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
Aaron and Andrew,
It is more than just the fact that the FBF did not raise concerns about Schaap and instead joined with him in more than one conference. It is the fact that now, after Schaap has fallen, they seem to be acknowledging that they knew something was wrong all along. This interview shows the ugly side of things at Hammond. Had they really not heard this before this most recent event? Why ignore it before and then now that something big happened act as though they had always known that something was wrong. Binney, while preaching this past Wednesday night at Hammond, actually admitted that! That he knew something was not right from the time he started attending there, but thought he should attend a year before he said something. WHAT IN THE WORLD! This is the man who preached at Faith in Taylors after John Vaughn retired a few years ago. That is what is so frustrating to me - the fact that all of these “powerful” men came along side him, seemingly saying everything was ok with what he was doing and saying. Not until after he has abused a girl do they finally say - oh, well we knew something was off, but we thought we would let it slide for a while. That makes no sense to me.
Bob,
First I’ll agree that some fellows have made decisions about association that should not have been made. Hopefully this event might be a motivator for change.
However, what would you suggest be done now? Would you propose a resolution instructing pastors to break all ties with FBCH? What would that serve? How would it be implemented? Who would follow it?
The fundamentalist movement (such as it is) is a loose coalition of likeminded men who rarely do anything together or entirely alike. We promote certain endeavours together, but our ministries are all different and our choices are individual.
Are you proposing some kind of secondary separation where we create some rules against “anybody who is 100% for Hyles” (what if they are 75%, or 50%?)? Are you advocating a new set of extra-biblical parameters to guide us in making associational choices?
Rather than simply spout your frustrations, how about making some constructive suggestions about a way forward? I agree that mistakes have been made, some of them pretty big and obvious mistakes. Well, then, what should be done now? Tar and feather the lot?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
My point is that I hope we learn from this - learn to speak out against heretical teaching - to at the very least not be willing to speak at conferences with Pastors like Schaap who are preaching error and promoting an un-biblical way to pastor. Instead even those who knew better were willing to wait and see what happened. Let me quote what you said two years ago in the discussion we had then about Vaughn preaching at a conference with Schaap.
Finally, I have to acknowledge that the situation we are discussing is a concern. It is a concern because of the association. I have a lot of misgivings about it. I hope that time will make the rationale for continuing to participate a little clearer. I don’t know if the rationale would satisfy anyone here. I am not sure if it entirely satisfies me. However, I do have a lot of confidence in Dr. Vaughn and am willing to wait and see.
You can find that quote here.
I appreciated your concern back then, and I appreciate it now. I just am losing confidence in our movement when those who are leading it don’t seem to make good decisions and those following are willing to sit back and watch it happen because they have confidence in the men leading it.
What is the answer? I am not sure there is an easy one. I do think much of the problem lies in what I said earlier - the powers that be put more emphasis on the preferences in music and dress than anything else. Rules are not going to help that - abiding in Christ will help that. Searching His Word will help that. Living out the Word will help that. Not exalting our preferences above the Word will help that. Making sound application will help that. Not blindly following men will help that. Thinking will help that! How can a thinking man who is abiding in Christ, living out the Word possibly think it is a good idea to overlook it when someone wrote what Schaap wrote about the Lord’s Supper? I don’t understand it.
Bob, in the main I agree with what you are saying. I hope that this incident can be used for improved decisions going forward.
Not as a point of disagreement, but as an observation of reality: We are dealing with individuals here - it takes time for change to occur. If you look at the history of the FBF and the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy you will find that the decision to pull out of the Northern Baptist Convention took a long time for some, even when the cancer was obvious. Ketcham and the GARBC folks pulled out first, W. B. Riley didn’t pull out until almost the end of his life. (Going by memory… hope I have all facts right.) Even so, many Bible-believers simply stayed in, in spite of the obvious errors of modernism all around them.
So my point is that we don’t all see things the same way at the same time.
And it isn’t that there has been tremendous cooperation between the Hyles crowd and, for example, the FBF crowd. There has been a definite difference, in spite of some minor overlap at times. The overlap raises questions, may cause some confusion, may need to be addressed more plainly and more publicly, etc. However, there has been a pretty distinct difference in general between these groups, including a specific FBFI resolution as I cited above.
Last, on a point of disagreement: I don’t agree about so-called man made rules. I am with Aaron on this, rules have their place, the Lord gave us a ton of them, and there is, I think, Biblical warrant for applying those Scriptural rules beyond the specific commands of Scripture. 1 Cor 8-10 models this kind of thinking to some extent, for example.
We don’t want rules to become the be-all and end-all, as if we can be assured of holiness if we get our rules right. But at the same time, if we are walking in the Spirit, we will be keeping the rules.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Last, on a point of disagreement: I don’t agree about so-called man made rules. I am with Aaron on this, rules have their place, the Lord gave us a ton of them, and there is, I think, Biblical warrant for applying those Scriptural rules beyond the specific commands of Scripture. 1 Cor 8-10 models this kind of thinking to some extent, for example.
We don’t want rules to become the be-all and end-all, as if we can be assured of holiness if we get our rules right. But at the same time, if we are walking in the Spirit, we will be keeping the rules.
I agree with that Don. Sorry I was not clear in what I was referring to. I was answering your previous post where you said:
Are you proposing some kind of secondary separation where we create some rules against “anybody who is 100% for Hyles” (what if they are 75%, or 50%?)? Are you advocating a new set of extra-biblical parameters to guide us in making associational choices?
That was what I was talking about rules not helping. Sorry for the confusion. I do agree that we need rules. We just need to refocus on your last thought:
We don’t want rules to become the be-all and end-all, as if we can be assured of holiness if we get our rules right. But at the same time, if we are walking in the Spirit, we will be keeping the rules.
Knowing “something is not right” is not the same as having something actionable. Sometimes you just have a sense that something is not right. I get that from time to time, and sometimes in retrospect I think “I knew something was wrong there.” But it was probably just “luck.”
Maybe the “something” some folks knew was actionable—I don’t know one way or the other. I have not read anything about Hammond beyond a short news blurb from a newspaper in that area and a little bit of the ensuing discussion. Can’t say I’m really interested in knowing more.
The question of who knew what and when doesn’t interest me at all either—and I’m not sure there’s much value in chasing that. But I do hope that those who knew most will learn the most from it all.
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.
How could you possibly not have something actionable when Schaap taught what he taught, wrote what he wrote, and allowed the worship of him that he did. All of that is actionable. Watch videos of the services. Then tell me there was not things actionable.
First of all, I’ve been in your church and I love it! Obviously Boyceville has somewhat limited potential for growth (as if that is the objective of the church anyway!)
Speaking of accountability if I would compare and contrast your church with First Baptist of Hammond (sadly I’ve been there too!) Image below
First Baptist Hammond ministries:
- Mission board
- College
- Multiple private schools
Now my question for Aaron: Does church size have something to do with accountability? I know several of your deacons and I’m pretty sure you could not do the A Polished Shaft message and get away with it. Let’s call this pulpit integrity.
Now about finances: Your church finances are probably simple enough that most people with a HS education can understand them. I’m guessing that you have a layman who is your treasurer and some kind of reporting is provided to the board (deacons) monthly and to the congregation quarterly. Someone sees a line item called “Electric bill” and they can relate to that. Let’s call this financial accountability
Now about one’s personal life. I’ll use myself as an example. My wife basically knows where I am at all times. I’m at the office 8 until 5:30 or so, Mon-Friday. This week I have a business trip to beautiful West DesMoines. My co-workers are expecting me at the office there all week. Kathee knows where I am. It would be difficult for me to “get away” with an affair. I’ll call this family accountability. More now on family with regard to finances. Kathee virtually knows every penny I spend and vice versa. Recently a missionary we know of fell into moral sin in paying for prostitutes. I have to say that it would be difficult for me to divert funds for activity of this nature. (I can “get away” with buying M&M’s at the vending machine, but that’s about it). Now to the overall issue of accountability. You, Aaron, live in a fairly tight accountability structure (doctrinal, church, and family)
So are smaller churches, by nature, more highly structured than say a mega-church?
Jim, I don’t think small church accountability (albeit simpler and more direct) is any better than large church accountability. The same thought crossed my mind somewhere along the way during this story, but I quickly dismissed it. I have known too many small church pastors who failed morally - anyone with a heart bent on deception can find ways to deceive. Doesn’t matter the size of the group, it can be done and it happens all the time, unfortunately.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I had dinner with Ron Bean tonight. Ron, this was that quote from Sibbes I was telling you about. I thought it applied here very well.
We were talking about the need for fundamentalism to learn proportionality in how it emphasizes some issues as important versus others. If all issues (say, pants on women, and the authority of Scripture) are emphasized at the same level, all crumble under the same weight. He also touches on preacher idolatry.
“Preachers need to take heed therefore how they deal with young believers. Let them be careful not to pitch matters too high, making things necessary evidences of grace which agree not to the experience of many a good Christian, and laying salvation and damnation upon things that are not fit to bear so great a weight. In this way men are needlessly cast down and may not soon be raised up again by themselves or others. The ambassadors of so gentle a Saviour should not be overbearing, setting up themselves in the hearts of people where Christ alone should sit as in his own temple. Too much respect to man was one of the inlets of popery. `Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ’ (1 Cor. 4:1), neither more nor less, just so much. How careful was Paul in cases of conscience not to lay a snare upon any weak conscience.”
Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed
Sibbes makes a great point. For over 30 years I’ve watched preachers fall (jump) into sin and watched some of their worshippers run to their defense. Their followers believe the ministry will be harmed if their leader is publicly admonished so they may resort to deception, denial, easy forgiveness and restoration, and/or just dropping Maxwell Smart’s Cone Of Silence over the matter.
And my brethren, if you haven’t read Richard Sibbes……shame on you!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I really appreciate the irony highlight: Charges that “IFB churches are legalistic” alongside charges that “IFB churches need more accountability rules” don’t match. Critics aren’t against rules so much as they are against rules that they don’t like.
It’s like the Emergent church movement, which disdained (among other things) the structured-ness of churches … and as the movement grew, they realized that they needed more structure and became more and more like a traditional church. Oops.
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!" ~Abraham Kuyper
That might be the first time I’ve used LOL for a subject line… But I laughed with the thought “That’s humanity for you.” We all do it… and sometimes it is pretty funny.
Jim’s question
So are smaller churches, by nature, more highly structured than say a mega-church?
I don’t know if I could make that generalization. If by “more highly structured” you mean is there more built in accountability, I think probably yes, but it isn’t necessarily very formal or structured. It’s just that when things are closer together and fewer in number, things are seen up close and info moves a little faster. But I suspect that the size factor doesn’t really significantly affect things until you get really, really big… or if you’re running these multi-campus deals where zillions watch the pastor preach on a screen at “campuses” hundreds of miles apart. That’s got a built in accountability deficit that the ministry would have to consciously structure to counteract.
So a good generalization might be that the larger or more complex the ministry is, the more intentionality/formality is necessary in the accountability measures (to a point, then it would level off, probably). It’s like the rules thing again: the bigger and more complex the outfit, the more rules it tends to need in place to keep good order and so on—but only up to some point where more rules just becomes self defeating (more and more energy gets sucked into infraction handling and out of whatever the organization’s mission is… presumably, it doesn’t exist for the sole purpose of enforcing its rules on itself.)
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.
[Jim]Thanks for the correction
Sorry Don
Thank you for a good answer. Blessings to you.
I have been a member of the FBFI for many years. I have witnessed it pulling away from the Hyles element ever since the stories broke in the late eighties through “The Biblical Evangelist”. Our FBFI doctrinal statement was re-written by myself and Fred Moritz in part to distance ourselves theologically from that element. The problem with the Hyles element in IFB churches was first and foremost doctrinal and secondarily ethical. The doctrinal and ethical violations of FBCH were so egregious, no discerning individual could ever join ecclesiastical hands with them. As I have said numerous times in print, in preaching, in board meetings, and in private BEFORE this recent scandal, it is wrong and unbiblical for any fundamentalist or Christian or biblical separatist to maintain ecclesiastical connections with Hammond and its ilk. The fact that this was not done simply indicates that LABELS trumped doctrine and principle—that cultural fundamentalism trumped doctrinal fundamentalism.
Pastor Mike Harding
Discussion