Tag: sexual abuse

BJU, GRACE and Gospel Hope For the Oppressed

~ Bob Hayton ~ 17 Comments

Last year, Bob Jones University asked GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) to do an independent investigation into alleged shortcomings by BJU in handling reports of sexual abuse. Recently, they terminated their dealings with GRACE and have begun to come under some strong criticism for doing so. Many of us were hopeful with BJU’s initial actions, as it seemed they wanted to move toward greater transparency and change in how they handle allegations of sexual abuse. But now, it appears the university is afraid of what may be found. That’s how it appears, anyway.

I have followed the story loosely, but came across a really good article on this from a blogging friend who is a BJU alumnus: Mathew Sims. His post is worth reading whether or not you are familiar with the details of this case. He applies the gospel to how we should think of allegations of abuse. Here is a link: “Sexual Abuse and the Gospel.”

Another helpful resource is the following “open letter” (actually a Youtube speech to the University) from Pastor Ryan Ferguson, a local pastor in Greenville, SC. His message is clear and shows a concern for the weak and those who have been oppressed. Oh that fundamentalism as a whole would share this pastor’s heart rather than always trying to save face and putting institution above people.

UPDATE: BJU renewed the original contract with GRACE to go forward with the independent investigation GRACE had started, see the links to the press releases in this comment below.

Just Another Sin, or Abuse of the Worst Kind?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I just read a great post by evangelical leader, Ed Stetzer, on the Jack Schaap incident. He makes a plea that we stop using the word “adultery” and instead use “abuse.” No matter which state the alleged liaison occurred in, or what the “age of consent” is, a 54 year old senior pastor is abusing a girl of 16 years when this kind of thing happens. I encourage you to read Stetzer’s post: “Call it What It Is: It’s Not Adultery. It’s Abuse.” I agree too, that we need to focus on praying for the victim in this matter.

I’m encouraged by the fact that First Baptist Church of Hammond is not defending Schaap, and has turned him over to the authorities (even if they are assuming no charges will be leveled against him). But some are defending him, or refusing to believe he is guilty. I don’t want to rush to condemn a man, as he is innocent until proven guilty. But the church is saying he has confessed to this dalliance with a 16 year old girl.

I am troubled by the fact that the church at Hammond is not bringing in a 3rd party to investigate the matter. They are using a biased party in David Gibbs. I wish they would follow the lead of ABWE in hiring a third party, like GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), which has no horse in this race, so to speak. This brings to mind my post on the lessons to be learned from Joe Paterno’s case and how Penn State handled it. Fundamental Baptists (and everyone else) need to be completely above board in handling these kinds of situations.

Even more troubling is that some are saying that this is just another sin. We should be careful not to throw a stone, we too are sinners at heart. All of that is true, but we are talking about abuse, not adultery. This is a man in a position of power, abusing his position and taking advantage of an impressionable young girl. Shouldn’t there be more outrage and less sympathy? Sure, Schaap is human and has struggles with sin, and so do we all. Schaap however chose to abuse his authority and confessed to committing this most heinous of sins. For some who pride themselves in speaking so harshly against the sins of the world, homosexuality being chief among them, it is troubling that the moral outrage expressed toward those “out there” becomes so quiet when speaking about sin done by one of our own.

In this somewhat rambling post, I wanted to share a comment that literally floored me. This was given under my post sharing the news of Schaap’s dismissal and lamenting the fact that so often there is not enough mutual accountability (it would seem) in big name IFB churches. The comment below is disturbing and troubling, to say the least. And it is the epitome of defending Schaap, or so it would seem. Before I continue, let me share the comment in full.

What amazes me the most about most of these posts is how little of God’s Word is known by the posters. A New testament church is not run by deacons – deacons (Acts 6) under the direction of the pastor. You people sound like Moses’ older bother and younger sister. God leads the leader and if the leader fouls up, it is God that takes care of that and He doesn’t need half-witted self-professed theologians to take His place in taking care of His man – not deacons, elders, you people need to understand the New Testament Church; you Mr. Burton obviously do not. Abraham (and Sarah) fouled up – it was no small thing. The whole middle East problem came from that, but God took care of Abraham and on more than one occasion, It was true with Moses, David, and all the rest of the sinners in the Bible. God took care of it. I am not justifying what Schaap has done whatever it is. However, I find no biblical precedent for a mis-trained deacon board to take it upon themselves to touch God’s anointed. A spiritual (Gal 6) man may have counseled him to resign and take time to heal in the process of restoration. You people want to stone him to death! Call me, I’ll send all of you without sin a bag of rocks to throw at him! Bunch of stinkin’ hypocrites!

[Written by R.S. Brewer.]

This seems to be a version of a concept that Jack Hyles was known to teach from time to time: the idea that we can earn enough “brownie points” with God that we are so valuable to Him, that He needs us. God needs His man, so He’ll excuse this sin and that because He sees the man really has a heart for God, in spite of the sin. This is very dangerous thinking. The New Testament does not condone this mentality. Read the book of Hebrews. We can’t play with fire, and there are very clear qualifications given for leaders in the New Testament. Furthermore, it is a misunderstanding of church government. The church has responsibility collectively to hold their leaders in check. Such a top-down approach is unBiblical when applied to a church. The Church is not a state, and not the equal of the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament.

In conclusion, we must ask ourselves: “Is Jack Schaap’s sin just a run-of-the-mill moral failure? Or is it abuse of the worst kind?” We can’t dance around the bush here, we must call it what it is. If new facts come out which exonerate Schaap, then we will stand corrected, but if we take FBC Hammond’s word (and we have no reason not to), than we have to conclude that Schaap is guilty of the most heinous of sins for any pastor to commit, and whether or not he is convicted in a court of law, and whether his actions were technically legal or not, his abuse disqualifies him from holding the office of a pastor, ever again. If this action doesn’t mar the “good report” of those without that a pastor must have, I don’t know what does.

Schaap can still repent, restore his marriage, and live for Jesus. He can have meaningful ministry service in a church, but he should not be a pastor ever again. Let’s be clear on that.

Chuck Phelps Resigns from the BJU Board

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Since I pointed to Chuck Phelps’ presence on the BJU board as evidence that fundamentalism doesn’t treat mishandling of sexual abuse cases with the same level of outrage and alarm that the culture in general today, I thought I should inform you all that Phelps has stepped down from his position on the board. It seems that one of the factors in his decision was an online petition that was circulating concerning Phelps and his presence on any board of higher institution. I was unaware of that petition until Friday.

I had noticed Bob Jones University’s defense of Chuck Phelps [which has now been taken down from their website, apparently], and was saddened to see they showed little sympathy or concern for the abused but rather seemed to jump to defend one of their “good old boys”. Bob Bixby gives a fuller account of both the petition and the board’s role in this “defense” of Phelps.

I am not happy to see this whole matter unfold how it has. I wish the whole event wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Phelps could have handled the abuse case better, and since it happened years ago, he could have admitted he made some serious mistakes and apologize – and thereby teach many onlookers how to handle such situations with grace and also to bolster the cause for a clearer and more direct response to these situations by fundamentalist pastors. Sadly this did not happen.

I think that it is high time that fundamentalism wakes up to how devastating to one’s reputation mishandling of abuse cases really should be, and how horrific a crime these sorts of allegations (of sexual abuse) really are. Fundamentalists are all to ready to excuse leaders because they don’t have all the facts or because they’ve done their legal duty. But there is a further moral duty which fundamentalists often do not undertake. Tim Henderson, of Campus Crusade for Christ, talks of “the deficiency of love” in response to the Penn State scandals. And there seems to be a similar problem in some degree, with the response that Fundamentalist leaders and institutions often have to cases of alleged abuse. Let this whole affair be a wake up call to our God-given duty to defend the weak and help the hurting, rather than defend those in places of prominence and power.

2 More Essential Reads on the 20/20 IFB Scandal

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

First off, Dr. Kevin Bauder recently responded to “The Scandal” which was covered by ABC News’ 20/20 show last Friday. I’ve given my own responses here:

I’m pleased to see Dr. Bauder’s words of caution directed to fundamentalists. Here is an excerpt from his article. He doesn’t dwell on any specific cases but shows what the general reaction to this and many other similar reports by the news media should be on this particular problem.

Our anger (and we should be angry!) should not be directed against the victims who have appealed to other authorities, but against those spiritual authorities who abdicated their responsibility to defend the powerless….

Our first response must be to refocus upon personal integrity. Many accusations are true, but in the present atmosphere the possibility of false accusations ought to strike fear into every minister. All it takes is one, unsupported claim to end a ministry. Consequently, we have a duty to live our lives such that no credible charge can be leveled against us. We must go out of our way to ensure that we avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How? By common sense precautions. We will install windows so that people can see into our offices. We will never be alone with any female other than our wives and daughters. We will never be alone with a child, even of the same sex, other than our own children. We will never touch a minor in any way except in full view of other adults””and we will guard those touches carefully against misunderstanding.

Just as importantly, our second response must be prevention. We cannot change what has already happened, but we can do our best to ensure that it will not happen again. Every church needs a child protection policy. The policy should define when and where adults are allowed to have contact with minors at church activities. It should prohibit adults from being alone with minors in an unsupervised environment. It should require everyone involved in ministry to minors to receive specific training aimed at avoiding abusive relationships. Very importantly, it should require a background check for every church member who works with minors. It should specify procedures for pursuing complaints and suspicions. It should be widely distributed so that every parent knows its provisions. For a good example of such a policy in a secular organization, churches might look at the Cadet Protection Policy of the Civil Air Patrol.

Our third response should involve prosecution. When pastors and church leaders become aware of abusive situations, they should report these situations to police and child protective agencies. In fact, they should do more than to report. They should demand that the authorities take action. Concerns over confidentiality are badly out of place here, as are concerns over 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Paul was not writing to the Corinthians about situations in which crimes were being committed or the powerless being victimized. In most states, pastors have a legal obligation to report any situation that they even suspect of being abusive. Justice and protection for victims requires action against abusers. Christian leaders have a duty to protect the powerless. Too often have they adopted the role of shielding the abuser.

The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.

Pastoral authority extends no further than the right to proclaim and implement the teachings of Scripture. Pastors must recognize the God-ordained authority of the congregation, and congregations must hold pastors accountable. Churches must seek pastors who focus upon the exposition of Scripture, who are gentle in their dealings with people, who are open and transparent, and who welcome criticism and accountability. Most of all, churches must reject numerical and financial growth as a measure of success and realize that the very first qualification of any minister is that he must give evidence of knowing and loving God.

Baptist fundamentalism has endured dark episodes in the past, but none has been blacker or more ugly that the present hour. We have no one else to blame. We have been too lax for too long. If the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, then we should welcome the purifying effect that the exposure of sin will have upon us, and we should respond rightly.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Secondly, you should read this testimony from Laurie Moody a former member of the church that was highlighted on the 20/20 episode, and one who knows the victim (Tina Anderson) and her family firsthand. Her testimony rings true to me, and also fills in some additional details which seem to answer some of the lingering questions.

On another note, Pastor Chuck Phelps continues to defend himself here, with no clear apology to Tina for the way things were handled. I add his link for those who may not have seen that side of the story yet.

I think this will be my last post on this issue, I just wanted to tie up the loose ends for those getting this news from my site. I do hope that something changes with Phelps’ response that merits a later post, but I’m not expecting anything, unfortunately.

20/20 IFB take 3

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

I’ve been at The Gospel Coalition Conference and so haven’t been reading up on lots of the debate over the 20/20 IFB scandal anymore. I actually started typing up a response to someone’s question about this on my blog and ended up writing so much that it should be it’s own post. So here’s my latest thoughts on the 20/20 IFB scandal.

Q: Bob, as a former IFBer, where are you both logically and emotionally on this 20/20 debacle?

A: I don’t condone a wholesale rejection of IFB churches. I said so in this and the next post I made on this topic. I do think that some have been so harmed by bad IFB churches or people, that they have a hard time when it comes to assessing the movement as a whole. They read their experience into it all. The problem is that so many have had such similar experiences from so many different IFB churches and groups within the larger IFB movement, that there is a level of credence to some of these broad brush statements made by some.

ABWE recently did an about face and admitted they covered up a sex scandal of their own but have since made huge changes. That was refreshing to see their willingness to own up to their downfall and allowing of a culture of abuse, and their desire to repent and take radical steps to bring lasting change. That is a healthy institutional change that can serve as a pattern for fundamentalism.

Do IFB churches have enough checks and balances built in? I think most don’t. Work can be done and organizations can work to change.

Technically, IFB churches are independent and distinct. But try disagreeing with one IFB church in a public way…. See if many IFB churches will be willing to have anything to do with you. There is a certain groupthink mindset common to them at one level or another.

So for some, Zichterman’s IFB Cult survivors group is a help. It might keep them from abandoning the faith and help them in sorting out what they went through. But lashing out and blaming all IFB churches as a whole isn’t productive or healthy and that happens at that group. But responding with an attitude that says we have no problems, and that is someone else’s problem not ours, doesn’t help either. There may be no direct blame, but IFB churches all populate the same culture and mindset. And that needs to change. The environment that lets pastors say wild things about child raising. Things such as were said at the church I went to school at, which are not all that dissimilar to the clips played of Jack Schaap in the report…. That stuff shouldn’t be left to stand. The people in the pew go a step further in their desire to follow the “preacher” and that’s where abuse can happen. It has happened. Often. Lots of places. And pretending that it doesn’t happen doens’t help.

Not every IFB church promotes this. But many will not separate from those churches and ministries that promote this authoritarian, “man of Gawd”, spiritual abuse mentality. Often it’s politics, plain and simple. There is a church politics about who not to offend and what not to do. And basically mums the word about abuse scandals. Preacher is always innocent until proven guilty (and then it’s a stacked jury full of liberals, most likely). We don’t help the abused victims well, we hush hush and cover up sin of all kinds. We don’t practice Biblical church discipline. The problems of the IFB movement go on and on.

There are exceptions to this. But generally speaking, from all over the IFB movement, the IFB churches in general find it much easier to separate with churches and people on their left, than those among them or to the right of them, who promote an unhealthy sectarianism, authoritarianism, and other abuses. I’m not the only one noticing this. Dr. Dave Doran recently said much the same thing of his (what I would say good side of fundamentalism). They won’t separate from the cooks and wackos on the right. Pastor Bob Bixby has noticed this too.

I currently don’t go to an IFB church. I think too much independence is a bad thing. I still am a fundamentalist in principle, but the application of separation has room for a diversity of practice in my view.

Emotionally, I’m sickened by the abuse. I watched the show thinking how believable the story was. Everything I’ve encountered in my history with the IFB — scandals in two or three of the churches I’ve been in, incidents swept under the rug or not handled correctly — leans me toward accepting Tina’s tale as is. I know there’s another side to the story. It might be true. But as a big shot in fundamentalism, this pastor has every reason to sidestep the difficult questions and dodge the bullet. I don’t see apologies or sadness over what happened from that side of the story. I see defense. I am angered by this, too. I think of many people I know who have jettisoned from Christianity altogether due to their sinful response to the spiritual or physical abuse they received at the hands of fundamentalism. Yes they are wrong to react the way they do, but they have also been wronged.

I am encouraged by positive reactions by some to this issue. Some fundamentalist leaders are sickened by it and are not excusing things. They aren’t fighting for loopholes. They aren’t condemning the pastor since the investigation is pending, but aren’t rushing to his defense. They also aren’t sidestepping the problem and acting like it doesn’t exist in fundamentalism. That is a healthy sign and it’s proof that there are good IFB churches out there.

Hope this answers your question and explains where I’m coming from. This is all I’m going to say on this topic for a while until more facts come to light on this. I’m going to try to enjoy my conference, now!