Holding Pastors Accountable
“[T]he Lawson case reveals that the problem was deeper. Steve Lawson was not actually the pastor of the church where he was the lead preacher. He was not an elder at Trinity or even a member of the church!” - P&D
- 351 views
The facts are clear—Steven Lawson and his wife are members of Trinity Bible Church. We have verified this information from two sources within Trinity Bible Church. It is not clear how these rumors began to spread, but like a destructive wildfire, such false accusations need to be stopped.
Source https://g3min.org/statement-regarding-steven-lawson-and-trinity-bible-c…
Why didn't anyone at P & D check with Trinity before publishing? It seems to me that if we are going to hold our brothers and sisters accountable, we owe them the courtesy of checking our facts before we start our criticism.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Apart from an apparent mistake by P&D, what does a church do when a pastor does a fireable moral failing? They pretty much fire them, and that pastor generally doesn't show his face there going forward. Side note; Julie Roys did have sources that allege Lawson was not a member. May have gotten it wrong, but there is a source.
But to the point, I'm not quite sure what changes with membership. There is a question of what one does with all the books he's written--I'm guessing the publisher is taking a bath on that!--but beyond that, I think there ought to be some soul searching about how people at TMU (where Lawson worked) and elsewhere missed the signs that something was amiss. Julie Roys' account of the matter does not suggest anything that I'd see as hugely wrong, though an incident where the young lady combed Lawson's hair and straightened his tie was reported. Maybe more comes out that will help us understand what is going on here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
but beyond that, I think there ought to be some soul searching about how people at TMU (where Lawson worked) and elsewhere missed the signs that something was amiss.
I appreciate the statement about missed signs, but I will tell you from experience that pastors involved in moral turpitude are often masters of concealment. They are exposed only after someone stumbles upon an email, text message, or dm. That is what happened in three of the four cases of pastoral moral failure that I personally witnessed as a church member and elder. In the fourth case, the married youth pastor (in his 40s) was seen being "too friendly" with one of the young, single church secretaries (in her 20s). As a result, the senior pastor asked a man on staff to surveil the youth pastor, and that is how the affair (sorry, the "clergy sexual abuse") was discovered. If someone wants to conceal and lie about a matter, there's not much you can do about it before the fact.
One member of my previous church suggested that all elders should have tracking software installed on their phones so that church members could know where their pastors are at any time of day. Really? Is that reasonable?
Ron Bean says:
Why didn't anyone at P & D check with Trinity before publishing?
It appears we made an error. A correction will be issued.
However, I would like to see a statement from the church itself. It appears that G3 has it right, but it an official statement should be made by the church. It is a terrible thing to endure for a church and who needs the extra attention a statement brings? Nonetheless, that would quell all rumours.
And we are sincerely sorry that the mistake was made. I don't think it negates the thrust of the article however.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It wasn't a pastor, but I remember being shocked when an aquaintance at church was found to have been "in flagrante delicto" with women not his wife. Not quite sure how we get to know each other well enough to figure these things out, if indeed it's possible.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There are never guarantees with humans.
Churches can be diligent about the qualifications for elders in the epistles. Maybe they can intermittently revisit them and re-evaluate the pastor/elders. But there is no mandate in the epistles for churches to become or to hire private investigators to dig, spy on, monitor, etc.
The qualifications in the epistles don’t claim to be exhaustive, though, so there is some room for practical problem-solving innovation.
And some things in those qualifications are implied, like trust.
Which leads back to the problem. A man can be entirely qualified and trustworthy at the time the church signed him up, but not later. Humans and trustworthiness… the two don’t really go together all that well. Trust always has to be qualified, scoped in some way with some always reserved. But without becoming joyless and cynical and paranoid. A tricky balancing act.
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