Tag: follow up

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!

Follow Up to the James White–Jack Moorman KJV Debate

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Last week’s televised debate between James White and Jack Moorman is now available to watch on demand. I was able to watch it this weekend and was really impressed with White, I thought he won the debate hands down.

White could have also pointed out that other languages beside Greek provide support for many Alexandrian readings, and only limited support for Byzantine readings. Also, the dearth of Greek study in general prior to the Renaissance helped ensure the Byzantine Text (being secreted into Europe with the onslaught of the Muslims against Byzantium) would be the primary text available for Erasmus and his like in the early period of recovering the Greek New Testament text.

I also thought Moorman should have had a better answer handy on the Revelation 16:5 point, which was repeatedly stressed. White did dodge some bullets, but the format makes it hard to address everything carefully.

Care to share your thoughts on the debate? Or did you (like me), miss it the first time round? Give it a watch and then chime in here (or if you’re brave, join the fray at KJVOnlyDebate.com).

For those who don’t know, while I’m evaluating the Majority Text position, currently I still am persuaded by the general tenor of the arguments for the modern Greek text behind modern versions, as shared by White and others. I believe our modern text can be refined and should be, but for the most part it is better than the Textus Receptus which preceded it. That’s my personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of most of my fellow bloggers over at KJVOnlyDebate.com.

~cross posted from my KJVOnlyDebate.com site.