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

Please note the title of this thread: “FBI: Did Jack Schaap take teen across state lines for sex?”

Consider the proposition what we are now debating: “FBCH failed in its announcement to the congregation prior to its firing of Jack Schaap.”

Very strong statements are being made in support of this second proposition. From a legalistic standpoint, I certainly concede that the proposition is technically correct.

From a spiritual standpoint, I am amazed at the amount of energy you are putting into this. What a pathetic attempt to justify hatred of all things FBCH! What an obsession with minutiae! What a distraction from the far bigger question contained in the original heading! (And the answer to that question awaits the results of the investigation.)

All in all, this thread is really a classic example of the vanity of internet discussion boards. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Brent Marshall] No, one need not resort to “medical leave” for counseling to meet the stated policy. Thus, this does not help Don and Alex.

“He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” Romans 12:17 “Provide things honest in the sight of all men.”

IMO it is the dismissal of ‘little things’ that leads to people like Hyles and Schaap holding power for so many years. And it isn’t either/or. It is OK to be upset that heresy was promoted, that immorality was committed and tolerated, that the leadership didn’t take any steps before now to correct matters, or that they felt they had to soften the blow by equivocating on the announcement.

Imagine a car accident caused by someone running a red light. Cars are smooshed and bodies are everywhere, and while a bunch of people are crying over the carnage, another person is going on and on about the driver running a red light. “What? Don’t you care about all these people getting hurt? It’s stupid to get upset over a minor traffic violation when such a tragedy has happened! Where are your priorities?”

Well, if they hadn’t run the red light to begin with, there wouldn’t be a tragedy. So why not get upset over an insignificant moving violation when we know disaster is a possible result?

What we have here is a web of immorality and deceitfulness that is all connected. Cut one strand and the whole thing comes apart.

My last post on this matter.

Karl - I have been praying for all involved since the beginning.

Alex - Obviously, there are deeper heresies involved here, no one ever disputed that. This side track started when someone asked about the lie. The fact that you are fine with ” Clintonesque” use of language is very sad.

Don - The original angle of this thread is sad. It is wicked, and I hope it is not true, but Iwill be suprised if it did not happen. But it does notchange the fact that the leadership handled even this little detail unbiblically is sad. I find it funny that you of all people accuse us of legalism.

[Susan R]

“He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” Romans 12:17 “Provide things honest in the sight of all men.”

IMO it is the dismissal of ‘little things’ that leads to people like Hyles and Schaap holding power for so many years. And it isn’t either/or. It is OK to be upset that heresy was promoted, that immorality was committed and tolerated, that the leadership didn’t take any steps before now to correct matters, or that they felt they had to soften the blow by equivocating on the announcement.

Imagine a car accident caused by someone running a red light. Cars are smooshed and bodies are everywhere, and while a bunch of people are crying over the carnage, another person is going on and on about the driver running a red light. “What? Don’t you care about all these people getting hurt? It’s stupid to get upset over a minor traffic violation when such a tragedy has happened! Where are your priorities?”

Well, if they hadn’t run the red light to begin with, there wouldn’t be a tragedy. So why not get upset over an insignificant moving violation when we know disaster is a possible result?

What we have here is a web of immorality and deceitfulness that is all connected. Cut one strand and the whole thing comes apart.

The running of a red light caused the injuries, telling the congregation that the Pastor was out on medical leave did not cause the greater problem. And you have yet to demonstrate that he was not out on medical leave. But again, I have made my point. Enough on this, I have a second blog article on it to write anyway.

[Susan R]

Imagine a car accident caused by someone running a red light. Cars are smooshed and bodies are everywhere, and while a bunch of people are crying over the carnage, another person is going on and on about the driver running a red light. “What? Don’t you care about all these people getting hurt? It’s stupid to get upset over a minor traffic violation when such a tragedy has happened! Where are your priorities?”

Well, if they hadn’t run the red light to begin with, there wouldn’t be a tragedy. So why not get upset over an insignificant moving violation when we know disaster is a possible result?

Mrs. Susan.

When I come upon an accident, my first response is to check those who have been involved, give aid and comfort, first aid if needed: do everything I can to begin the healing process.

The last time I saw an accident, I actually stood and protected the person whose car was hit from the blustering, bullying guy who had hit her. He came up to her, yelling that she had caused the wreck. I stood between him and her and instructed him to go back to his vehicle, because he had been the one who had caused the wreck. She was not physically injured, but I offered aid and comfort where I could.

If I witnessed the accident, I tell THE AUTHORITIES what I saw. If I didn’t witness the accident, I keep my mouth shut. (If I didn’t witness the accident, the authorities don’t even talk to me.)

With great respect, and in the love of Christ: on this thread, which of us has actually witnessed the events in question? Which of us is THE AUTHORITY responsible for determining who has done right or wrong in this situation?

God be with us all.

Karl Silva

[DavidO]

I’m sympathetic to your point Brent, but, as someone who got thrust into a position of policy administration without much previous experience, I can testify that some mistakes of this type are due to shortsightedness and inexperience rather than plain bad motives. Best practice in handling these things is not what FBCH was likely to have much exposure to.

Which just goes to show you that the best course of action is to:

1. Call the cops since it involves a minor.

2. Call a lawyer and find out what your responsibilities are (do we need to archive his email before firing him, for example).

3. Fire the pastor.

4. Inform the congregation.

No analogy is perfect, but the point is that all elements of a tragedy are equally tragic. A church culture that minimizes and excuses deceptions, both large and small, is bound to end up reaping the whirlwind. It is SAD and it is HEARTBREAKING and we must not allow our desire to preserve some veneer of dignity or compassion keep us from exposing wrongdoing and protecting the INNOCENT.

Missing the point much?

I am sure that Schaap wasn’t feeling very well that weekend, so yeah- medical leave is probably a good description as any for why he wasn’t there. :/

[Alex Guggenheim] Chip,

I believe you are failing to see the irony in all of the high priest ballyhooing. But first, you still have not convinced me it was a lie. That is, it is perfectly acceptable to place someone or permit someone to use medical leave who does so without a medical purpose if those responsible for such policies permit it. And in this case that would be the Board.

I think I am seeing the irony here just fine. Men who are regularly staunch defenders of biblical teaching are missing the mark here. It’s not perfectly acceptable to tell the congregation something that is not true. No matter who condones it, saying something that isn’t true is still a lie.

[Alex Guggenheim] But let’s get to the irony. Here we have a posse of hang ‘em highs worrying about a “lie” from the pulpit of FBCH,. Not a lie about the Word of God but about the context of the Pastor’s leave status? We have the posse going crazy over this? Really? LOL I could not be laughing harder.

I cannot begin to comprehend how you can laugh about someone lying - regardless what the lie was about.

[Alex Guggenheim] For decades Jack Hyles mixed orthodoxy with error, this is called heresy (John Piper comes to mind right now but let’s skip that) and apparently Jack Schaap embraced the proprietary heretical teachings of Jack Hyles. This, alone, is so far in excess of this petty instance of what I believe can be cited, at worse, as a bit of embellishment as a temporary solution to a later and full explanation of the Pastor’s absence and at best quite factual if indeed the Board did agree to have him on medical leave at that time which simply makes those chasing this absolutely tiny or fractional matter look like the very IFB pharisitical persons they, themselves, claim to reject or are by which they are offended. It could be no more ironic.

Take the errant “Meet the Holy Spirit” teaching of Hyles which, btw, went on to influence many in conservative Evangelical circles and does to this day just with other Philosopher-Kings articulating in their own, uniquely dangerous way (oh that guy’s name is popping up again…oops), led countless believers into confusion and no doubt, spiritually damaging circumstances. And that is but the tip of the iceberg of the error, both doctrinally and practically, which came from Jack Hyles through FBCH and Hyles-Anderson College to the rest of Christendom and particularly to Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

So hey, you want to swim around in this tiny pool of inartful diplomacy, momentary embellishment for the benefit of time or even the legitimate categorization of medical leave and try to convince the world it is an ocean of an issue, well have at it. I am sure it is big enough to fit all of the crusading dozens into it.

In the mean time, I believe those who have an investment in Fundamentalism will be looking at the real issues and real remedies.

No one is disagreeing about the history of egregious errors that have come from First Baptist. It is you and Don who are downplaying this egregious public error.

Chip,

Up to now, no one has demonstrated proof that Jack Schaap was not on approved medical leave by the Board. They have made claims but have not provided proof. You know evidence is important. But even assuming the worst, yes I would say it is pharisitical to raise it to the level some are doing. Again, evidence Chip, evidence. Nadda. Just assumptions.

It seems like some here are having difficulty trying to define truth. When something is not true, then it isn’t true. And saying it means you are saying something that isn’t true. Masking it as something else, even if that is partially true, is still not true. I daresay that none of you would take that from your children.

It doesn’t seem like this should be controversial, particularly when some atomize minutiae for the purpose of complaining about others, and then want to give a free pass here. Playing the “they do it too” card doesn’t fly. It’s true we haven’t ruled out a true medical cause. We also haven’t ruled out an emergency trip to Mars. But the issue is clearly the abuse, and that was known prior to the Sunday service when it was announced that he was on medical leave.

If they were not ready to say exactly why Schaap wasn’t there, it would have been easy enough and appropriate simply to say that he was not there this Sunday and there would be a substitute speaker. But they (inadvertantly perhaps, or perhaps intentionally) laid the groundwork for a coverup by announcing something respectable that was far from the real reason.

To assert that the “medical leave” excuse was honorable seems to be the side picking at the small stuff. It smacks of just looking for a reason to excuse the behavior.

[Larry]

To assert that the “medical leave” excuse was honorable seems to be the side picking at the small stuff. It smacks of just looking for a reason to excuse the behavior.

But exactly what behavior? The behavior, perhaps, of someone actually being placed on medical leave by the board assigned to permit this and the board saying that this is the case? Oh my, what bad behavior is being excused. LOL.

But yes, it is small stuff, to argue over who can use medical leave and who cannot, particularly in this case it is up to the board and not people commenting from afar. But it is no small stuff to accuse people of lying without evidence.

[Don Johnson]

…

The structure, polity, culture, and history of the church have made it extremely dysfunctional as a Baptist church for a long time. A MAJOR step forward has been made in dismissing Schaap. Yet you are freaking out because they apparently didn’t word a statement to your liking prior to the dismissal. Incredible.

It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

See post #10

How many deacons make up the board of FBCH? 7? 70? 170?

Of those, what is their professional background? How many businessmen, lawyers, teachers, civil workers, etc.? Is their professional experience going to come into play when they are presented with ministry/business ending crisis scenario with, apparently, a very short amount of time to determine what has taken place, its repercussions, the course of action, and make a very public statement to 10,000 people and a kazillion via media?

Whether their professional experience should or shouldn’t affect their reasoning is irrelevant. Scripture makes it clear that pre-conversion experience/practice follows some into the church on a regular basis (Acts 8; Acts 15; Corinth; others). Having worked with deacon and ministry boards all my adult life I would find it more incredible if that experience did not influence their modus operandi.

I’m not here to defend anybody’s wording or way of handling things. As I implied earlier, there is no satisfying everyone in these matters. Having had very dear friends and (now former) pastors involved in such situations the mind cannot wrap itself around the concept of betrayal of trust at this level as easily as many on this thread are willing to assume. Those experiences alone provide me a willingness to allow a greater margin of error for those who have never been down this path before and, hopefully, will never go again.

Somehow I get the idea that many on this thread would only have been satisfied with the deacon chairman standing up on Sunday morning and stating “Pastor is not here today because we think he may have been out boinking one of the teenage girls; we’ll let you know what we find out. Have a nice day.” Frankly, I find the use of the term “medical leave” distasteful, but, knowing the situation now, no more distasteful than administrative leave (which it was not), or stating a person had resigned (knowing it was under duress [i.e., resign or else] ) when they were really fired (which happens in Christian run businesses and ministries all the time).

Here are the perceived facts:

1) the board became aware there was a potential moral/legal problem

2) they prevented Schaap from filling the pulpit in the intervening time

3) they investigated and found the potential problem had merit

4) they involved the civil authorities because they had legitimate jurisdiction (girl was an apparent minor)

5) upon confirmation they fired Schaap and continued co-operating with authorities

6) informed congregation and public of their findings and their response

7) continued co-operating with congregation and civil authorities in regards to continuing nature of the situation

There are a myriad of themes and variations that could be involved at any one of those levels, but if the perceived facts are true facts it is apparent that the board was seeking the right thing to do. Again, I am comfortable with that.

To be clear, for those who were confused, “honorable” was my word. I did not put words in anyone’s mouth. There have been people around the blogosphere defending this as appropriate, someone of them even here at SI (which is generally a cut above the rabble rousing at other places). I think it is the wrong thing to defend.

I also think it the wrong tack to object to my selection of a word to describe my impressions while ignoring the fact that something very serious just took place: A man grossly disqualified himself (and no, all disqualifications are not equal) and the church leaders say it is “medical leave.” To pick at the word used to describe it is small stuff. The big thing is being defended by some.

The fact is that the leadership told the body something that wasn’t true in order to cover up or at least delay speaking the real truth when they didn’t have to say anything at all. They could have merely said “Pastor Schaap is not here today. X is preaching for us.” Or they could have told the truth since the timeline seems to indicate that nothing was in dispute by then. It has been suggested by some that a cover up was in the works by the use of “medical leave” and was only prevented by outside knowledge. I don’t know if that is true or not, but if you are going to cover it up, they laid the groundwork for it. So the assertion that they are being straightforward and honest didn’t start well.

On a final note, I do confess it to be foreign value system to assert that “putting words in someone’s mouth” is worse than lying to the body of Christ in a local church about the reason their pastor is no longer their pastor when that reason is gross moral sin. And I think LOL‘ing at the situation is inappropriate. To call this “diplomacy” and to assert that those who question whether or not it is appropriate to lie to a local church are being petty is also foreign to me.