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.

  1. Structured diffusion of power
  2. 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.

Discussion

Appreciate the comments.

The “one another” passages certainly imply relationships that operate in somewhat accountable ways. They enjoin us to pay attention to one another and respond to what concerns us. What’s different there from what most have in mind by “accountability” is an element I didn’t touch on much (at all?) in the essay: an element of obtaining knowledge of people’s actions that they might otherwise hide or keep to themselves. So part of the restraint factor is linked to this obtaining of information about actions—whether in the form of required reporting, intentional observation or something like that.

The one another passages don’t seem to constitute commands to intentionally seek knowledge of people’s actions beyond what they happen to know about.

But I’m not about to argue that there is no biblical basis for these accountability efforts. My point in asking about biblical teaching on accountability was to try to draw into focus that in the case of accountability measures and in the case of rules, we are applying Scripture in entirely human ways. Both are important yet limited.

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.

Jack Schaap really hasn’t been on our radar during his years as pastor. By that point in time the paths had diverged and there was little overlap. The Hyles crowd was going one way and the FBFI in particular was going another way.

However, in earlier years there were issues we were sorting out because there were people from both camps sort of swirling about in the same milieu. I had a roommate at BJU one year who was converted through the ministry of FBCH but came to BJU for his education. There was another guy in my prayer group one year who would constantly play tapes of Jack Hyles in his room (at full volume, we could hear it through our adjoining wall). My point is, there was an overlap and the lines of distinction were not clear at that point. (This was in the 70s, I think you and I were there at the same time, roughly. I have a hazy recollection of you, but I find more and more haze in recollections as time goes on.)

However, things changed. I know of at least one specific resolution against Hyles in 1995. I don’t want to go searching through all of them, but if you wish, go to www.fbfi.org and you can find the 1995 resolutions. Here’s the headline:

REGARDING THE DIVISIVE TEACHING OF JACK HYLES ON THEINCORRUPTIBLE SEEDAS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE

You can search to see if there are more. It is not as if we have stood side by side with the Hyles crowd and said nothing about errors. Could we have done more? Maybe. But then we would get criticized because we publish resolutions at all. I seem to remember that charge coming up on SI from time to time.

Last, I am not sure what this has to do with Aaron’s article, but there have been a couple of remarks made about the FBFI and its resolutions so this is an attempt to set the record a little straighter on that point.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Probably about as many as there were about his predecessor.

In addition to the one Don mentions, there were a couple other resolutions that didn’t name Hyles but seemed to refer to him. All were passed ‘94 or earlier if I recall correctly.

You wrote, “The fame thing is hurting us. As a matter of fact, some of the godliest Christians may even be afraid to speak publicly. We give too much credit to good speakers, strong leaders, and the musically talented. Those do not equate to godliness.”

Very insightful, brother. You should write a separate article on this heart issue.

And thanks for this article, Aaron.

This pretty much my recollection on the matter. Further, what would have been gained? The Hyles’ camp would have ignored any resolution they didn’t agree with, so, all that’s left is going on record.

[Don Johnson] Jack Schaap really hasn’t been on our radar during his years as pastor. By that point in time the paths had diverged and there was little overlap. The Hyles crowd was going one way and the FBFI in particular was going another way.

[DavidO]

Probably about as many as there were about his predecessor.

In addition to the one Don mentions, there were a couple other resolutions that didn’t name Hyles but seemed to refer to him. All were passed ‘94 or earlier if I recall correctly.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Thanks for the reminder, Don. My memory gets a little hazy sometimes. (I dug out an old yearbook and recall you from grad class.)

I had some contact with Hyles and his followers in the early 80’s and it was enough to make me distance myself from them. Since then I’ve wondered why my brethren considered MacArthur a greater problem than Hyles.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

And therefore, if he is in error, the error is more subtle and harder to see. After the eighties, I forget exactly when, for those of us outside of the Hyles crowd, there was very little attraction, hence little need to make a big deal about it.

MacArthur has a lot of attractiveness - did then and still does. I do think there are errors in his approach, but to go into that will lead us even further afield.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Like I said…

So I’ll just moderate the moderator here and not rise to the bait.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

What is more surprising than not having any warnings against Schaap, was the leaders of the FBFI join together with them in conference. This links to the discussion we had at that time - one link in that filings still works - the other does not. Not to mention Gibbs, Garlock, Hamilton and Binney all being involved with different Pastor’s Schools throughout the recent years. Very interesting to see people within the FBFI distance themselves now and not before. And there’s one of the reasons I just cannot seem to buy into our state fellowship and the FBF - too much acceptance of very questionable teaching because one follows the preferences in dress and music. Aaron, that is the problem I have with the rules - not that we have rules - the idea that as long as our pet “preferences” rules are kept, it seems as though people are willing to look the other way with questionable teaching.

I was wondering how you were going to get back on topic, Bob. It was an attempt, at least.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Jim]

To connect MacArthur and Hyles in the same post!

MacArthur … a man of moral integrity

I mean please Don! Don’t embarrass yourself.

He was responding to the post immediately above him, which said this:

[Ron Bean]

Since then I’ve wondered why my brethren considered MacArthur a greater problem than Hyles.

Pretty hard to answer that question without, well, connecting MacArthur and Hyles in the same post. It was a legitimate question and a reasonable answer even if one disagrees with it.

I agree with JG in post 30.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..