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

But, Jay, Luke was right about the Emperor’s over-confidence …

The church’s decision to have Mahaney speak was extraordinarily foolish. This was a leadership issue. I suspect this is due to an echo-chamber mindset among the leaders; their own comments support this interpretation. The pastor bubble is a real thing. I am glad I am bi-vocational.

Read the link Jay provides about Patterson. It illustrates hideously what I’m getting at about corporate culture even crossing lines into criminal behavior. Patterson, according to a number of women who worked for and with him, fostered a fairly hostile work environment for women, which is one level of bad, and according to the documents provided to SWBTS, that rose to the level of not only suppressing rape allegations, but of deliberate cruelty to a woman who had been forcibly raped.

And it was after a number of years that this came out; people who received that email decided, for the sake of their position in the organization, to not raise their voices in protest. It came out only when (a) some of those who knew no longer had to worry about their position in the organization and (b) when sufficient voices had protested the operation of that organization already.

THAT is what is gained when outsiders start raising a ruckus about the matter. People whose voices were previously suppressed by various factors decided to speak up because they perceived it as safe. If you consistently defer to leadership, no matter how wise and Godly, you are setting up a corporate culture that is going to suppress these things.

And God help you when you get a creep in positions of authority!

[Bert Perry]

Kevin, you’re making this way too complicated. It’s not a debate over whether insiders or outsiders have more bias, or one does and one does not. It is all about recognizing what kind of biases are inherent in the system you intend to use.

If you have Aaron’s hard doctrine of local church autonomy accompanied by a strong suspicion against the views of outsiders—calling it the madness of crowds, calling them far away and uninvolved, and the like—the institutional tendency is exactly that. Comments from outside—which may be halfway around the world, in the next town, or simply from a consistent attender or member who isn’t in the “power circle”—are going to be ignored, and their makers insulted.

If you’ve got blind spots—and you know you do—that means that you are pretty much assured that you won’t hear those who point them out to you. See the problem? Again, that’s how Donn Ketcham wreaked havoc at ABWE, how dozens of perpetrators wreaked havoc at BJU, and how in the secular world, Larry Nassar and George Tyndall wrought havoc at MSU and USC.

And as I’ve noted before, you would evaluate outside witnesses exactly the same way the Bereans did with Paul, and really all of the early churches did with every itinerant teacher and epistle; by comparing what they said with the Old Testament and the known testimony of the Apostles. There is no innovation for today.

Regarding 1. Cor. 6, that only prohibits going to pagan judges, not heeding the wisdom of outsiders. If it prohibited the latter, we would need to excise 1 Tim. 3:7 and a lot of Proverbs from our Bibles, no? Again, what is required is simply a habit of discernment.

Also, you criticize Aaron for saying outsiders can be far away, and then you say in this post that they “may be half way around the world.” How is that not far away? Doesn’t part of the evaluation of outsiders have to concern the amount of actual information they have about the situation?

Regarding I Cor 6, You said it “only prohibits going to pagan judges.” Well, I see more than just a prohibition there. I see the reason WHY they didn’t need to go to pagan judges. It’s because the Lord’s people are competent enough themselves. Outside testimony may certainly be applicable as they are making decisions. Outside testimony is certainly not prohibited, but the decision making authority resides with the people who will be judging the world and judging angels. That’s the Biblical structure. If certain people develop a mindset to cover things up, then that can’t be blamed on the structure but on their own sinfulness. Unless you DO think there is something about the Biblical structure that leads to the mindset, which Is why I am asking these overly complicated questions :)

Kevin, the answer is really simple; I object first of all because Aaron’s argument is merely descriptive, not prescriptive, and because there are a number of descriptive passages and examples that work against it. That alone ought to put the kibosh on the theory; if there is any evidence that elders were chosen by anything but congregational vote (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23), or that churches made a strong practice of heeding outside wisdom and did not have the negative view of outsiders that Aaron shows (entire New Testament body of epistles), then the theory falls. And it does.

Moreover, you have to consider the practical outworkings of a rather isolationist, clannish theology. When you exclude outsiders, you simultaneously empower “big men” who really need the criticism of those who do not require their approval to remain a member of the group. That is exactly what the problem was at SWBTS, SEBTS, BJU, ABWE, New Tribes, SGM, 1st Baptist of Hammond, and a whole bunch more.

Really, any serious look at the Biblical evidence and practical outworkings of the theology should leave us terrified of the thought of it being implemented.

[Joeb]

So this does not speak well to Church Automony and competent leadership. You don’t need to recite scriptures in these clear sinful criminal activity by the perps and the Pastors/Leadership covering it up. No we did not understand it then. That’s baloney and a cop out.

You mentioned that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t have any sex scandals. Bert has said that he doesn’t think the church should have bishops, but i don’t remember hearing your view on that form of church government. Do you think there should be some sort of denominational control, like that demonstrated by bishops, over fundamentalist or evangelical churches?

No, Aaron has NOT said the same thing about outsiders. I’m sorry, but this is KEY here; the verbiage he has used is very consistently NEGATIVE about the prospect of listening to them, to the point that anyone who follows and believes his rhetoric is going to ignore outsiders who really have a lot to say. You cannot talk about the “madness of crowds” as a guiding principle for dealing with outside complaints and deal with them as the Bereans dealt with Paul’s teaching. It is impossible. The Bereans were open to outsiders; anyone talking about the madness of crowds is ipso facto closed.

[Bert Perry]

Kevin, the answer is really simple; I object first of all because Aaron’s argument is merely descriptive, not prescriptive, and because there are a number of descriptive passages and examples that work against it. That alone ought to put the kibosh on the theory; if there is any evidence that elders were chosen by anything but congregational vote (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23), or that churches made a strong practice of heeding outside wisdom and did not have the negative view of outsiders that Aaron shows (entire New Testament body of epistles), then the theory falls. And it does.

Moreover, you have to consider the practical outworkings of a rather isolationist, clannish theology. When you exclude outsiders, you simultaneously empower “big men” who really need the criticism of those who do not require their approval to remain a member of the group. That is exactly what the problem was at SWBTS, SEBTS, BJU, ABWE, New Tribes, SGM, 1st Baptist of Hammond, and a whole bunch more.

Really, any serious look at the Biblical evidence and practical outworkings of the theology should leave us terrified of the thought of it being implemented.

[Bert Perry]

No, Aaron has NOT said the same thing about outsiders. I’m sorry, but this is KEY here; the verbiage he has used is very consistently NEGATIVE about the prospect of listening to them, to the point that anyone who follows and believes his rhetoric is going to ignore outsiders who really have a lot to say. You cannot talk about the “madness of crowds” as a guiding principle for dealing with outside complaints and deal with them as the Bereans dealt with Paul’s teaching. It is impossible. The Bereans were open to outsiders; anyone talking about the madness of crowds is ipso facto closed.

When suspected crime is involved, we have professionals to handle that. Those involved should take it to the authorities, who then investigate to find out what the facts are, prosecute (or not), etc. (If authorities don’t do their jobs, there are higher authorities to appeal to, including eventually, the general public — because law enforcement works for the community.)

Those not involved can only, at best, encourage those involved to go to the proper authorities.

Those who are not involved and also have no relationship with those who are involved, have nothing to contribute. …should find better ways to spend their time.

As for “outsiders”… well, to Bert my take on that is very “negative” because I can’t give that option the unqualified glowing praise he thinks it deserves. He is free to think its too negative if he likes.

What I actually say about that is when crime is on the table, the authorities are not “outsiders.” Get them involved and get out of the way. When ethics issues are involved, organizations have the responsibility to deal with those problems. They should evaluate whether bringing outsiders in to investigate, etc., is a good idea or not, case by case. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.

In all cases, people connected to the alleged or actual wrongdoing are the ones with the responsibility and capability of taking it to the proper authorities.

Random internet people have very little (nothing?) to contribute.

(Apologies to folks who, like me, know this is obvious, and find the repetition boring…. I find it pretty boring as well!)

Aaron wrote:

Random internet people have very little (nothing?) to contribute.

I couldn’t agree more.

And Kevin’s response here speaks volumes to the general attitude. In response to a plea that we not characterize te testimony of outsiders as “madness of crowds”, which I consider perfectly reasonable, here’s the response:

If you are saying that today’s outsiders have messages for churches that are JUST as authoritative as the Apostle Paul’s, or as the messages of any apostle, then I can’t say I agree with you. Is that what you are saying?

No, it’s not. It’s simply a plea that we not go into the discussion with a preconception that the outside crowd will suffer mental illness, have ulterior motives, and the like. Is that so difficult to understand?

Moreover, notice what Kevin’s immediate response is; he is assuming that I’m valuing peoples’ testimony the same way as Paul’s. Um, no, and what’s worth noting here is that with Kevin’s mindset, which appears to be widespread on this forum, the ancient church would not have listened to Paul, either. Once again, the apostles did not have a gold and diamond scepter marking each of their letters that would have made their writings instantly recognizable. Paul acknowledges precisely this at the end of Galatians and the end of 2 Corinthians.

You don’t listen to people today, the implication is clear; you won’t be listening to Scripture, either.

[Joeb]

Hey Aaron you said that If it’s an ethical action by the church it should be handled on a a case by case basis. Do you consider not reporting a sex abuse matter an ethical issue. Aaron covering up and aiding and abetting a sex perp and threatening a witness are all crimes not an ethical decision in any way possible made by the church in my opinion. I raise this question because Godly Wendall’s College Roommate essentially argued it was an ethical issue right here on Sharper Iron. Just wondered.

From a few posts up…

When suspected crime is involved, we have professionals to handle that. Those involved should take it to the authorities, who then investigate to find out what the facts are, prosecute (or not), etc. (If authorities don’t do their jobs, there are higher authorities to appeal to, including eventually, the general public — because law enforcement works for the community.)

From by 5/29/18 article:

In practical terms, this means government authority and church authority operate separately from one another in response to wrongdoing. Congregations must cooperate with the governing authorities, but must also pursue their own responsibilities in dealing with the sin and repentance of their members. Neither institution is a substitute for the other, and when sinful conduct is also illegal conduct, offenders must answer to both law and their local church. When sinful conduct is not illegal, the responsibility is assigned to the congregation alone.

From my 4/27/18 article:

I haven’t argued here that involving a third party to investigate and/or make recommendations is necessarily a bad idea. It’s an option that has much to commend it as an option. Sometimes it’s helpful; sometimes it isn’t.

I also haven’t argued that public opinion should be ignored. Depending on the nature of the organization, it may be dependent on public good will for entirely practical reasons. In these cases, reassuring the public or rebuilding its trust is important for the sake of outcomes — not at all because the public has insight into what the organization ought to do or has a right to influence it. (Note: in the case of government entities, the public does have a right, though I remain skeptical of its insight.)

As for mandatory reporting of various offenses, laws vary from state to state, but of course, wherever failure to report is a crime, that would be included in “suspected crime” above… so those involved should report it to the appropriate authorities for due process.

[Bert Perry]

Moreover, notice what Kevin’s immediate response is; he is assuming that I’m valuing peoples’ testimony the same way as Paul’s. Um, no, and what’s worth noting here is that with Kevin’s mindset, which appears to be widespread on this forum, the ancient church would not have listened to Paul, either. Once again, the apostles did not have a gold and diamond scepter marking each of their letters that would have made their writings instantly recognizable. Paul acknowledges precisely this at the end of Galatians and the end of 2 Corinthians.

You don’t listen to people today, the implication is clear; you won’t be listening to Scripture, either.

First off, I want to thank you for responding. We’ve been going back and forth, and you could stop at any time, saying “That Kevin Miller just isn’t getting it,” and then go on your way. So I do appreciate our interaction.

That being said, i want to assure you that I am NOT assuming anything about your position. I’ve been asking specific questions with the direct intention of NOT assuming what you think.You’ve been using the practice of the early church listening to apostles and NT authors as a basis for why we should listen to outsiders today. You’ve made that analogy repeatedly, and in my mind, there are two main implications, or maybe even foundations, that are inherent in that analogy. By talking it out, i thought you might present a third one that I hadn’t considered.

I asked you specifically about the first one. I WASN’T assuming you agreed with it. In fact, I would find it odd if you agreed with it. I asked it this way, “if you believe x, then I can’t agree. Do you believe x?” That was me “wondering,” not me “assuming.” That first implication was that outside voices today are just as authoritative as Paul’s.

The second implication is that Paul’s letters were just random letters the churches received in the same way they would receive a letter from you or me today. I would find it odd if you believed this as well, yet your response to me comes rather close. You said the apostles didn’t have a “gold or diamond scepter marking each of their letters that would have made their writing instantly recognizable.” So the churches didn’t know Paul was an apostle? Or did they know, but just not “instantly” in the case of each letter? It seems to me that the apostles had sign-gifts, that authenticated their ministry as being from God. That beats a gold or diamond scepter, so I’m not sure why you would think i would fail to listen to Paul. If a random person wrote me a letter, either in the first century or today, I would examine for possible relevant information but I would not consider it equivalent to getting a letter from an apostle. Yet you keep using the analogy as if there is some equivalency.

I could understand if your point was narrowly stated as “outside information today needs to be examined for relevancy like as NT books were examined to see if they came from a God-authorized source.” But the way you put it is that outsiders need to heeded today because “churches made a strong practice of heeding outside wisdom,” referring to apostles and NT writers. The second way of putting it just has to many implications for it to be a reasonable way of expressing the point, in my overly-complicated opinion. :)

I’m not clear on:

a. How is anybody preventing crime victims from going to the authorities?

b. If that occurs, how is anybody who is not actually involved going to solve that problem?

As I’ve said, I’m certainly not against people who are involved taking a crime to the press if local authorities are not doing what they’re suppose to do.

If they are actually involved, I’m not even against them taking ethics issues to the press — if they’ve exhausted proper channels. (In rapidly increasing numbers, there are victim advocates to help as well)

Can’t see how random internet people are going to help even these cases.

a. Ask Paige Patterson, BJU, ABWE, New Tribes, and others. It’s not pointing a gun at someone, but rather persuading them that it’s not necessary. In many cases, membership in the “tribe” (continued employment or enrollment at a school) was conditional on not reporting to authorities.

b. Ask Megan Lively and reportedly at least eight others, who after seeing the furor about Paige Patterson’s other sins were empowered to report the sins against them.

And “exhausting proper channels?” Please, Aaron. Patterson fired a kid whose crime was to suggest Patterson had some issues and lie about his student record. He talked about beating down a victim of forcible rape in an email. Proper channels sometimes don’t exist, practically speaking.