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.
- 141 views
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
Discussion