Willow Creek elders respond to new Hybels accusations
https://www.willowcreek.org/en/blogs/south-barrington/elder-letter
We will examine allegations against Bill that have not been previously investigated by the Elder Board. We will respectfully reach out to each woman who has made an accusation, even if she has not brought her concerns directly to the Board. We commit that each woman willing to speak with us will be heard, and that we will respect her story.
…
We will review and modify Willow email retention policies to reflect the best practices of organizations that deal with sensitive data.
Earlier, I’d wondered if the renewal of the allegations against Hybels were his accusers’ gambit to see if more victims would speak up, and later on, a Chicago Tribune article clearly indicated that at least some members thought Hybels was guilty—they were expecting more contrition. It seems that gambit worked.
In that light, the church is 100% correct to look at the factors that could have led to this simmering for a long time—the cultural factors that lead to acceptance of sin. They are also 100% correct to look into the email issues and correct at least their own systems.
What I don’t see yet;I don’t see a commitment to use a truly independent auditor (they’re regrettably like MSU that way), and they’ve not quite come clean on what they actually did find in earlier investigations, nor are they reopening them. As such, the process is set up such that it can be “finagled” to find “no clearer evidence of wrongdoing” without necessarily comparing notes and saying “hey, there is a pattern here.”
That’s not saying that WILL happen, but the structure will certainly allow it. So my view here is that the gambit by the Mellados and others worked, and Hybels has responded more or less by taking his ball and going home. On the flip side, however, the church’s response looks to be a little bit more of a strategic retreat than a capitulation—they’re going to investigate the new allegations and assume their old work was OK. We’ll see what they do when a few more complaints are made.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Not quite interested enough to sift through all the details, but the Tribune’s summary of the accusations is this…
The alleged behavior included suggestive comments, extended hugs, an unwanted kiss and invitations to hotel rooms. It also included an allegation of a prolonged consensual affair with a married woman who later said her claim about the affair was not true, the Tribune found.
Sounds like anything illegal is unlikely, which would make it entirely a matter of internal discipline for a local church.
The gist: if there is crime involved, it should be handled by the appropriate authorities. If not, it’s internal.
On a side note, anyone remember when these sorts of things were supposedly a uniquely IFB problem? I remember getting quite a bit of push back for suggesting that it’s not an IFB problem, it’s a human problem.
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.
Anyone who thinks this sort of thing is unique to the IFB is neither paying attention to world around them, nor paying attention to the teachings of Scripture. Sound like someone who has an IFB ax to grind.
G. N. Barkman
Aaron, I’d be careful about saying it’s just an “internal matter”. For starters, a lot of the complainants are now outside of Willow Creek, and it’s become a public issue. Going further, you can’t have as much of a publishing and conference business as do Hybels and Willow Creek without the issue becoming quite a bit more public as well.
Most importantly, when we say it is “entirely a matter of internal discipline”, that too often translates to “it will be handled internally by people who have a clear motivation to keep some embarrassing things private.” And as we know from the Nassar scandal, that often correlates to keeping the guilty in place to hurt more people.
We also need to keep in mind that what we see now may be the tip of the iceberg. Let’s be honest about this; Hybels is credibly accused of hitting on a Zondervan publisher who had the power to throw his manuscripts in the circular file if she got ticked enough, and really most of the accusers to this point are people who could get along just fine without Hybels’ good will.
Now here’s the question; how did Hybels treat people who did need his good will to earn their living? See what I’m getting at?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I see your reasoning, but I have a different perspective. Sorry for the long post, but I don’t have time right now to pare it down.
If conference attendees, buyers of books, etc. lose respect/confidence in the ministry, there will certainly be consequences for the ministry.
Three things guide my perspective on how these things should be handled:
- Belief in spheres of authority and responsibility
- Belief in the autonomy of the local church
- Belief in the madness of crowds/skepticism toward public demands for action
On the first, if there are allegations of illegal conduct, it’s obvious that law enforcement should be involved.
On the second, autonomy means there is no organization outside the local congregation that has authority to regulate it’s internal affairs. The church leadership answers to the congregation and to Christ who is the Head of the church.
On the third, modern values of transparency and accountability are often distorted all out of proportion in our culture. I’m not against these values, but when they are demanded by angry crowds, the compliance of leaders is often all a matter of perception management, rather than their own sincere evaluation of the situation.
So “what’s right” not only suffers from desires to cover up, etc.; it also suffers at the hands of agitators with demands — quite often uninvolved persons who really don’t have all the relevant facts (or aren’t interested in them!).
Now it would be wise for the church leadership to provide carefully constructed communications to the general public, as they seem to be inclined to do at this point. But if it’s all ethical (vs. legal) they have obligations to those harmed. They are are in no way answerable to the public in general.
They could even voluntarily bring in a third party investigator, if they believe there is value in that, but they should make it clear that this is something they are volunteering to do. It’s a fine line, though. How do you tell an angry crowd that you are giving them what they want but only because you choose to? People will believe what they decide, either way, but it’s important for church leadership to not let public pressure cloud their judgment.
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.
Aaron, I just cringe at how you’re trying to apply autonomy of the local church, especially since exactly that version of autonomy has blown up in the face of Chuck Phelps, New Tribes, ABWE, 1st Baptist of Hammond, BJU, and a lot of others. To persist in that line of thinking after all these disasters is really to say that elders and deacons at like-minded churches see no particular wisdom in Proverbs 12:15.
Moreover, I cannot balance such a view with the history of how God dealt with His people. In the Old Testaments, prophets routinely rebuked Israel and her priests for violating basic principles of the Torah. In the New Testament, the pastoral epistles are, in a nutshell, a series of outside instructions for the Church. Jesus made a consistent practice of taking up the prophetic mantle when dealing with the excesses of the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees. Really, if the church leaders are accountable only to the church and to God, the apostle John owes Diotrephes a big ‘ol apology, don’t you think?
No argument that the New Testament does not set up an episcopacy culminating in a patriarch or Pope, and that does compel us to either a presbyterian or congregational form of church government, but that does not mean, nor does the Scripture say, that accusations against the church ought to be handled in the way you recommend. For that matter, at no point have fundamentalists ever applied that position to churches with which they disagree—denunciation, shunning, etc., are the rule, and not the exception.
And quite frankly, while we might debate the particulars, that’s healthy. The end of the apostolic era by no means does what you claim, but rather there is a body of sound theology and best practice where Christians not in particular local churches have perfect authority to say “knock it off!”, and this case is one of them.
Let’s be honest as well about what the “madness of crowds” is saying in cases like this; in a nutshell, they’re saying that institutions accused of tolerating wrongdoing should not be in charge of investigating themselves. Again, Biblically, that’s exactly what you see, and you’ve also got a very strong argument that elders and deacons ought to see themselves more generally accountable because they must, per 1 Timothy 3, have a good reputation among outsiders.
And again, you cannot have a good reputation among outsiders if, as appears to be the case with Hybels, that a church kind of winked their eye at his behavior and even said “oopsie, we couldn’t look at those emails” and then pronounced the case closed. No good investigator does that.
Churches can continue along the path you outline, Aaron, but the warning I have to give is that doing so is a great way of getting to know lawyers on a non-personal basis, who will bleed out the church’s substance billable hour by billable hour and judgment by judgment.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Cringe all you like, Bert. What I’ve described is the NT way, and none of us will care about the lawyers at the judgment.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my position though. I don’t know why. It’s how NT churches have operated since the book of Acts.
But even apart from the ecclesiology issue, it’s a simple logical fact that absolutely no organization is accountable to the demands of third parties. If there are allegations of illegal activity, that’s what law enforcement is for. If there are ethical concerns, that’s called internal affairs. That’s the sum total of their obligations. And sorry, it really is that simple.
If they are an organization that serves the public, such as a retail establishment, etc., they are wise to consider how their choices impact that relationship. But the public has no authority over them. Likewise with a church or nonprofit, they have reputation and relationship to their communities to consider. But they have no obligations beyond the law and their own constituents (for government entities, constituents includes everybody in their jurisdiction.)
I don’t know why you’re finding this difficult. Law is for the courts. Ethics is for internal leadership and review — and whatever outside help they voluntarily choose to employ. There is nothing novel or dangerous about this.
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.
If it is indeed the New Testament example—I’ve provided evidence that it is not-then it will be no difficulty for you to actually provide some.
It should also be noted that I am not speaking of a legal obligation where people will go to the deacons’ meeting with guns and force them to do something, but rather a moral obligation to listen. That flows, in my view, rather obviously from 1 Tim. 3:7, and I would further argue that your interpretation of local church autonomy is likely to empower those who (Titus 1) are overbearing.
And really, that’s exactly what I’ve seen here, including from you. Sad to say, when I hear people talking about the “madness of crowds”, saying “they don’t know all the information”, or saying “I answer only to the congregation and God”, I know immediately that the person speaking is committing a genetic fallacy, and they are not addressing the claims of the complainants. That, in turn, has everything to do with whether the elders are qualified according to 1 Tim. 3. and Titus 1.
It also explains why, in my view at least, elder boards and Christian school/college administrators are almost always in the wrong when they argue “autonomy”. It’s simply a matter of false reasoning born of a hard heart that does not see one’s external reputation as important.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There’s an interesting set of accusations in that post. I admit, I didn’t expect that.
In any case, there are two main questions here: the question of how autonomy should and does work in organizations in general, and the question of how local church autonomy should work, in particular.
The first of the two, alone, is a bit involved for the comments section. The second needs at least an overview of the systematic theology involved.
I should have a short post on the first up tomorrow and might have the second ready for Monday or Tuesday.
The second one especially is a topic I’ve wanted to post something on for a while anyway, though we may already have a good summary in the archives.
These are topics I’ve had to reflect on frequently over the last decade and a half or so.
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.
On the first, if there are allegations of illegal conduct, it’s obvious that law enforcement should be involved.
On the second, autonomy means there is no organization outside the local congregation that has authority to regulate it’s internal affairs. The church leadership answers to the congregation and to Christ who is the Head of the church.
Aaron, the state regulates our internal affairs all the time via building codes and zoning laws and such. And as for allegations that could/should potentially disqualify a man from ministry, the principles of 1 Timothy 5:19 do most certainly apply, regardless of the man’s fame or reach.
I don’t agree with suing a man to drive him from ministry, but I don’t think that it is problematic for victims of sexual harassment to stand up for justice by making an issue of the way that he and the church treated them if the church does not take the allegations seriously or, as we have seen with others, covers them up and pretends like they don’t exist. We know that elders / deacons / teachers are held to higher standards than others. If those standards are enforced selectively, then it is fitting and just to make that known so that the church can clean itself up.
Judgment always begins at the house of God first. We need to keep our act together if we want to have any hope of ministering to those outside of Christ.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]On the first, if there are allegations of illegal conduct, it’s obvious that law enforcement should be involved.
On the second, autonomy means there is no organization outside the local congregation that has authority to regulate it’s internal affairs. The church leadership answers to the congregation and to Christ who is the Head of the church.
Aaron, the state regulates our internal affairs all the time via building codes and zoning laws and such. And as for allegations that could/should potentially disqualify a man from ministry, the principles of 1 Timothy 5:19 do most certainly apply, regardless of the man’s fame or reach.
I don’t agree with suing a man to drive him from ministry, but I don’t think that it is problematic for victims of sexual harassment to stand up for justice by making an issue of the way that he and the church treated them if the church does not take the allegations seriously or, as we have seen with others, covers them up and pretends like they don’t exist. We know that elders / deacons / teachers are held to higher standards than others. If those standards are enforced selectively, then it is fitting and just to make that known so that the church can clean itself up.
Judgment always begins at the house of God first. We need to keep our act together if we want to have any hope of ministering to those outside of Christ.
“Internal affairs” has a pretty standard definition and compliance with local building codes isn’t usually included in that… In any case, please see the article posted today about local church autonomy. It’s true that all autonomy is limited to some extent. Some limits are imposed without our consent, some we accept as part of relationships. It doesn’t follow that all voluntary limits on autonomy are wise limits.
As for sexual harassment, where it’s a crime, it should be (1) turned over to authorities to investigate an prosecute and (2) handled internally as a matter of discipline. Where it’s not a crime (I don’t claim to know the laws on the matter), it’s church discipline (or in secular settings, internal affairs.)
We had a case at the church I pastored years ago in which a member robbed a bank. He was arrested and jailed. The church disciplined him in absentia. The law cannot replace God’s call to congregations to discipline their members, but churches should fully cooperate with law enforcement in their efforts to do their job.
But I feel like I’m repeating myself a lot.
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.
“As for sexual harassment, where it’s a crime, it should be (1) turned over to authorities to investigate an prosecute and (2) handled internally as a matter of discipline. Where it’s not a crime (I don’t claim to know the laws on the matter), it’s church discipline (or in secular settings, internal affairs.)”
Aaron, that’s the entire problem. People in the church - did - try to handle it internally. Hybels had several allegations made against him. So has Mahaney. Hey, Hyles had all sorts of allegations against him, as did J. Frank Norris, if I remember correctly, prior to his killing of that man in the church. Paige Patterson is yet another example of this, with more stories coming out by the hour, it seems.
There are dozens of cases I could cite where the Pastor/Elder/Deacons shut that investigation down before it started if they didn’t preempt it first by disciplining out the reporters. That is why this issue is blowing up all over the place…the testimony of two or three witnesses is a mockery in many places, if the elder/pastor disagrees. So just saying that it should be handled internally is not sufficient because the church or organization itself is so thoroughly corrupt.
We agree on involving the police, but what happens when the police want to proceed with charges and the pastor holds the congregation in his thrall? We rightfully mocked Hyles for his “100% FOR Hyles” from years ago, but the dynamics are similar in many places even if not so obvious and brazen.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
We agree on involving the police, but what happens when the police want to proceed with charges and the pastor holds the congregation in his thrall? We rightfully mocked Hyles for his “100% FOR Hyles” from years ago, but the dynamics are similar in many places even if not so obvious and brazen.
This may sound crass, but it’s just the truth. When congregations and the law have done all they can and a guilty party is not brought to justice, we all have to move on. It shouldn’t surprise us that in such a world as this, sometimes justice and truth lose. If we congregations can learn lessons and do better, they should. But we can’t let a desire to get the bad guy every time drive them to sacrificing things they are not authorized by God to sacrifice.
The autonomy of a local church is fragile, precious, and God’s design. Churches should be very cautious about letting outsiders damage it, though, again, there may be ways they enlist nonauthoritative outside help. On that option, it’s up to the congregation to decide how to proceed on a case by case basis.
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.
The Scripture gives us zero examples of a church having a moral or ethical crisis and not hearing from someone outside whose word was taken seriously. Sorry, can’t go with that notion of church autonomy, as it simply has no Biblical support. If it were as clear as you say, Aaron, you would have been able to provide examples, and so far, you’ve got bupkus.
Moreover, to use the examples of Hyles, Patterson, or a host of other pastors who have fallen into sin, when you’ve got a gross moral failure that slipped by those in church leadership, maybe, just maybe, it’s a really good idea to take a serious look, including an outsider look, to see why it happened. When you get a failure in a company—a product doesn’t work as marketed, etc..—the customer generally requires an investigation which is then reviewed—ahem—by the outsider.
It’s called an 8D form, and I’ve done a lot of them. If the customer isn’t satisfied, the 8D is rejected, and after a certain number of rejected 8Ds, the customer either stops doing business with the vendor, or they send their supplier quality engineer for an onsite visit. It works really well.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion