through some pretty heavy mental distress and the board saw this as close enough to “medical”? Sure. Is it possible that while technically true, the “medical leave” statement could have been intentionally misleading? Of course. Is it possible that they didn’t mean to be misleading at all? Also yes. Is it possible that some are slamming Hammond out of pure malice or out of a prideful sense of superiority or as a distraction from their own failings? Also, yes.
But without the Omniscience Glasses (I’m still waiting for those to come in the mail), who can answer any of these questions with certainty… and would there be any value in answering them if we could? (The answer to the latter might be yes, but I’m not confident that’s the case.)
So, my advice, FWIW… look for points of agreement and, as far as discussion goes, look for points of disagreement that (a) are not purely speculative and (b) really matter. (In the case of the latter, we can learn as much from a hypothetical scenario as we can from a definite “this is what certainly happened” scenario. So what’s the point of trying to write history before the dust has even settled? Patience. Much will get sorted out in the days ahead… and everything will get sorted out in the End).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion