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

Or maybe they just, as a group, decided to follow the Scripture injunctive of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to not speak or react in a “hasty” manner until all were convinced by the evidence that what was apparently so was absolutely so. After all, the evidence will speak for itself, and the truth of that evidence won’t alter over a day or two, but the truth of that evidence will convince over a day or two.

That’s why they should have said nothing. When you say “medical leave,” most people think he’s sick in need of healing. They don’t think he in sin in need of repentance. I daresay few would interpret “medical leave” as “disqualified himself.” So why say it? Why not either say nothing or tell them what the real reason is? If they weren’t “convinced by the evidence that what was apparently so was absolutely so,” then at least don’t mislead people. If you don’t know for sure, then don’t say.

[Larry]

Or maybe they just, as a group, decided to follow the Scripture injunctive of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to not speak or react in a “hasty” manner until all were convinced by the evidence that what was apparently so was absolutely so. After all, the evidence will speak for itself, and the truth of that evidence won’t alter over a day or two, but the truth of that evidence will convince over a day or two.

That’s why they should have said nothing. When you say “medical leave,” most people think he’s sick in need of healing. They don’t think he in sin in need of repentance. I daresay few would interpret “medical leave” as “disqualified himself.” So why say it? Why not either say nothing or tell them what the real reason is? If they weren’t “convinced by the evidence that what was apparently so was absolutely so,” then at least don’t mislead people. If you don’t know for sure, then don’t say.

Ok, back to my previous statement somewhere on this thread. Many of these men are likely professionals, and in professional circles it is perfectly acceptable to use “medical leave” as a statement that the jury is still out on a persons future with the company, especially if that person is a high placed officer in the corporation. Practically nobody really thinks they’re actually sick. It is a statement that something is up and we’re not ready to reveal details.

Would I have personally handled it that way? No. But this is not getting me all worked up. Point being, they got the details they sought, made the right choices in reference to those details, and communicated such to the congregation and public in a timely manner. There is no need for a public flogging on which choice of terms they employed that categorically stated “something’s up involving pastor and you’ll know when it is time.”

To Lee who said:

Many of these men are likely professionals, and in professional circles it is perfectly acceptable to use “medical leave” as a statement that the jury is still out on a persons future with the company, especially if that person is a high placed officer in the corporation.

I’m an IT professional as is my wife. I don’t buy “in professional circles it is perfectly acceptable to use ‘medical leave’ as a statement …”

With a combined 50+ years in this profession we know how to say nothing. Our coworkers virtually all have degrees, many have advanced degrees, and several have Ph D’s or J D’s. And we have seen many times people leave with no answer or “can’t tell you” as the answer. My wife has been in hiring & firing circumstances where (in the context of firing) someone’s dismissal is just announced.

You seem to be expressing “professionals know how to lie and this is how they do it” OR “professionals use code (to mislead)”

[Jim]

I’m an IT professional as is my wife. I don’t buy “in professional circles it is perfectly acceptable to use ‘medical leave’ as a statement …”

…

Somehow I get the idea that your toga would be thoroughly knotted regardless of what was said or done, so let the flogging commence.

Lee Your last comment is just silly. Those of us who have said they should have said it truthfully would have been happy had they said, “he is on leave” or that he is not preaching today. That would have been an honest answer. I am glad that the leadership reported it. I hope the best for Hammond. I am cautious for several reasons, though. The interim pastor has been there for ALL of the messes and Jack Treiber is not exactly clean on these matters. But I pray for change in Hammond, just like I do in my own Christian growth.

[Lee]

[Jim]

I’m an IT professional as is my wife. I don’t buy “in professional circles it is perfectly acceptable to use ‘medical leave’ as a statement …”

…

Somehow I get the idea that your toga would be thoroughly knotted regardless of what was said or done, so let the flogging commence.

Well you have an opinion of me and I have an opinion of you.

You said:

[Lee] 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.”

[Lee] Here! Here! I’ll carry the kindling; you bring the torch!! FORWARD TO THE STAKE ALL…………………………………!!!!

You seem content to interact in this conversion in a juvenile way.

But that’s not what they did, Lee. They didn’t wait until they had all the facts before speaking. They gave a very specific reason which turned out not to be the real reason.

Facts in evidence:

1) They learned of the situation

2) They fired the pastor

3) They addressed the situation both internally and externally (i.e., brought in the civil authorities)

4) Add those together and it equals “did the right thing.”

What we’ve done as a forum:

1) Judged them incapable of doing the right thing

2) Waxed eloquent for 10 days on whether they should have utilized the term “medical leave” instead of whatever

3) Decided they didn’t do the right thing

4) Waxed even more eloquent on why they couldn’t have done the right thing

5) Surmised as to why they used specific terms and what their intent was, knowing they had no interest in doing the right thing.

6) Cast out as scurrilous dogs any who might suggest that they actually attempted to do the right thing

7) Proclaimed what we would have done, which, of course, would have been the absolute right thing, and continued to cast aspersions on them for not doing what we would have done; i.e., the right thing.

8) And so forth—it is likely not over yet

I’m not sure our list comes as close to equaling the right thing as their list does.

I pray that neither they nor any of us representing this forum have to walk down this road with the leadership of our own local assembly ever again in our collective lives. But if one of us ever does I hope that this little exercise will…

a) prepare us to react in measured words and deeds that will absolutely reflect the right that I think all of us want to do;

b) allow us to show a little more grace in recognizing the big idea—doing the right thing—and not be distracted by the unwise use of terms that will be inevitable in any pressure filled, life altering, time sensitive situation such as this.

The Devil’s in the details Lee. You just can’t whitewash a sin because it is followed (or proceeded) by some great deed.

Sadly, no one who is accusing the FBCH Board of lying has yet to demonstrate any evidence. Clearly, to these Christian consciences, evidence matters not, just what they assume. But again, this is precisely the kind of thing that led to the despotism in the pulpit only we have in a comments section.

If the FBCH Board placed him on medical leave and had yet to make a final decision, then he was of medical leave. Cry all you want that you don’t think so but until you can provide facts/evidence, you are what the Bible considers a false accuser. But hey, don’t let that stand in your way.

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
― Abraham Lincoln

What the board chose to call the leave (if, indeed, there was a board decision on that issue) is not the point. It is the underlying cause of the absence that is the critical point in judging the honesty and integrity, or lack thereof, of the representation to the congregation.

Many of these men are likely professionals, and in professional circles it is perfectly acceptable to use “medical leave” as a statement that the jury is still out on a persons future with the company, especially if that person is a high placed officer in the corporation.

That may or may not be true, but I would argue that the Bible has a little higher standard. I can see protecting someone’s dignity, and I see no reason to exact a “pound of flesh.” But if you are going to say something, then say the truth, or say nothing at all.

At the end of the day, IMO, your lists are inaccurate. From the “Facts in Evidence” list, you omitted the fact that they announced this as medical leave, when his health was not the reason for this. Whatever they may have also done is good, but doesn’t make it okay to tell the congregation something that wasn’t true.

Your list of “What we’ve done a a forum” is wrong on almost all eight counts. Perhaps some here have done that, but just about all of that has been challenged.

I, for one, think that they are capable of doing the right thing (1), and on some counts did (3). No one here has waxed particularly eloquent (2, 4). Some have surmised why they used certain words, but others of us have not, and just said they shouldn’t have used them (5). No one has cast anyone out, much less as scurrilous dogs; everyone is still free to post (6). Number 7 is close to right, and I hope we would have just told the truth or said nothing until we could.

But again, I think this is pretty simple. Whatever they may have done right (and there is some), they didn’t do right by giving a wrong reason for his absence. Just say, “He’s not here today.” I am still trying to figure out the rush to defend them on this.

Sadly, no one who is accusing the FBCH Board of lying has yet to demonstrate any evidence. Clearly, to these Christian consciences, evidence matters not, just what they assume.

Huh? They provided the evidence when they fired him for sexual misconduct. There are no assumptions necessary. And it is clear that they knew prior to Sunday, and it was enough of knowledge to keep him out of the pulpit, and it was likely absolutely confirmed by that time.

I imagine there is no amount of conversation that will persuade you that it is wrong to mislead a congregation as to the reason why their pastor is not preaching, and will fired. But it seems obvious that saying “medical leave” was clearly misleading in order to cover up the real issue, at least for a time. There was nothing medical about it. It was moral, and no one disputes that they knew it was moral. If they wanted to defend the “medical leave” statement, they could have done so by a clear statement about it. But you notice that they haven’t. There’s a reason for that, I imagine: They knew it wasn’t medical.

[Larry]

I am still trying to figure out the rush to defend them on this.

:) I am still trying to figure out the need to castigate. We’re mutually confused.

They didn’t know what to do, they wanted to get more counsel, he (conveniently in the circumstance) had medical issues, so they said, “Let’s put him on medical leave until we are sure of what we’re supposed to do.” Not ideal, for all the reasons you and others have suggested. But hardly something that should be characterized as willful deception or image protection. Their later actions demonstrate that this probably wasn’t the intent, so it is malicious to make the accusation.

I still wait for someone to tell me why Galatians 6:1 doesn’t apply. I’m not going to argue that it wasn’t a fault to put him on medical leave. It was. But I don’t see why we have to keep frying bandwidth on it since he was fired in a very public way 48 hours later.

[I Peter 4:8]

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

[JFB]

Quoted from Pro_10:12; compare Pro_17:9. “Covereth” so as not harshly to condemn or expose faults; but forbearingly to bear the other’s burdens, forgiving and forgetting past offenses.

This dead horse we are beating in this thread is exactly the kind of situation to which this verse applies — a past offense which is not continuing. It is not charitable to harshly condemn it as has been done in this thread. It really isn’t even charitable to bring it up at all (do you like it when someone brings up one of your past sins which you are no longer doing?). The only context in which it should be brought up is in the context of learning lessons on how (or how not) to handle pastoral misconduct — but that’s not the focus of this discussion.

Unless there is evidence of a continuing effort to deceive the congregation, this should be buried, even if you think that was the intent of “medical leave.” I don’t think it was intended to deceive at all, but merely to buy time until they decided what to say (and yes, I agree that it would have been better to say nothing).

They didn’t know what to do

How is it that when a pastor is caught in sexual immorality with a 16/17 year old girl you don’t know what to do?

But let’s be “charitable” (whatever that means here) and assume that they weren’t sure. Why say he was on medical leave when his medical problems (whatever they were) were not the cause of his not being there? Is there any dispute that if he had not been caught that he would have still be preaching? I doubt it. The sole reason that he wasn’t preaching that day was the discovery of this issue. And when they said otherwise, they mislead the congregation.

Now, it’s not about them anymore. I am not castigating them and they are not listening to me. They did what they did, and it’s over. It was wrong, but it’s over. Now it’s about us, and what we should do should it ever happen. We must tell the truth, or say nothing. Again, all along I have said that they should have said nothing. But you certainly don’t mislead the congregation. It seems to me that wherever you fall on the spectrum of support/dislike for FBCH, it would be the easiest thing in the world to say they shouldn’t have done this. Yet people aren’t for some reason. They are defending the indefensible. And that is inexcusable, IMO.