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
I don’t really care to get into a long back and forth on this, but you need to consider all the sources. You are an outside observer, just as I am. We only know what we read in the newspapers, we don’t have access to the facts. We need to be very careful about the kinds of statements we make when we don’t know and can’t know the whole story.
Quite frankly, it appears to me that many of those posting here on SI on this topic are animated by hatred of FBCH and the people involved. I don’t know that to be true, but to an observer like me, it seems that those condemning the church for lying (“medical leave”) are unwilling to read the news reports with anything but an antagonistic bias motivated by hatred.
I am not saying that this is your personal motivation, Bryan, but I think it is wrong and uncharitable to be making the kinds of claims about this church that are being made on these threads. The time-line is unclear at best. We should be a little more circumspect in the kinds of conclusions we are drawing about this church and its leadership in a very trying time.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
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?
Q1 - Yes, for the most part; Q2 - Not without spending a lot of time digging; Q3 - Because it’s my conclusion from all I’ve read. If people have to spend hours of pulling together footnotes & bibliography before they can express their studied, thought-out conclusions on a blog….well, it ain’t gonna happen.
Please 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.
That’s OK…I conceded that the church officials may have contacted authorities, but also pointed out that others have claimed an outsider initiated that contact. You’re correct that I provide no source. It’s really not germaine to the “medical leave” spin story.
Now let’s look at some other sources:
Actually, this source doesn’t say that. It merely says that they began the investigation after talking with church reps. Who called whom isn’t clear. The “outside whistleblower” story would argue that the whistleblower called the authorities, who then contacted the church reps who confirmed the reasons for the pastor’s dismissal, which then demanded a police/FBI investigation.
Another NWITimes article says:
Again, there’s no conflict about the time-line. The Tribune article was more detailed in stating Schaap was privately dismissed by the deacons on Saturday, but the public announcement of his firing didn’t come until Monday. The NWI article is reporting what church members are doing after they found out about the firing on Monday; the Tribune article reported what the chairman of deacons said they did in firing Schaap privately on Saturday. Remember, according to the Trib, the only persons who knew prior to Monday’s announcement that Schaap was gone were Schaap and the deacons (I think it’d be safe to say Lapina and some other key staff knew, as well, but that is a reasonable assumption).
In still another NWITimes article it says:
But when you compare this quote with the Tribune quote, why would you conclude that? It seems more reasonable to take the two articles together and conclude that NWI’s vague Duff “spoke with Schaap about the incident Saturday afternoon” = the Tribune’s clear “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.”
In any case, the least we can say is that news reports are conflicting as to the point at which the firing took place….The time-line is unclear at best….
I don’t see the conflict, sorry. Nor is the timeline unclear. The Tribune article is more precise, even specifying they were interested in knowing a detailed timeline, but getting the broad “we the deacons fired him Saturday…publically announced it Monday.” The NWITimes articles are more truncated and vague.
For the record, I don’t have any hatred or malice toward FBCH. Other than knowing people in my past who are/were connected to the place, attending one bizarre Pastor’s School in the early 80s, and 1 even more bizarre youth conf. the same year, I have no connections there whatsoever. I weighed in on this simply because I’ve observed, heard about, and experienced first-hand way too much IFB “truth management” (aka public deception for the sake of the ministry…cause of Christ…positive image…etc.). I simply wanted to express my opinion that, based on all I’ve read about this mess, the “medical leave” spin was just more of the same. I, for one, think it’s wrong.
Again, enough.
Don, I think it is uncharitable to conclude that some who criticize Hammond are driven by hatred. How do you know?
[edit: I know this is getting ridiculous, but that is my point. I just find it ironic that those who say people are being uncharitable towards Hammond are themselves, in my opinion, being uncharitable.]
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[BryanBice]Again, there’s no conflict about the time-line. The Tribune article was more detailed in stating Schaap was privately dismissed by the deacons on Saturday, but the public announcement of his firing didn’t come until Monday. The NWI article is reporting what church members are doing after they found out about the firing on Monday; the Tribune article reported what the chairman of deacons said they did in firing Schaap privately on Saturday.
What part of “was fired from his role as the church’s leader Monday” do you not understand?
Brother, we’ve known each other for a long time. I can’t believe you are clinging to the notion that there is no conflict between the news reports. Why will you hold so tenaciously to your time-line theory based on this report?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Greg Long]I know this is getting ridiculous,
“Getting”???
This conversation has been beyond ridiculous for a long time.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Mike Harding] 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.
[James K] The statement does indeed say what I was referring to.Instead of trying to exegete Mike Harding’s comment, why don’t we just ask him what he meant by it, since it seems there is a degree of legitimate ambiguity?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
My apologies to all for letting this thread stray so much from the main topic. We already had other threads where folks were talking past eachother about “medical leave” and “lying” and so forth.
In any case, it’s pretty clear that there’s too much passion on these questions right now for folks to even notice where they actually agree with one another. Human nature. I’m not trying to rebuke here… just explaining why we’re going to close the thread.
FWIW, I think few would disagree that the definition of what constitutes a “lie” is murky around the edges. Sometimes you can say something that is fully true but that, in the context you’re saying it, has the effect of communicating a falsehood. And if you do that on purpose, it’s well into that murky boundary between “accurate” and “lie,” if not clean through the boundary into deception territory.
I’m not interested at all in trying to decide where the “medical leave” case in Hammond fits. Is it possible that Schaap actually saw doc or dentist while away? Sure. Is it possible that he was going through some pretty heavy mental distress and the board saw this as close enough to “medical”? Sure. Is it possible that while technically true, the “medical leave” statement could have been intentionally misleading? Of course. Is it possible that they didn’t mean to be misleading at all? Also yes. Is it possible that some are slamming Hammond out of pure malice or out of a prideful sense of superiority or as a distraction from their own failings? Also, yes.
But without the Omniscience Glasses (I’m still waiting for those to come in the mail), who can answer any of these questions with certainty… and would there be any value in answering them if we could? (The answer to the latter might be yes, but I’m not confident that’s the case.)
So, my advice, FWIW… look for points of agreement and, as far as discussion goes, look for points of disagreement that (a) are not purely speculative and (b) really matter. (In the case of the latter, we can learn as much from a hypothetical scenario as we can from a definite “this is what certainly happened” scenario. So what’s the point of trying to write history before the dust has even settled? Patience. Much will get sorted out in the days ahead… and everything will get sorted out in the End).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion