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
JG said: “I can’t believe you really expected a response to what you sent”
I didn’t say I expected a response.
Other half of my response:
I said: “! I understand that the man who is now the interim pastor announced the Sunday before the events broke that Jack Schaap was out on medical leave. If that is true … it strikes me as a bald-faced lie! And when people lie it makes one a liar. That doesn’t say much about the man who is now the interim pastor!”
I stand by my statement
There’s more to Proclaim and Defend than a digital version of the Newsworthy column. http://www.proclaimanddefend.org
[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.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Just a thought, wonder how many SI members who criticized medical leave so strongly in recent days contacted FBCH about their concerns….
A minor point: I didn’t criticize medical leave. I was questioning the use of the term in light of the real situation.
A major point: It was public. I don’t think there is any need to go privately when something is very public.
But I don’t want to distract from the FBFI conversation since that is what this thread is about. Oh wait …
[Jim]I stand by my statement
I didn’t ask you to retract it. I asked if you contacted them about it. If it’s obviously a bald-faced lie, perhaps they’ll correct it if someone points it out to them.
Or do you not agree with Ron’s statement about going to the person?
[Larry]A minor point: I didn’t criticize medical leave. I was questioning the use of the term in light of the real situation.
Yeah, I know. Like I told Jay, I was in a hurry when I typed that. And like I said before, I don’t think he should have been put on medical leave, either.
[Larry]A major point: It was public. I don’t think there is any need to go privately when something is very public.
But I don’t want to distract from the FBFI conversation since that is what this thread is about. Oh wait …
This IS about FBFI, and Ron’s statement re: FBFI, isn’t it? Ron didn’t use the word “privately” did he? But sounds like you are saying Ron’s statement isn’t right in some way. So I’ll help my squirming brothers (who haven’t contacted Hammond) a little by saying that I don’t think Ron’s statement has it pegged. I don’t see an obligation in this case to contact Hammond. But it’s not merely a private-public thing, there’s more to it than that. Probably can’t elaborate until tomorrow. I brought it up, not to try to get them to get on the phone to Hammond or to try to get them to come up with excuses, but to turn some scrutiny on Ron’s statement itself, which on its face sounds good but….
But you made me laugh with your last line, anyway. :) I’m almost an on-topic hero for dragging us back to something related to Hammond, since Hammond is in the title of the thread. Nothing to do with Aaron’s article, of course, but even Aaron gave up that fight.
It’s pretty standard practice to put an employee on some sort of paid leave while an investigation is on-going. It is a prudent thing to take the appropriate time to get all the information, inform all the leadership, and make a sound and wise decision.
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.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The issue is not whether or not to put Schaap on leave. The issue is whether or not they lied to the congregation about the nature of his absence.
Not sure why this is so hard to understand, gang. Help me out 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
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.
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.
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
Discussion