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.
- 148 views
Bob makes a good point in #28.
[Bob Nutzhorn]And there’s one of the reasons I just cannot seem to buy into our state fellowship and the FBF - too much acceptance of very questionable teaching because one follows the preferences in dress and music. Aaron, that is the problem I have with the rules - not that we have rules - the idea that as long as our pet “preferences” rules are kept, it seems as though people are willing to look the other way with questionable teaching.
I’ve often thought that ‘fundamentalist’ is a misnomer. I think ‘traditionalist’ would be a better moniker.
[Rob Fall] The Hyles’ camp would have ignored any resolution they didn’t agree with, so, all that’s left is going on record.
Whereas the SBC, who apparently warrants a resolution every other year or so, pays really close attention?? Going on record is what the resolutions seem to be about as often as not.
Don before you moderate me, you might note who started us down the “Fundies haven’t separated appropriately” path.
Separation is what fundamentalists do. To say not separating from Schaap was somehow judicious restraint is laughable.
Thanks for the correction
Sorry Don
The FBF did separate from Hyles. I think what some are objecting to was the reaching out to Schaap. More than one of my FBF told me they were hopeful about Hammond. I think some may also been thinking about Dr. Vaughn being put in a conference with Schaap (Dr Vaughn has said he regretted that). Also, the allignment that many FBF men are making with West Coast (Hyles-Lite) also contributes to the perception.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Bob]…that is the problem I have with the rules - not that we have rules - the idea that as long as our pet “preferences” rules are kept, it seems as though people are willing to look the other way with questionable teaching.
Yes, this is a real problem. Progress means accurately identifying the problem, though. For every fundamentalist who misuses rules you have at least one non-fund. evangelical who misuses liberty. Scripture warns against both.
- Misuse of rules: Pharisee passages (e.g., Matt 23)
- Misuse of liberty: 1 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 5:13, 1 Pet. 2:16
So what’s really the problem in the rules-abuse scenarios? It’s always some kind of misuse of a good tool. And always there is a analog in accountability tools.
We’re harmed if we don’t use these tools, but harmed at least as much if we misuse them.
A hammer is a great tool but you can’t wash windows with it and will only make a mess if you try.
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.
Yes, many misuse liberty. But it is because they fail to understand and apply all Scripture that applies. Some act as if the existence of the doctrine of Christian Liberty cancels out all other commandments. Hence, because I believe in Christian Liberty, its OK to get drunk. (Not!)
Others ignore the Biblical “rules” that apply to the application of Christian Liberty. The Bible says more about when and why Not to exercise liberty than it does to encourage its use. And yet, others will try to apply the “rules” of Christian Liberty for everyone else, which makes a mockery of the whole concept of Liberty.
Surely everyone agrees that “rules” that are in the Bible are both valid and mandatory. Its those man-made rules that get us into trouble.
G. N. Barkman
[rogercarlson]The FBF did separate from Hyles. I think what some are objecting to was the reaching out to Schaap. More than one of my FBF told me they were hopeful about Hammond. I think some may also been thinking about Dr. Vaughn being put in a conference with Schaap (Dr Vaughn has said he regretted that). Also, the allignment that many FBF men are making with West Coast (Hyles-Lite) also contributes to the perception.
If the FBF was reaching out to Schaap (and I hope they were privately confronting him on his errors), why didn’t they ever reach out to brethren like Dever, Mohler or MacArthur whose perceived errors (IMO) were not as dangerous as Schaap’s and who were evicting liberals from the Southern Baptist seminaries.
BTW, I’m glad John Vaughn has said he regretted being in a conference with Schaap. I hadn’t seen his statement and would like to read it.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I agree with G.N. Barkman’s thoughts - nicely said. Aaron, I agree with what you are saying, but I am not talking about the problems of non-fund. evangelical. I am talking about fundamentalists. This is what frustrates me within the movement. The constant need to point out the problems with evangelicals as if that makes the way our movement in general acts acceptable. I am not saying that is what you are trying to do, but that is the way it comes across. It reminds me of dealing with daughters - one is getting in trouble and wants to point out the other’s wrong doing as if that makes what they did not wrong. If we as fundamentalist are striving to be upright and living as close to the Bible as we can, why do we feel the need to point out the errors of another group? I know some believe that by pointing out the error in the evangelicals during the arguments will dissuade others from jumping from fundamentalism. It is by not dealing with the problems and instead of pointing the finger at others that is causing many to flee fundamentalism.
If we are to follow Romans 14, we must allow others to have different “rules” in areas not clear in Scripture. That should not be reason for separation - this goes for both those who believe they have more liberty and those who believe they need to have more rules in place. If God is all-knowing (and He is) and sovereign (and He is), He could have recorded for us exactly what He wanted in every area of church and personal life. Instead of making things clear one way or the other in Romans 14, Paul said get along even though you do not agree - even in the same church. In today’s fundamentalism, that is not practiced.
As one of the heirs to the Historic Northern Baptists (the GARBC is another), it’s not unexpected to see rivalry surfacing. The two have been rivals (HNB\SBC) since the Triennial Convention dissolved back in the day.
As far as I am concerned, the SBC is not the Mother Convention from which we are descended.
[DavidO][Rob Fall] The Hyles’ camp would have ignored any resolution they didn’t agree with, so, all that’s left is going on record.Whereas the SBC, who apparently warrants a resolution every other year or so, pays really close attention?? Going on record is what the resolutions seem to be about as often as not.
Don before you moderate me, you might note who started us down the “Fundies haven’t separated appropriately” path.
Separation is what fundamentalists do. To say not separating from Schaap was somehow judicious restraint is laughable.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[DavidO] Whereas the SBC, who apparently warrants a resolution every other year or so, pays really close attention?? Going on record is what the resolutions seem to be about as often as not.
Resolutions are not simply going on record. They define how the FBFI sees itself and presents that definition to those who are interested. Some are attracted to join, some are not. That’s the way it is.
[DavidO] Don before you moderate me, you might note who started us down the “Fundies haven’t separated appropriately” path.
Actually, I thought that was you in post #12. Everything else was a response to that.
[DavidO] Separation is what fundamentalists do. To say not separating from Schaap was somehow judicious restraint is laughable.
I don’t think I’m saying that it was. I am saying that the FBFI men have been operating outside the Hyles circles since at least the 90s. The Clarence Sexton meeting that is brought up was more a reaching out to Sexton than anyone else, certainly not a reaching out to Schaap. Schaap wasn’t on the program when the invitations were accepted. He came on later as a relatively minor speaker in the program, did some kind of workshop, if I recall. Certainly not a “keynote” speaker. Regardless, because of his presence the invitation the following year was refused and regret expressed for confusion caused the previous year.
So now I hope we can bow out of this sideline and let the thread return to discussion of Aaron’s excellent article.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The constant need to point out the problems with evangelicals as if that makes the way our movement in general acts acceptable. I am not saying that is what you are trying to do, but that is the way it comes across.
What I’m interested in is locating problems accurately. The value of pointing out how evangelicals abuse liberty is that it helps us avoid incorrectly locating the problems in fundamentalism as, for example, believing that rules are “a means of spirituality.” This is simply not the problem any more than liberty is the problem when believers use it to justify, as in someone’s example, getting drunk.
I’m sure that many engage in finger pointing at the other guys as tu quoue reasoning (“you do it too, so I’m justified”). And I’ve heard my share of that. I stopped attending the annual meetings of a certain fellowship of churches some years ago because I didn’t see the point in driving there, paying for a motel, etc., just to hear that sort of thing in copious amounts. So I’m not for that. That doesn’t make what “the other guys’ problems” irrelevant to understanding our own, though.
My own “look at the other side” efforts are aimed at helping folks back up and look at the whole picture so that they more accurately identify what’s wrong with their (our) own part of it.
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.
It’s sad to see most of the discussions on this topic (here and elsewhere) devolve into a discussion of my-team versus your-team. Fundamentalists need to repent in sack cloth and ashes, mourn that we have sin in the camp, pray for our brethren, and seek God’s leading. Instead, in this instance (and much more in other recent scandals), protecting ‘our team’ seems more important than mourning over sin.
WHO CARES WHETHER ONE CIRCLE THREW MUD ON ANOTHER ONE!?!?
I’ve never understood why the ‘denominational’ mindset is so POWERFUL in the IFB movement.
And then there was this unfortunate “conference” that has renewed irony if you read all the names closely. My understanding is that not everyone would have wanted to be associated with everyone else.
http://emmanuelbaptisttemple.org/media/bcflyer2011.pdf
The point is: dear FBFI men, if you are associated publicly with a false teacher online, then publicly disassociate yourself from the same false teacher (preferably online). Otherwise, people will be confused. Private concerns about a false teacher are not enough. If you see a wolf influencing sheep (especially if you’re influencing them too) to believe false teaching, it’s not enough to have private concerns. Anyone with access to Youtube could have seen for years that Schaap was a wolf. (Which begs the question, I wonder if FBFI pastors in fact have access to Youtube?)
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I saw some people I know very well, and others I’ve never heard of before. I guess I don’t travel much in these circles.
I had a question, which is really off subject. I wonder how many of these men, all of whom have “Dr.” in front of their name, actually have bona fide doctors degrees from a credible University? I have long believed that the conferring of honorary doctors degrees to friends and supporters is a questionable practice. If fundamentalism hopes to achieve credibility among thoughtful Christians, they need to encourage solid, earned doctors degrees, and drop the phony-baloney of making everybody a doctor. That depreciates the value to practical meaninglessness.
G. N. Barkman
[AndrewSuttles]It’s sad to see most of the discussions on this topic (here and elsewhere) devolve into a discussion of my-team versus your-team. Fundamentalists need to repent in sack cloth and ashes, mourn that we have sin in the camp, pray for our brethren, and seek God’s leading. Instead, in this instance (and much more in other recent scandals), protecting ‘our team’ seems more important than mourning over sin.
WHO CARES WHETHER ONE CIRCLE THREW MUD ON ANOTHER ONE!?!?
I’ve never understood why the ‘denominational’ mindset is so POWERFUL in the IFB movement.
I have to say that I’m also not very interested in whether this group or that said or did enough about/in response to Hyles or Schaap. On the other hand, in defense of those who have brought it up, it’s about much more than “denominational mindset.” It’s about whether one group or another has been obedient to biblical principles enjoining believers to mark and have no fellowship with disobedient brethren. Whether “resolutions” and that sort of thing are a valid form of that is a topic all its own, but the question is an important one.
It’s important for a second reason: arriving at some different thinking and choices for the future. In short, there are definitely lessons to learn here about whether mud ought to have been slung and whether it should be more intentionally and promptly slung in the future.
So… though the question of whether one IFB group or another did enough is a bit off topic in this thread it’s definitely not trivial or petty. (I just tend to think that there is really not much that fellowships of this sort can do about these things—that will actually make a difference)
The whole “camp” thing has always been a bit puzzling to me… I’ve never considered myself to be in a camp or to be responsible for the actions of a camp. What makes me a “fundamentalist” is not my connection to others who are fundamentalists. It’s what I believe and do.
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