FBI: Did Jack Schaap take teen across state lines for sex?

What do you call this?

… sites like SI - unbridled innuendo, speculation, fault-finding, no fact checking, and so on

Don,

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. May others echo your sentiments.

[Don Johnson]

….And, Brian, re the off-topic matter you bring up,

Not sure what “off-topic matter” you’re talking about here….If you’re referring to my comments re. the Bethel situation, I’m very familiar with the entire ordeal, having first-hand communication with deacons involved. The value in bringing it up? I should think its relevance would be obvious: deacons acting with integrity in a situation that could’ve been dishonestly spun in an effort to “minimize damage.”

[Don Johnson] Talk about second guessing. One of the articles on the story said that the deacons met several times with Schaap before pulling the plug (I don’t recall the exact story, or the exact number, but I think it was three.)

Think about it. Here you are, a deacon board taught to worship your pastor, and now you are confronted with this horror. They have to be in total shock and confusion.

To use the ‘medical leave’ spin might not have been the best thing to do, but in the end they gave him the boot. Why be so critical about this point? It looks like an attempt to pile it on them and not very charitable at all. As they worked through it, they did the right thing in the end.

Maybe you would have handled it better. Maybe not. I pray God you never have to.

Don,

I can feel sympathy for the Board, if they were taught to worship their pastor, because they were taught wrong doctrine. The pastor is not God, is not infallible, and is not beyond the consequences of sin.

I do NOT feel sympathy for the Board for knowing that their pastor committed adultery by seducing a 16 year old girl (very possibly breaking the law in the process) and for them to meet with him three times about it (if that is what happened - I have not seen that story), then lie to the congregation by saying that it was medical leave, and finally admitting the truth. If they aren’t schooled in doctrine enough to know that a pastor who cheats on his wife, seduces a child, and lives a life of sin and hypocrisy disqualifies himself from ministry, then that is a more condemning indictment of the church than anything else I could think of. There should never have been a third meeting about the circumstances. There wouldn’t be one in any reasonably grounded church that I know of.

I’m sorry, but things like this are actually very easy, even though they are very painful. You call the police, throw the pastor out of office immediately, and then move forward. I do not - and probably never will - understand why ties to a person trump clear violations of Scripture, and that’s a lesson that my college professors drilled into me very early on.

Finally, if you have a problem with “unbridled innuendo, speculation, fault-finding, no fact checking, and so on”, then why are you weighing in on this thread? I mean, you’re not affiliated with FBC Hammond, right? Aren’t you compounding your own problem?

Don,

I must concur with your views on the whole and thank you for sharing them. These brave men are taking on the fallen Jack Schaap. Courageous to say the least, LOL.

There is much to learn, much to examine (after we receive the facts), and much to use to help future ministries. But assailing a board over something as petty as thinking about the congregation enough not to simply announce the matter without some preparation and giving it “medical leave” status it as petty as it gets. But the High Priests pounced as they would, bringing the woman caught in a questionable context of truthfulness saying, “Stone her! for she hath said it was medical leave!”. Spare me, someone.

The ax-grinding is getting old. I appreciate the spirit of Matt Olson’s temperance in his approach which is not being reflected in any appreciable manner by a handful here. Frankly the headline for the thread reads like a Tabloid Header.

[Alex Guggenheim]

But assailing a board over something as petty as thinking about the congregation enough not to simply announce the matter without some preparation and giving it “medical leave” status it as petty as it gets. But the High Priests pounced as they would, bringing the woman caught in a questionable context of truthfulness saying, “Stone her! for she hath said it was medical leave!”. Spare me, someone.

Petty? Flagrantly lying to a congregation is petty? I’m sorry, I don’t get it. Other options were available without resorting to a clear, flagrant lie.

As to the “High Priests” remark…comes across as rather condescending toward, belittling of, and besmirching of those who don’t concur with your personal assessment. Why resort to such ridicule? I don’t get that, either.

But the High Priests pounced as they would, bringing the woman caught in a questionable context of truthfulness saying,

Alex, since when did lying to the congregation become an “questionable” act? Last I knew, we were still supposed to be speaking the truth to one another.

In reality, larger institutions such as FBCH should have some policies in place for cases of misconduct. When they look back on this some day, they will think that they should have said something more vague and truthful than medical leave. Sounds like they were unprepared for the situation. If they were not prepared to make a specific statement, what would you have said? While they were lied to, after the news came out, I’m not sure that was that large of a consideration. There were bigger issues on their minds.

In addition to our church constitutions, we ought to have some policies that guide our efforts. Church insurance companies have manuals full of them. Corporate entities have very clear ones. Sadly, churches often do not. It is well worth the time and investment to have a church policy manual and to use it.

But I think you who are making a big deal at this statement are straining at gnats. Is it a lie? I suppose you could call it that. But I think your harrumphing about this betrays a mindset where nothing that comes out of FBCH can be considered good.

I wrote the following to a friend earlier this evening

Do you know that I am happily shocked that FBCH fired Schaap? It is in this context that I say, give them a break. Given the culture of that group, I would have expected them to rally around the “man of God”. That they did not is a huge step forward for them.

So the first couple of days they didn’t answer to your satisfaction? Go and read Jesus’ parable of the two sons. Which one of them did the father’s will? What benefit to future spiritual growth for other brothers to pile on these slow to obey brethren? Or perhaps the parable of the Prodigals is more appropriate. Which son was the father pleased with, the repentant younger or the griping elder?

Think about it, brother. Don’t let your prejudices lead you astray — the men of FBCH have a long way to go. Let’s not nit-pick this faltering step forward.

I don’t get your outrage over this part of the story. You sound like the Older Brother of the Prodigals parable.

does anyone else see the weirdness here considering the tina anderson/ernie conversation that went on here a few months back?

why is no one wondering about Schaap’s possible semi-innocence, that maybe he was seduced by some harlot-like girl throwing herself at him …

now the 16yo is referred to as a victim and “child”? we’re not striving to prove that 16 is sure grown-up now, isn’t it? She could’ve been consenting all right… .

I know the perspective of this story is a little different b/c it’s the pastor. And i’m not going to get involved in this conversation.

But i do think we need to be judging ourselves in how we’re responding to something that happens outside our circle of acceptability and then inside it. Yes, this time it’s the pastor, it’s unacceptable, and there were signs leading up to it that those outside saw so clearly and now we can say “I saw it coming all along.” … But what about the girl some of us threw under the bus and implicated sin to b/c it happened in a place we judged acceptable?

But I didn’t see any of that here on SI. Sure- we talked about a young person’s ability to consent, but no one said anything about young girls being seductresses, and Phelps was not the one who committed a crime- he reported it, remember?

To reiterate- a young person can consent to sex, and that has spiritual and moral implications for them. We cannot ignore that. But they can, at the same time they are consenting, be victimized by a sexual predator.

Churches really do need to get on the stick and learn how to help parents help their children in this area. A really good book on the subject is Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker.

Susan,

I don’t have time to look at those threads again. But I got the same impression that Anne did. Some people came across as calling Tina a seductress. I was very vocal saying that was wrong. Of course, that was more behind the scenes.

To all,

Bryan and Jay are correct. Don and Alex could have a point if the leadership said something like, “Our pastor has temporarily stepped down, while we investigate these allegations.” Telling the staff and then the congregation that he is on medical leave, when he is not even sick, is not defensible. To call it diplomatic language is just silly, at best.