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,
Not sure if your generalization (couldn’t help myself) included me, but, if it did, I would plead not guilty in this instance. I think I, and several others, have given specific explanation of the things with which we disagree. For us, these issues brought us to a decision. As I stated earlier, I respect a number of men and ministries in the FBFI, but I chose to disassociate from the organization. Others have chosen to remain in and continue pushing in good directions. More power to them. What I object to is the trivializing of the problems - in the FBFI or anywhere else. No one is perfect, so a big question becomes what are you doing about it. As has been pointed out before, too many fundamentalists are willing to point out the flaws of the other guy while ignoring and downplaying their own problems.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Don Johnson] There really is no way to answer the pontification found in the thread above.Are you speaking about your posts here, Don?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Steve,
Had no one particular in mind. 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. I think Fundamentalism has been doctrinally weak in certain areas, otherwise how does one explain the KJVO epidemic, the easy believism problem, and the lack of good systematic thought among so many Fundamental preachers. Hammond is certainly one of the poster children for those weaknesses.
Pastor Mike Harding
I was greatly encouraged by your post (#73). I had no idea that such things had been addressed and was under the assumption that the FBFI was just the same old bunch doing the same old stuff. Perhaps publicizing this kind of stand would help the FBFI and IFB’s in general shed their image as a sort of exclusive club.
And dittoes on your DMin comments. I know of a guy who desperately wanted a doctorate and academically couldn’t handle a PHD program so he settled at one of these seminaries where he’ll shortly get his DMin as long as he keeps his mouth shut about his KJVO position. The school will give him his degree in spite of his abysmal track record in churches, his inability to exegete a text, and repeated ethical failures.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Mike Harding]Steve,
Had no one particular in mind. 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. I think Fundamentalism has been doctrinally weak in certain areas, otherwise how does one explain the KJVO epidemic, the easy believism problem, and the lack of good systematic thought among so many Fundamental preachers. Hammond is certainly one of the poster children for those weaknesses.
I was thinking more along the line that the DMin is not the issue. There may be some schools that offer a DMin without an MDiv but none that I know of that are reputable (Trinity, Calvary, Detroit, Central, etc.). My point was that that men with an unearned Dr. before their name might benefit from a DMin. There are too many “doctors” in Fundamentalism and not enough nurses.
[Chip] Not sure if your generalization (couldn’t help myself) included me, but, if it did, I would plead not guilty in this instance. I think I, and several others, have given specific explanation of the things with which we disagree. For us, these issues brought us to a decision.
Got a bee in my bonnet for a bit there… but it did seem like there was a succession very sweeping remarks.
But I’m glad to see you and others noticing and appreciating a few of the positive things that have happened.
About the whole DMin/honorary thing … since we’re well into topic-wander anyway, to me an honorary degree that has “letters” attached to it that are only used for honorary degrees is not the same animal as a DMin that has voided masters work requirements. Any degree that doesn’t pretend to be what it isn’t is OK by me (for whatever that’s worth), but as newfangled as the DMin is, it’s still got a tradition… so it’s a claim to have advanced through the masters’ level to achievement beyond that.
(By the way, I’m offering a DSIFA degree. Doctor of SI Financial Assistance. You ‘earn’ one by sending me a hundred bucks. I’ll send you a nice certificate for your wall… you also pay shipping and handling unless you are one of the first 30 callers. Act now while supplies last!)
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.
Thank you Pastor Harding for your clear and very helpful comments. I have a much better understanding of where the FBF is going. I am very thankful for leaders like yourself who are willing to take a stand as you did in these sensitive matters. Aaron and Don, his statement is exactly what I have been pleading for the past several years in these matters. Several conversations I have had with Don have gone exactly the way Don has directed his conversation in this discussion - no where! But here we see Pastor Harding say, yes, it is a problem, yes we have dealt with it, and here is how we are trying to make sure it wont happen again.
Bob, my sarcastic jab about angels, pins, etc, was not meant to shut down conversation for sure.
It was intended to be a response to the posts basically saying the FBFI is unacceptable for a variety of reasons, some of them, in my opinion, completely erroneous. There seemet to me to be a good deal of pontificating going on, as if this was the be-all and end-all of such a line of conversation. The arguments being made were to me absurd, so my response was intended to ‘fight the absurd by being absurd’ (the Limbaugh method).
However, if you and others would take some time to investigate the FBFI, its publications, its positions and its leadership, I don’t think you would find it as useless as some seem to be decreeing.
I am very glad to serve with Mike on the board and appreciate his contributions. The whole board is comprised of serious godly men from all over the country. I would encourage any who are reading this exchange to get to know the FBFI a bit better before making judgements about its usefulness.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Proclaim and Defend, I think we’ll see the FBFI be more timely in its communications. In talking this matter over with Brother Vaughn, he recognizes the short comings of dead tree only communications.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
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.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]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.
Are you trying to shut down the Internet? :)
Edit: Just a thought, wonder how many SI members who criticized medical leave so strongly in recent days contacted FBCH about their concerns….
[JG] Edit: Just a thought, wonder how many SI members who criticized medical leave so strongly in recent days contacted FBCH about their concerns….
JG,
The criticism isn’t about medical leave. It’s about whether or not the FBC Hammond leadership used “medical leave” as an acceptable reason for announcing why Schaap wasn’t in the pulpit that first Sunday. I am glad that they announced the real reason on that Wednesday night service several nights later, and I think that if they did lie to the congregation, then they ought to confess that themselves.
I appreciate your points and will respond more in time, but framing the conversation so that people like I are criticizing “medical leave” speaks poorly as to your understanding of my posts. There is a place and time for medical leave, and being caught cheating on your wife with a 16 year old doesn’t qualify. That’s my point, and has been my point since posts #20 and #24 of the FBI Thread.
"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
Via email. I suggested they take down the Jack Hyles statue because it idolized an adulterer. I sent it to the info@ email box
No response
Thanks, I understand your points, My addendum here was an edit ten minutes later, and I think that’s all the time we get, so I was hurrying and said “medical leave” as shorthand. But I was just asking about Ron’s point here. Did you contact them?
Jim, did you contact them about their “bald-faced lie” (your words) or do you disagree with Ron’s statement about personally confronting? I can’t believe you really expected a response to what you sent. He denied adultery, as far as I know, they chose to believe that, so the reason you gave for your suggestion would hardly be likely to get a positive response. This is different. You believe there is clear evidence of a bald-faced lie, clear enough to make the charge on a public forum, and that you have grounds to denounce them for it. If you agree with Ron’s statement, you should contact them about it, right?
Ron, you suggested they were in cover-up mode. So did you contact them?
Discussion