Golden State Bible College President on administrative leave over allegations of 'inappropriate conduct'

Those who would advocate articles like “Publish it not” (Jim’s link) need to remember exactly what stories about David’s life are preserved for us in Scripture. No, David’s plea to keep the debacle vs. the Philistines private—a plea that the Holy Spirit and the Son of God denied specifically by preserving David’s song in Scripture—does not correlate to an overall prescription for keeping these things private.

What is gained when these things become public today? Same thing as when David’s sin with Bathsheba became public, when the debacle with the Philistines was public, and the same thing as when the “lover of his stepmother” became public. God’s people were warned about what could happen, and moreover the regrettable abundance of evidence allows us to see the patterns that lead to disaster; a mis-application of 1 Cor. 6 and Matthew 18:15-17 combined with a neglect of Romans 13, and an insistence on radical autonomy of the local church that seeks to keep these things private. As Luke 8:17 notes, there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. We may as well get used to it.

• We could probably do a filing a week on a pastor who failed morally

• I don’t search for … look for … or relish posting this stuff (it sickens me!)

Yeah, there’s a real balancing act between reporting legitimate news and just accumulating a database of men who have failed or worse. I’ve seen a couple of calls for the latter on Twitter, but that’s nothing that I want to have any part of, although I am sympathetic to the idea since there are plenty of men (like in Jim’s example) of a man who impregnates a woman that isn’t his wife and then ‘shows up’ ten years down the road at some other ministry doing the ‘work of the Lord’. Hyles’ associates are notorious for this kind of thing, and local church autonomy works against us on this one.

Jay wrote:

and local church autonomy works against us on this one

This is incorrect. Your enemy isn’t the form of church government. It’s quite clear these scandals occur in churches with all sorts of different ideas of church government. The problem isn’t a particular flavor of church government; it’s incompetent leadership.

Local church autonomy—at least in its abuse—matters here for exactly the reasons that are expressed in Aaron’s comment here. You have a general desire to keep matters private, a general willingness to defer to local church leadership, and a general suspicion of outside influences.

I would argue that that is, to be fair, not what local church autonomy is supposed to be, but it’s a tenor that is extremely strong here. Another picture of the hazards of local church autonomy is that when a suggestion was made to the SBC that the SBC put a list together of men who had been shown the door for sexual sins so that churches could avoid hiring such men, one of the big reasons cited for rejecting the move was because of….drum roll….local church autonomy.

Apparently on their planet, local church autonomy means the freedom to hire perverts. Sorry, but among the sane, that one leaves a mark.

For an example of how well self-autonomy works can work and how well fundamentalism protects its children, I refer you to the case of Mike Zachary, also of Golden State Baptist College.

A few years ago, Zachary left Golden State for West Coast Baptist College but was shortly thereafter fired from there (I believe in 2014) because they became aware that there were state investigations into potentially criminal non-consensual relationships with minor boys while he was at Golden State.

While at the time, no charges were ever filed, here is a snippet from a statement from Trieber where he referenced things that Zachary confessed to in the West Coast investigation:

The actions to which Dr. Chappell stated Dr. Zachary confessed were clearly acts of gross immorality and potential criminality. Dr. Zachary’s dismissal from a high position of leadership within a Bible college was completely appropriate. We wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Chappell’s decision to dismiss Dr. Zachary immediately.

Now, here is where things get interesting. Within a very short time (by the end of 2015), Zachary was hired by a new fundamental Baptist church (Lighthouse Baptist Church in Lemon Grove, CA). For a long time, they had the good sense to not list him on their website but today, I note that they list him as staff.

Is this the way it is supposed to work? Is there really not a place for people to call out Lighthouse Baptist Church in a public way and pressure them to stop the madness?

[GregH]

Is this the way it is supposed to work? Is there really not a place for people to call out Lighthouse Baptist Church in a public way and pressure them to stop the madness?

[Kevin Miller]

GregH wrote:

Is this the way it is supposed to work? Is there really not a place for people to call out Lighthouse Baptist Church in a public way and pressure them to stop the madness?

Would “calling them out” and “pressuring them” accomplish the overruling of their own autonomy to make decisions about what staff they hire? We certainly don’t like the decisions they made, but do we want to set up some structure to override local church decisions and cancel them out?

I think you have to keep in mind that in the 1st century, as is documented by the New Testament, God used various people, not just apostles, to call His Church to repentance from outside. That is the basic structure of the New Testament, and it points to (IMO) a much stronger of the universal (lower case “catholic”) church than is typically found among fundamentalists. That includes Paul telling the Corinthian church to take it easy on the repentant “lover of his stepmother”, John’s warning of rebuking Diotrephes in person for not hosting itinerant preachers, Paul telling Timothy to put elders in place (presumably not, ahem, by congregational vote), and a lot more.

Now the interesting thing here is that if we reject bishops—and I do—what we have here is not a structure to override local church decisions, but rather a mindset that takes outside input with the same seriousness that the early church seems to have done.

In the case Greg mentions, what we’re left with is this, as far as I can tell. In the Hyles orbit, I think, and I would guess I’d get nowhere if I asked them to be forthright about what this guy did so people could make wise decisions. In a more responsible orbit, I’d hope you’d get some quick action if, say, you told someone at Maranatha or Faith “hey, a guy you kicked out for cheating on his wife is now pastoring at….” If I had good clear evidence, I just might present it to church leadership there, noting that as long as such a person is employed there, I would actively tell people not to attend there and why.

Good, clear evidence; I am not about to sign up for a libel or slander lawsuit. But I think we need to stand up against this sort of thing.

Joeb,

I don’t know you, but I am not minimizing the crime, nor the victim’s rights.

First of all, I did write that the number 1 thing is to notify the authorities first. Obviously, if I am cooperating with authorities, I would follow their direction and if they ask me to stay out, I would stay out. Cooperation with the authorities is necessary. Whatever I would do as a pastor is after the authorities have moved ahead and I am cleared to do so. While doing so, I would turn anything I find over as evidence. I am not saying for the cops to stay out of it. On the contrary.

I don’t intend to write a book on the subject, that’s why I didn’t say more before, but obviously people are reading into what I wrote. I’ve been involved in such cases, and honestly, you don’t sound like you have. There’s a whole lot that goes into it over a period of years. This whole discussion really begins when the offender has already been turned over to the authorities. If so, the repentant person can put the facts of the case out quickly, and if they don’t, don’t take chances. Obviously, until then, and beyond, you protect the victim.

That’s why a church can move to discipline a person before they will be convicted because it takes months and months. And in the meantime, they may even be out of jail on bond. What if they want to come to your church? Do they show fruit of repentance? That fruit would include confessing this and any other instances of the crime. You may have to manage that. If someone is not truly repentant, and you can often tell the difference, I’m not going to life a finger for them. On the contrary, I’m going to protect the victim in any case.

If they show fruit of repentance, and the family of the victim is consulted and protected (meaning that you look to their safety first and don’t allow the person to come if it is against their wishes), would you want that person to worship in a church body somewhere? It doesn’t sound like you know what repentance can or should look like in such a situation. A truly repentant person will have higher standards for themselves than you would have for them. Therefore, they wouldn’t be on the internet. They wouldn’t be alone with the gender of the people they have violated.

Also, eventually (and again I’m talking a long time), the victim is going to have to move forward with their life and not live in the pit of terminal victimhood. Let’s not get so riled by the short term that we don’t see how God can work, heal, forgive and even restore over the long term. These are all things that Christians believe in. However, we can’t rush God. But let’s not become slaves to short-term and panic thinking.

I’ve heard pastors say sex offenders should be put to death, or locked up forever, or they don’t want them in their church. Try checking your neighborhood and see how many sex offenders live near you. God may want you to minister to them too. You aren’t going to be able to avoid sex offenders, no matter how perfect you try and make your world. Yes, sex offenses are heinous sins, especially for those in leadership positions in the church. But they are still also sins, which mean they can be forgiven by God. Jesus’ sacrifice can take away those sins too. Sins that should disqualify the Golden Gate president from vocational ministry for good.

The results of sin do scar people. But once they are made safe, and the offender is properly dealt with, does that have to dominate and determine their life’s direction? It will change them, but it won’t keep God from healing them and blessing them over time.

I appreciate these thoughts, Steve. Much to think about there.

[Bert Perry]

Those who would advocate articles like “Publish it not” (Jim’s link) need to remember exactly what stories about David’s life are preserved for us in Scripture. No, David’s plea to keep the debacle vs. the Philistines private—a plea that the Holy Spirit and the Son of God denied specifically by preserving David’s song in Scripture—does not correlate to an overall prescription for keeping these things private.

What is gained when these things become public today?

Bert, they are already public when us distant random internet people find out. I was not referring to “making things public,” but to obsessing over things that have already reached the public (as well as obsessing over “taking action,” when people closer to the problems — and who have the responsibility to do so — are already taking action.) I can’t see much point in it.