Let me lead off this post by saying that in my involvement with the SBC, I’ve seen some of God’s great servants doing great service to our Great God under the SBC banner. It is easy to look at the problems and despair – I’ve been at that precipice – and become one of those anathematizers! There are some serious problems in the SBC and they need to be dealt with, but they are not the majority. We cannot focus on the problems, as significant as they are, and then assume that they are the whole of the denomination.
- I’ve seen entity leaders and their staff working with integrity and passion to accomplish the work of God.
- I’ve seen Asagen Sagna (you know him by another name) among the Bayot people in Senegal, going from home to home, village to village, telling the biblical story, and knowing that this strategy – the adoption of unreached people groups – is being repeated throughout the world.
- I joined in a prayer group with a seminary president and a few pastors and laypeople as we prayed for revival and renewal at the SBC’s amazing prayer time this year. Seven thousand or more people on their knees (literally or figuratively) calling out to God for help.
- I’ve been to ERLC conferences on current issues where strong biblical stands are taken with both moral clarity and compassion.
- I’ve had opportunities for interactions with some of our leaders, enough to realize that a denomination that has leaders like Thom Ranier, Jason Allen, Jeff Iorg, and the inimitable Frank Page, is uniquely blessed. That is not to make any statement against the others, just an observation of my personal interaction with these men.
- There are men like my friend Ken who are the heart and soul of the SBC. Ken is the pastor of a small church in a small town near me. He will never be a celebrity, but he is faithful. His wife got sick and died, he remained faithful. When anything happens in his little town, it doesn’t matter what church the people are in, they turn to Ken. Look at his stats? You will not be impressed. But if you know what he is doing in that little town you will be glad that he is a part of the work we are doing. Men like Ken are backbone of the SBC!
Having said that, I’ve also seen something in the SBC recently that needs to change.
The Tubbs Miller Method of Sin Management
Will you forgive me in advance for this illustration? Before our dog (Tubbs) took the one-way trip the vet, he would go into the back yard to do his business. After he was done he would turn around and kick and scratch a little to cover over what he’s done. A couple of blades of grass and a little dirt – that’s all. I never understood why. Did he think kicking a little dirt and grass on the “mound” would hide it?
Evidently, several SBC institutions think that the Tubbs Miller method is the way to handle sin and scandal among their leaders. Deal with the sin? No. Repent? No. Clean it up? Never. Let’s just scratch a little grass and dirt over it, sign a confidentiality agreement and be done with it. Pretend nothing stinks.
I received a video a couple of days ago that has been making the rounds. The president of a Baptist college was caught on video at his home with another woman. He retired for “health reasons” and was the subject of many articles about what a great man he was and about the “miracles” that had happened at that school during his tenure.
Would that this college’s failings were unique, but unless you’ve been under a rock the last few years, I need not recount to you the gory details. Such foibles are common, and that school’s method is not rare either. Hide the sin. Fete the sinner. Sign a confidentiality agreement. We do with sin what Tubbs did in my backyard. Scratch a few blades of grass over it and hope no one notices the smell.
Enter Ashley Madison
Now come the Ashley Madison revelations. I said the other day that this is going to be a storm and it appears that it might be more than that. Hurricane. Tsunami. You pick your own over-wrought metaphor. Ed Stetzer has said publicly that as many as 400 church leaders (including pastors, deacons and elders) could be resigning this weekend across America (not just the SBC). I’m assuming that Ed knows more than I do about this, and I know way more than I ever wanted to. A friend contacted me about a week ago about this and it has consumed a lot of my time since. To review:
- An email can be on the site for many reasons, some (perhaps) innocent. Don’t jump to conclusions.
- If the email appears with details such as address, and amounts spent by credit card, it’s much harder to declare innocence.
- This info is now public. The hackers are criminals and should be prosecuted, but the facts of Ashley Madison are coming out. Social media is abuzz and now the national media is on the story.
- Evidently, there is a real problem with moral sin in the American evangelical church, even among the leadership – in churches, colleges, and other convention entities.
So, how are we going to handle this? What I’ve seen so far falls into three general categories.
1. Denial Ain’t Just a River in Egypt Response – It wasn’t me. Identity theft. Big mistake. And there is no question that some innocent folks will get caught in the net. Vile people will use this as a chance to embarrass their enemies. That is despicable and should be prosecuted. Here is my advice to you, my friend. You know whether you did it or not. If you didn’t sign up, fight it. But if you did, you know it, and the evidence is going to prove it. You really can’t avoid responsibility here. Denial isn’t going to work.
2. The Jimmy Hoffa Response – Hoffa just disappeared one day and was never heard from again. That has happened here as well. A name simply disappears from a website and a twitter account disappears. Where’d Buford go? No one knows. I’m guessing if I were caught in such a circumstance, that would be my tendency – I’d want to move to Alaska and see if the Cornelia Marie would take me as a greenhorn.
3. The Ultimate Response – No cute name here – nothing funny about this. I have been made aware of at least three suicides related to Ashley Madison, and there are rumors of more. Men who are used to being honored as spiritual leaders, as men of God, may not be able to handle the shame and humiliation of the revelations and will be tempted to take the selfish way out. This will be the ultimate tragedy of the Ashley Madison saga.
How Should We Respond?
How should the church respond to Ashley Madison revelations? It is interesting to me that in discussions, people have tended to default to the extremes. When I have complained against the “hide and cover” strategy that seems to be in such vogue, the response is to assume that I am endorsing the humiliation strategy adopted by some so-called “discernment” blogs, who seem to rejoice at the opportunity to eviscerate other believers publicly. Perhaps that would be a better name than discernment blogs. These evisceration blogs embrace destruction. Nothing seems to make them happier than publicly holding up other Christians to ridicule, humiliation and degradation – all in the name of Christian love and accountability.
Why would we assume that there is no middle ground between cover-up and evisceration? Why would people think that when I say the confidentiality agreement and cover-up solution isn’t working that I am advocating public shaming? We can disdain one without embracing the other. It won’t be easy but it must be done.
Hiding sin and covering it up solves nothing. It poisons the institution (church, school, entity), and it creates cynicism, doubt and even rejection of the faith among the young people who witness it. Do you think the young people at those Baptist colleges who have witnessed the hypocrisy of adulterers (and they generally KNOW what’s really going on folks – they aren’t dumb) being feted as spiritual heroes are not going to be damaged? Are we willing to live with the fact that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of broken young lives which are the spiritual detritus of the brazen hypocrisy of the leadership of Southern Baptist schools, churches, and other entities which refused to deal with sin, but instead hid it, covered it, and through confidentiality agreements were complicit in it after the fact?
Public shaming and evisceration is just as wrong and equally unhelpful. Have you ever heard of anyone repenting of their sin and being restored to Christ as a result of their public shaming from an evisceration website? Has that tactic ever produced anything but bitter fruit? By their fruit you know them.
What does the Bible say about this topic?
Galatians 6:1-3 – Confront the Sinner Gently
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Galatians 6:1-3
It is helpful to start here. There are several points to be made.
- When someone is caught in sin, we confront. We do not cover up. We don’t seek to scratch a few blades of grass over our mess and hope it doesn’t stink. Confidentiality agreements that are designed to hide sin and avoid responsibility are not the biblical way. Perhaps, at the end of a biblical process of repentance, some form of cooperative agreement of confidentiality may be in order, but I think it is safe to say that most of these are designed to avoid dealing with the sin rather than to aid the process of spiritual healing.
- The purpose of confrontation over sin is never “exposing” it, embarrassing sinners, or anything else. It is restoring the sinner. If I am acting out of any motive other than a true heart for restoration, I’m sinning. Let’s admit we’ve seen a lot of confrontation, especially on social media, where people’s claims that their desire was to restore the sinner rang empty and hollow. You do not restore through evisceration and humiliation. 2 Thessalonians 3:15 defines the proper attitude. “Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” Brotherly love is required. Without it, confrontation becomes evisceration too often.
- Spiritual people need to be doing this restoration. There are few things trickier than dealing with the confrontation of sinners – it seems to run contrary to the work of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit. How do we confront sin in “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc.” For the love of God, leave confrontation in the hands of spiritual people who will carefully operate in the Spirit instead of in the flesh while performing the confrontation.
- We act in gentleness. Need I say much more. Gentleness. Meekness.
- Stay humble. That is the key. Don’t start thinking you are God’s avenging angel to correct the church. Don’t think you are a bigger deal than you are. One thing is certain – pride is a one-way street that leads to destruction.
The main point here is that confrontation ought to be done carefully and gently. But it nonetheless must be done. If one is caught in sin, he or she must be gently confronted.
Dear boards of deacons or elders, dear trustee boards, I know you have the best interests of your institution at heart. But when a grievous sin has taken place, you have marching orders from God. He did not command you to hide the sin in a shroud of secrecy. Your duty to God and to your institution is to seek to lead the sinner to repentance and restoration, not just to try to minimize the damage. Sin causes damage. Ugly, nasty, dirty damage. Your job is to be a part of God’s process in fixing that damage, not to inhibit that work by covering it over.
Matthew 18:15-17 Levels of Repentance
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
We can debate all of the applications of Matthew 18:15 another time. Does it apply to blogging? Is it limited to confrontation within the church? My only reason for bringing it up is that it shows a gradation of repentance. Repentance can take place simply between two people, or it can happen in a smaller group, or at times that repentance can be public.
Does a sinning pastor need to stand before his church to repent? What about a college president? Is it okay for some sins to be confessed and repented of privately and kept that way. It is impossible to write simple rules to govern this, but I would say the following.
If a sin is private, it can be confessed privately. But if a sin has become public and if it involves a serious dereliction of duty as a leader – pastor, president, or other responsible position – it may demand public admission of failure and repentance. I know that if I failed morally, I would feel the need to stand before my (soon to be former) congregation and admit my failure and beg their forgiveness.
Knowing precisely how public confession needs to be is more art than science. The principle I was taught in my youth is not a Bible verse, but it has some wisdom in it. “Confession should be as public as the sin.” If the sin is between the two of us, keep the confession there. But if it is in the public domain, the confession ought to be as well. Seek wise counsel – people more concerned with God’s glory and the good of the people of God than in simply appearance management and institutional protection. Pray, Consider things carefully. But realize that our highest duty is to God and to his glory.
Such confession need not be specific. “I have sinned. I’ve broken my covenant with my wife and failed in my duty to God and to this church.” Details are not only unnecessary, they probably cause greater hurt. Acknowledge guilt and seek forgiveness, but there is no need to play to the prurient interests of people. Jerry Springer is not our model.
One more thing. No matter how wicked the sin, once there is repentance the onus is on the church to forgive. Those who refuse to forgive the sinner are themselves offending the God who sent his Son to the cross for the remission of sins. There are few things that Jesus was more harsh about than those who want to receive God’s forgiveness but refuse to extend it. Sinners find grace in Christ and they ought to find the church to be a place of grace as well.
Summary
I just looked at the word count and realized that this is becoming another one of my over-long posts. So, I’ll bring it to a close. There is more to say, either in the comments or in a follow-up post. Let me highlight the key points I want to say.
- Southern Baptists need to abandon the all-too-common practice of hiding sin in our fallen leaders.
- Saying that is not an endorsement of the evisceration blogs. There is a middle ground which we must seek.
- Churches, schools and entities have a biblical responsibility to gently and lovingly confront the sin of fallen leaders, both hoping to restore them while also maintaining a standard of holiness.
- To cover up sin as has often been done is a sure way to create cynicism among Christian young people who see fallen leaders honored in spite of their sins.
- Confession and repentance are God’s solution to sin. There is no other solution. Cover up, denial, and deception are not solutions. They are generally little more than gasoline on the fire.
I love the SBC and I maintain that the vast majority of pastors are faithful men of God. Our deacons are servants. Our people love their Savior. Our entities are full of people who want to make Jesus known. But there are some problems out there. Recently, I have heard all too often of the cover-up strategy. It’s a bad one and we need to rethink it. No, I’m not advocating the evisceration option. We need not publicly shame and destroy people. But sweeping sin under the carpet, hiding it, pretending it isn’t real – that just isn’t the way.
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Why would we not try that route?
While I’m all for rooting out sin, and calling sinners to repentance, I’m not into witch-hunting, and the comment string on the other thread makes it seem like you’re (in some ways) advocating that tactic. How many other resources do you use to find out sin in your congregants’ lives? Do you make use of other public data to make a list of who needs to repent for certain sins? Or do you trust that the Spirit will guide your preaching and teaching to convict the hearts of men and women in you church. I’m not saying that it’s automatically wrong to probe into someone’s life when there’s clear evidence of wrongdoing, and God has placed you as the right person to be their accountability, but I think that Searching out names of people (in this case) may be a bit unjustifiable if your not already using all the other online resources as an opportunity to catch people in their sin.
The comment thread only makes it seem that way if you didn’t listen carefully to what I said.
I said repeatedly that the info is out there. Our choice is not whether we deal with it, but whether we deal rightly with it.
Joel, you seem intent on questioning my actions, let me turn it around.
What should I have done?
I didn’t hack the info or even search it, but I have been made aware that there is a significant problem. What to do? Avoid cliches and generalities. Be specific.
Should we just do nothing?
My choice has been to a) call the church to deal forthrightly with this and not to play the hide and cover game and b) call those who have used the site to humbly repent.
Despite your misrepresentations, that’s been my pretty consistent theme. I don’t feel too sorry for people who used AM – they are NOT victims. But I hope they will repent and seek restoration.
So, what is your specific complaint – based on my actual views, not your misinterpretation of them?
I guess, for starters, there would be this. Suppose someone had an AM account years ago, and had already dealt with the issue between them and their spouse, and they had put it behind them and moved forward. Your fact-seeking mission now serves to dredge up old sins, and to parade them out in front of the body on display. Since adultery is a sin against Christ and one’s spouse, first and foremost, that is where the sin should be handled – first and foremost. The wife (or husband) in this situation is just as capable of finding out if their spouse is a cheater using the available resources as you are. Maybe a good first step would be to make known the facts of the availability of the research, and then let spouses be the one to make that first move?
I CAN see how it might be an important thing to look into if we are looking into someone’s fitness for church leadership, and a church SHOULD make every reasonable effort to determine someone’s Scriptural qualifications in that regard. As to leaders and ESPECIALLY laypeople in your congregation, I would make known the availability of the evidence, and then pray that God would convict them to come forward of their own accord. We ought to be doing that for ALL sin, not just using this particular one to “out” people. Bear in mind that I have zero sympathy for AM users, but I DO have sympathy for the innocent people involved (spouses and children) who will be dragged down in a blanket exposure, as well as for those who have chosen a path of repentance, and who are actively engaged in it. As I said, adultery is primarily a sin against the spouse, and it is primarily their domain to choose how to deal with it when their spouse repents from it. I also have sympathy for the Bride of Christ, and as such, wish to see it as the minister to souls caught in sin, rather than the accuser. By setting your church as the high court of the inquisition, the “outer”, so to speak, the perception of the church becomes that of the accusing party, rather than that party which leads to reconciliation with Christ (and the aggrieved spouse).
So no, I don’t want to “hide” sin, or enable people to keep doing so. And you are right in saying the Church must have a reputation for honesty when these situations arise, rather than one of secrecy and protection of those who would abuse so sacred a trust. But there are many other sacred trusts as well, and ones with which you could go forward with equal vigor as you are in this case to catch sinners in their sin. It concerns me that we (you) are doing it in this case, but not in others. Is this a litmus test for leadership? We usually do a background check on those candidates for positions of leadership, but do we do it to the laity? Do we check their financial status? Do we ask for tax returns? All those things are publicly available for the asking, but if we’re not looking for sin in those areas, why is it that this sin is so egregious?
Ultimately, you know the people in your own congregation far better than any of the rest of us, including myself, so I won’t lecture further on how to go about exposing people in your realm of influence. I trust that you are seeking to do best by both your congregants, and by the Church of which God has apportioned you to guide. But I don’t think there’s a blanket way to go about dealing with ANY sin, let alone the AM breach. I think I would take it on a case by case basis, and encourage our church body to deal with the sin of it as they would deal with any sin – to repent, confess, and reconcile. There may be circumstances where investigating for specific sin is warranted, but simply having one’s name on an AM account is hardly something to nail someone down with. There will be lengthy, lengthy details to sort through, emotions to respond to, people to grieve with, people to weep with over their sin, and people whose lives will be changed forever. I think you’ve covered that pretty well in your post, so I won’t belabor that point further. But there will also be people whose lives that are in a fragile state of rebuilding, for whom the wrecking ball of fresh accusation may destroy them, or at least forever sour them on the tone of you church. I hope that will not be the case, but a blanket inquisition had a large possibility of bringing about that very reality.
Ultimately, I’m just saying that, as a pastor and a church, one must tread very carefully here… and very prayerfully. Who knows but that God will bring great growth in His Church as a result of this. What man means for evil, God uses for His purpose!
It’s frustrating, Joel, because it just doesn’t seem like you are listening to the words I am saying.
If an entity through its trustees board provides a quick but silent exit what should be done by entity supporters?
If a guilty pastor is given the option of resigning with attendant accolades and praises for his accomplishments what should church members who know the truth do?
That is a good question. I’m not sure of the answer.
My post is directed more at the trustee board and at the deacon/elder groups that make those decisions. I’m trying to call them to NOT make those deals. When they provide those “quick but silent exits” or allow a guilty person the “option of resigning with attendant accolades and praises” they are not protecting their institutions they are violating their sacred trust and they are disobeying scripture.
The quiet exit is the preferred solution in our circles. Social media offers an alternative. It looks to me like one of the few routes available for accountability of governing bodies of larger organizations. Non-disclosure agreements are designed in part to shut this door.
The problem is that non-disclosure agreements are usually massively ineffective. Think of the revelations about the SBC college this week. There was a NDA. But the world knows about it. The school can’t speak. With social media, stuff comes out. Right or wrong, it happens.
Indeed. A very ugly and sordid matter.
I don’t know what the trigger is or should be to use social media expose sin. In the end not only does the perp get embarrassed but also trustees and the institution as a whole.
Trustee screwups are not unknown among us. If they don’t do the right thing, who should step up?
I don’t really have a good answer to that one.
In a “trust the trustees” system, I’m not sure exactly what you do when they betray that trust.
Have to think that one through a little.
Jesus never said, “Trust the trustees.” I think we should trust God and an informed membership. The role of the trustees is to EARN their trust by informing the membership. When they stop informing, we should stop trusting.
Jesus never told us to have trustees, or Sunday School, or buildings, or youth pastors, or many of the things we do.
When we establish leaders it is reasonable to trust them within reason, and to assume that they are doing their best, unless evidence of malfeasance exists.
Trust is not unlimited, but if it is absent, the SBC system is in trouble
We have good people doing their best in service to God. Sowing distrust will not help much I think. A constructive suggestion now and again could help but undermining trust in the goid will of these people does not.
It’s a fine line of accountability and distrust. One is noble, the other destructive.
Yeah, the denominational aspects of this add a layer of difficulty. I’m not sure what is best. There are degrees of difficulty in these cases. We have a history of handling sin discreetly so as not to harm the institution. Sometimes it causes greater harm.
Dave,
That is SO subjective. One person’s “undermining distrust” toward leadership is another person’s “noble constructive suggestion.”
I can assure you, every time I have ever raised a concern about SBC entity leaders or trustees, my goal has ALWAYS been the noble desire to improve the SBC by making it better and more transparently responsive to its members.
I can hear you already: “No, Rick, you cross the line, engaging in nothing other than sheer criticism.” But that’s just your subjective opinion, Dave. Like noses, we all have them. My line is not your line.
I do agree with your statement: “Trust is not unlimited, but if it is absent, the SBC system is in trouble.” I would simply add: “It IS absent, and the SBC system IS in trouble.” (If you have to tell people to trust the trustees, it means they already don’t.)
Suffice it to say that my subjective opinion of the nature and character of your work is very different from your subjective opinion of that work .
I am going to add a female perspective of a church member whose church has a long trail of ‘covered up sin’ departures: you are absolutely kidding yourselves. Nothing is covered up. The truth will out — or some grapevine version of it. Those who know the truth are stuck with the weight of it, while the offender moves on. Those who learn of it later are robbed of many, many opportunities: to forgive; to prepare their families, staffs, whomever; to teach and correct others; to stop harmful rumors with truth; to avoid vehement yet ignorant denials of the leader’s sin; to comfort the afflicted; I could go on.
Also, saying “I have sinned” without naming the sin is completely ineffective. I strongly believe that that is NOT a confession. It is like saying “I am human and fall short of the glory of God.” I believe it demonstrates a lack of repentance, and/or a desire by some to ‘save face.’ I have seen this kind of confession HARM the institutions, families & children it purports to protect.
Only the truth can set you free, and stand the test of time. Name the sin publicly! And whether it is a one time fall or a practice of sin. Prurient details are not necessary – although it would be good to fully confess to a VERY trusted accountability partner.
I am watching this on the ground. I’m telling you: if you want your other leaders to feel betrayed; if you want to prolong & complicate the offender’s restoration & his/her family’s recovery; if you want to give Satan opportunity to fill in the gaps with gossip, speculation, lies & blame; if you want to absolutely turn off the young people in your church; if you want all the beauty shops & book clubs to know the truth while your fellow bondservants remain in the dark; if you want to delay the inevitable and compound the damage; then by all means go the private confession and/or vague “sin” announcement. I suppose it’s one step better than actual deceit, but I’m not sure about that.
Dave, I think you have followed scripture in your comments…..
The SBC will be judged by how it handles this revealing. It matters “none” how it is revealed, because as you have stated, it is and will be revealed in an even more grand way. One does not need to look for this list, it will be front and center on social media. It “is” the day in which we live.
Since the SBC will be judged, she must be precise….and not coddle or sweep sin around the room as she has done in the past.
We will see what leadership really looks like in just a few days!
We know how to handle it….but will Leaders trust God enough to obey? How this is handled will last for tens of years in the minds of the younger leaders in the convention.
Dave,
I agree 100% with your post. Everything I have been saying about sin in the church is being brought to light. There are many more sites other than Ashley Madison that church members know all about and visit frequently. Ashley Madison is only a small part of what is really happening nation wide in the church.
I’ve had things said to me like: you can’t talk about the bride of Christ that way, I have been called a brow beater and a lot of other things. I don’t care what I’m called, the sin problem is real. The hackers may be the best thing that has ever happened to the church.
People simply will not confess their sin unless their name is called. I think the list should be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
I do appreciate Dave’s stance on the issues.
Dave,
I needed to read this post today. I think William’s question is at the root of it. If the trustees don’t stand for truth then what is the next biblical step to take? Treat the trustees as if they are your brother and start over with Matt 18? Easier said than done. This particular board is loaded with SBC stalwarts.
Dave,
Another way to think about this dilemma is the opportunity that has presented itself for these individuals, employed in this game of deceit, are being offered a clear path to repentance. The consequences of their actions may be losing a job, or losing some pride, and dealing with the others that they have deceived within their own families and their church family.
Will those that got caught up in this wayward mission, be mainly sorry they got caught, or will they enjoy the freedom that repentance will bring them in the long run. My prayer is that their relationship with Christ is rekindled, and they seize the opportunity to run headlong back into the arms of Christ.
Those that have a hand at employing them within the SBC entities have a difficult, but important task. They too must be clear and precise for the sake of those individuals caught up in infidelity. I think it is important to pray for those decision makers at the SBC entities …..that they will make sound and wise decisions that are helpful, legal, and biblically sound. Again, this is an opportunity for those that lead the SBC entities…. yet coddling, hiding, sweeping, adjusting, or appeasing sin will only harm those that are currently employed in the long run. Rewarding them with packages will not only hurt them, but it will hurt the trust of the SBC. And trust in the SBC is measured by giving….which will continue to diminish. Strong and wise leadership is needed! Prayer is essential!
I have commented above. But I cannot disagree ENOUGH that private confession for private sin, or public confession w/o naming any sin, is a good guiding principle. Most sin IS private. If it was public, someone would have confronted that leader. So you are saying in essence that most confession should be private, not public? That’s the status quo, not a change. For the public confession, it’s “I have sinned?” I’m sorry, but the flock needs to know whether it is infidelity, lust, theft, child abuse, gambling or what. Otherwise they cannot forgive, reconcile & restore to fellowship. Some will rush to say Oh we forgive you, whatever it is! They have no idea what they are talking about, and accuse others — who are struggling under the truth — of being harsh, unforgiving & less than Christian…until they eventually find out the truth. Also, they cannot make meaningful decisions. Committees and groups vote on matters, including restoration &/or severance, about which they know absolutely nothing! Finally, the truth keeps people from blame-shifting. Believe it or not, I’ve seen people blame anyone and everyone, even the victims, other than the beloved ministry leader who simply admits unnamed “sin” and suffers no real loss of reputation or support — maybe even earns admiration for such courage. Meanwhile the family bears the truth…alone in suffering. This is heartbreaking. Please, consider these things. And take care of yourselves, this is soul-draining.
I do not think that much level of specificity is generally helpful. “I have broken my covenant with my wife and family” or something like that should suffice. One need not go into great detail, and such, in my opinion, causes more problems.
What does “confess” mean for a leader, I guess is my main question. What does God mean by it? No one is suggesting great detail. But the ways a leader may “break his covenant with his wife & family” are myriad: abuse (physical, emotional and/or mental, violence, infidelity (emotional or physical, one-time fall or long term relationship, or even ‘second family’ with another woman), pursuing another woman within or outside the church, Ashley Madison, ruining family finances, sexting or sending lewd photos, acting on same sex attraction, abandonment, pornography, drunkenness or drug use primarily at home, anything that is primarily at home. And many of these are private, if by that you mean committed from/in the privacy of the home/family. So for each, the leader may confess either in private or by publicly stating “I have broken my covenant with my wife & family”….?
I just don’t get it. 1) Spiritually, is that private or general confession most likely to lead to full repentance, apology, forgiveness, healing & restoration of the leader & his family & flock? 2) Practically, what happens next? Who decides if he is disqualified (They have to know the sins)? Who decides possible restoration & or severance matters (they need the facts). What about the accountability process (pointless unless facts known). How do you protect the institution from a repeat situation, w/o revealing the sin? How does the flock forgive & heal? The ultimate practical fact is this: Truth. Will. Out.
Conversely, I am aware that the problems created by truth-telling confessions are serious: possible lawsuits, extreme personal mortification to the beloved leader & his/her family, damage to the institution & ministries, loss of funding & support, other leaders may leave, and more. I just keep thinking about this: who has to bear the secrets of fallen men? (including their kids). For how long? Are THEY being honest, or are they joining in an evasion of truth? What spiritual damage, corrosion & loss of power occurs in the meantime, to everyone?
Assume I am the sinner. My confession to God and to my wife/family needs to be full. The confession to the deacons likely would have detail – less than to my wife, but some anyway, especially if there were issues that could embroil the church in legal difficulties.
My confession publicly would be much more general. I believe that is the best wisdom.
Amen, Dave.
I tend to think that sins such as these should be “appropriately fully disclosed” – and the way you’ve described above I think is a great way to define the phrase.
I see. That is different from what Ed Stetzer & some others are advising. I suppose every church will have to decide between this varying wisdom. And much depends on the leader him/herself who, it is hoped, will be convicted & convinced by the Holy Spirit.
I’m not sure that Ed would insist that details of the sin must be given. Can you link to that? Confession is one thing. A detailed account of the sin is another.
NO ONE is suggesting public detail or “great detail” or a “detailed account”!! Not me, not Ed Stetzer. I have clearly disclaimed that approach twice in this thread. Here’s one link; he has a series of articles: http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/april/why-full-and-public-repentance-matters.html
Naming the sin & whether it is a “fall” or a “practice” (without great detail) I believe is a necessary element of cleansing confession most likely to lead to full repentance, healing, reconciliation & restoration of all parties if possible. It is not the same as prurient factual detail. Examples: “I fell into a one-time physical unfaithfulness to my wife; my sin of lust & loss of self control are to blame (& I take full responsibility for the sin in thought & deed, etc.)” “Over the last year I mishandled my family’s finances due to my sin of growing personal ambition & pride, which led to discontent & envy.” “I broke my covenant with God, my wife & you by pursuing an emotional relationship with another woman. It was brief, not physical & has ended; however, it was & is the sin of infidelity which I confess.”
I think Dave’s advice here is spot on.
But there is a piece that is missing,and should be declared from the pulpits and to the media:
Namely that the difference between a born again believer and a lost soul [everyone else] is not that the believer is holier than the lost.
Rather…
But before i finish that, consider that the world, both in its religious and pagan ways thinks that man is accepted by God according to his good works, and damned because of their lack thereof and for their egregious sins.
That is opposite of how God accepts sinners.
Neither are we accepted because we are faithful. For we are faithful at times, and at times we are not.
Rather we are accepted despite our unfaithfulness.
Neither are our pastors and leaders better than the laity. They are held to a higher standard for sure, but they too fall short.
Rather… we should take this opportunity to trumpet the God of grace and mercy, while at the same time calling from both pulpit and media for those who have stumbled to confess and repent [even as Dave is doing].
This is great opportunity to declare the wonderful Gospel of Jesus who came to save sinners and who is returning to judge everyone else who doesn’t turn to Him in humility and trust. And it is only in that Great and Glorious Day that His children will be made perfect. And that day we wait for with groaning and much anticipation.
A unified declaration like the above will transfer the heat off the individual [assuming they repent]and off the church and organization/entity and focus the world on the cross [which they will continue to mock] but it will draw people to believe as well [its the Gospel after all].
Well, does anyone know anything of the 400 resignations that took place Sunday?
Ed Stetzer said it was going to happen – so it must have, right? 😉
Good question…. maybe the predictions of confessed infidelity were a bit over-hyped?
It turns out there are 5.3 mil credit card records. The issue has hit the SBC and other churches. The next round of this scam will be starting soon.
If you enter someones email address into one of the search engines of AM databases names, they then will send that person an email saying they are implicated with AM. For $199.00 they will tell them how much. This is from a company that had a good reputation. They have now increased revenue 15 x.
This is sad on sooooo many levels.
As an FYI:
DHS says it is illegal to search this stolen data. Not that anyone will be arrested for searching IMO. Lawsuits are being filed against those that publish search results.
John K, I agree that it is sad on many many levels. The saddest part is that Ashley may be the reason for the forced repentance. AM started in 2002. A real Stetzer stat may be ….how many confessions were known from 2002 until the summer of 2015.
The church today is in better shape than it was this summer as AM was exposed…along with those fellowshipping with her!
Chris, I think I know what your point is, altough AM was never exposed. They were always clear and upfront about what they were.
I’ll give you the link to the new scam caused by this. So I am clear. It shows how possibly good meaning people have and are creating issues on undeserving innocent people.
http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/08/ashley-madison-search-sites-like.html
John K,…I don’t think we are in disagreement on this subject. As far as the sin….I was referring to the sin of the men and women that are believers and “their” sin came to light as it should when AM was exposed.
I also believe, as you have surmised, that there are individuals thinking they are doing us a service (enhancing the exposure), when they are actually engaged in sinful activities (cousins of gossip). I’m sure they would disagree with both of us.
The AM fiasco has cause some forced repentance. My prayer is that these men and women that have repented, are doing so with the help of the Holy Spirit, and not out of “oops I got caught and let’s do damage control to protect my reputation”.
Actually, John, I spoke to someone in the press (the secular press is researching this and he read my original article).
I asked him this specifically. He told me that the press has a pretty established right to search information like this. And, according to him, blogs have been increasingly included as part of the press.
So, he said that while the law is not absolute on this, practice is pretty clear. The press in America is allowed to research a thing like this pretty freely.
Actually Dave, I don’t think he will be publishing any names his research shows unless they have gone public.
Your looking at this from an Infidelity standpoint. I don’t disagree with you on your points in this isolation. As I have said I work with technology. This increases the scope of the issues when you address Cyber Security and the Law.
I have also said that I believe it is a sin to use stolen data. I have not changed my view.
I have presented links to respected experts in this field. I will let this information speak to those who want to read it. We are all allowed to draw conclusions from facts presented. We run into trouble when we have uniformed opinions.
You are a fair man Dave, and I appreciate you helping me think through faith based Issues. You may not always agree with me, and that helps me even more to mediate and research the issues. Thank you for all you do for me.
Comment from another thread: “I was asked to write a letter to be read to church. I did that but wish I had faced the church. There was no restoration. I simply was gone. The church has moved on but I have not.”
Without knowing the full circumstances of that request it is hard to say- but on its face I would wonder how effective a letter read in absetentia would be for either the church or the apparently fallen minister.
Agreed. But I think that’s a common “lawyer-approved” practice. What is needed is Biblical wisdom on confession & repentance. That’s what we are all trying to get at.
In a situation like this, I am pretty sure I would hate with every ounce of fiber in me the idea of standing before the church. I also believe strongly it is the way to do it.
I would want/need to face the people I had let down.
I believe that the reason to avoid this stems mostly from appearance management/image consultant type motives, not from godly motives.
This seems as good a way to handle it as any: http://bit.ly/1JHmnSw
Rick, is this “I approve” comment posted with a hint of sarcasm or are you being serious? I do not want to make assumptions.
I am being serious. They put the information out there, the guilty party confessed, a ten-month suspension was given, and we now know that even theologians can struggle with fleshly lusts and curiosities.
I’m not sure why anyone would think theologians were above such things.
Rick,
There seems to be a disconnect between “I am serious,” and now we know “that even theologians can struggle with fleshly lusts and curiosities.”
Does that mean that you didn’t know that before?
Really?
Okay, the last part of the statement was indeed light, intended to convey, “No big deal here—we already knew that people sin.” But the first part was indeed pretty straightforward. As far as a public statement goes, what’s wrong with this one? It was reported. He confessed. He was punished by leadership. No coverup. Sufficient detail but not glorifying sin. Yes, I thought it was about as good as something like this could be.
Rick,
Here show it looks:
You seem ANTI-Calvinist.
Then in a reply, You say you are serious.
But without so much as a paragraph break, you make a light hearted quip.
What is light hearted about it?
Don’t you think sin is a serious subject?
I can’t help but think there was some other reason you chose that particular theologian to post about.
I could be wrong and I could never prove it – but past history and your well known bias lend credence to my assumption.
This is absolutely the least controversial thing I may have ever posted, but you are all so bent on painting me into some corner that you put a construction on it that was not intended.
Yes, it is not lost on me that Sproul, Jr., is the son of a well-known Calvinist. Is that what you were waiting for—for me to make the post about Calvinism, when it isn’t?
This post is about “Not Hiding Sin” in light of the Ashley Madison scandal and other similar situations. The goal, in such circumstances, is that we “confess and address but not obsess.” I actually think Ligonier did a pretty good job with it.
In other words, the brief link is nothing more than an example of what this post is about—don’t hide it, be upfront, confess the sin, administer the punishment, and move on with life.
I honestly think they did about as good a job with something like this as can be done, which is exactly what I said.
I’m gonna have to concur with Rick, here, and say that I didn’t see anything in particular about posting about the particular theologian in question. In fact, after the Stetzer piece was brought to my attention, and the claim made about the 400 number, I browsed the web yesterday trying to see if that claim was at all substantiated. I only found one such instance, the one referenced by Rick, although I DID see a SBC college president resigning for an affair, though nothing was said in the article regarding a connection to AM.
You all are always on a crusade to knock Rick for his Calvinist conspiracy theories, and to be honest, I’m almost always on that side of things. But in this circumstance, it appears as if it’s the other side trying to conflate a Calvinist conspiracy – about Rick Patrick. As there seems zero evidence in this case to substantiate that, I suggest laying off the conspiracies (from ALL sides), and dealing with the case at hand as open-minded as possible.
In this case, I agree with Rick about the way of handling things, though I’m not sure I agree with seeing him return to leadership, as this is hardly his first brush with inappropriate behavior. In fact, I’m honestly confused as to how he’s in the positions he was currently in before this suspension, given his track record. That’s not for me to judge on though, as I do not know any of the people personally involved, and have only followed his case as an outsider. Its does concern me that he published a blog post about how to deal with the AM leak with other believers, without choosing to reveal himself as one of the ones who was caught up (even to minor degree) in it. That lends a slightly different flavor to the picture – in my mind, anyway.
OK.
I think they did a good job as well.
Joel, given Rick’s history and propensity to bash all things Calvinist and create issues where there are none….surely one could understand why one might ask him the question about whether he was serious or not in saying “this seems to be as good a way as any” in the linking of a Calvinist caught up in this AM mess.
But I will, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, believe that my brother Rick had no sarcastic revelry intent in posting that. I previously admitted to making an assumption based on past history and that my assumption cannot be proven. However, I will simply just trust Rick’s explanation. I probably should have done that in the first place I reckon.
Tarheel, I agree. I’m no above being suspicious myself, in light of past interactions, but this doesn’t seem like a “gotcha” campaign. As I pointed out earlier, out of 400 theoretical resignations listed as possible, his was the only one I heard about, and I heard about quite a bit earlier than Rick posted about it here. It doesn’t seem like Calvinist hunting to me in this case.
🙂
When you name a high profile Calvinist, Rick, you cannot be surprised that people suspect a hidden agenda in your comment.
To all, we are going to drop this. Deleting this string of comments from my phone would be cumbersome. It is smarter than I. I may do so when I reach my computer. Or not.
But let’s be careful about this business. I don’t know Rick’s motives for posting this – whether he felt glee at the embarrassment of a Reformed luminary. That is in his heart.
But his assertion is correct that the WAY they handled this is more in line with what I called for in the article.
As to the rest, we will just have to let that rest.
The fact is, I wish that our colleges, seminaries, state conventions and churches had used this level of forthrightness in dealing with sin. The fact is that RTS handled this WAY better than SBC schools and conventions have tended to do.
Rick should perhaps be lauded for pointing out that the Reformed seminary has handled this in the right way when our entities generally do NOT.
We let people resign for “health reasons” with confidentiality agreements and generous severance. (I know of 2 specific such incidents in the last year – one at a college and one at a seminary).
We “disappear” people. One man on the Ashley Madison list was erased from existence online.
We deny, rationalize, and excuse. Too much of that.
So, yes, Rick is 100% correct. Reformed handled this WAY better than we Baptists – in my humble but correct opinion!!!
“My humble but correct opinion.” This is why you’re the Voices kingmaker. 😉 You should make this into a bumper sticker… 🙂
“So, yes, Rick is 100% correct.” —Dave Miller
I am going to frame this.
My computer got the Blue Screen of Death when this appeared. Even binary could not compute. All is well Microsoft has the serious system error crash report.
Good point Miller.
I too want to thank Rick for pointing out how our non SBC Reformed brethren at Ligioner Ministries have handled delicate issue this very well.
Thanks, Rick!
I am imagining a group hug will be forthcoming… 🙂
Miller say Patrick is 100% correct.
Patrick has high praise for reform institution.
Targeel will you preach for me Sunday morning because I am sure Jesus is coming for the church today
LOL…..gee thanks Dean.
Since there is no such thing as a secret rapture…well never-mind…. 😉
If there is to be a secret rapture for the church – I too will be gone and not available to preach for you Dean – however – Adam Blosser should be if not him try Alan Cross.
or you could go for the sure fire regular poster to still be here – Les Prouty – since he is not baptist and therefore will not qualify for the secret rapture. (wait he used to be though so he might get grandfathered in)