Jeremy Whitman Lancaster Baptist Church Does anyone know anything about this?

[rsc2a]

ahhhhh, the POMO/Emergent catch-all.  Can we really ever know anything?  Why be so dogmatic?  Can't we just ask questions?  Do we actually need answers, or authority, at all?

Sure we need answers and sure there is authority. But it's not from one guy proclaiming his view is "just the Bible" and everyone else is wrong. If one cannot acknowledge their own biases, they will forever be trapped in them.

 

[subllibrm]

If one cannot acknowledge their own biases, they will forever be trapped in them.

Oh, I just love the irony. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sure we need answers and sure there is authority. But it's not from one guy proclaiming his view is "just the Bible" and everyone else is wrong. If one cannot acknowledge their own biases, they will forever be trapped in them.

I don't disagree.  See, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.


The problem is that what bro. Payne seems to be advocating is fairly Biblical.  He's not advocated for people to simply listen to only the mannagawd and to sweep sin under the rug, but rather to do what Paul says, we ought not to be gossips and busybodies.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The problem is that what bro. Payne seems to be advocating is fairly Biblical.  He's not advocated for people to simply listen to only the mannagawd and to sweep sin under the rug, but rather to do what Paul says, we ought not to be gossips and busybodies.[/quote]

Yes. But it is being a gossip when someone who is considered a leader in a denomination writes a book on transparency, and there is documented evidence of a cover-up by that leader's church (that he also leads) not a few weeks later when a scandal hits? Or is it accountability?

I've always believed public figures get public scrutiny about things they are public about. If they keep areas of their lives private, it should remain so and then they should only be accountable to those in their personal sphere.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes. But it is being a gossip when...

How does the assistant pastor's actions make Chappell a gossip?  What kind of definition of gossip covers that?

someone who is considered a leader in a denomination writes a book on transparency, and there is documented evidence of a cover-up by that leader's church (that he also leads) not a few weeks later when a scandal hits? Or is it accountability?

How did Chappell cover something up?  What cover-up did he initiate?

 

[rsc2a]

Yes. But it is being a gossip when...

How does the assistant pastor's actions make Chappell a gossip?  What kind of definition of gossip covers that?

What?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

someone who is considered a leader in a denomination writes a book on transparency, and there is documented evidence of a cover-up by that leader's church (that he also leads) not a few weeks later when a scandal hits? Or is it accountability?

How did Chappell cover something up?  What cover-up did he initiate?[/quote]

He's the senior pastor of his church and a person made that statement as a representative of the church.  If you're going to reject the plurality of elders model and go the route of senior pastor, if someone from the church as a representative of the church is trying to cover up a scandal, "the buck stops here".

 

[ALAYMAN]

What?

Who's on first.....THIRD BASE!

You said somebody was a gossip.  Who were you referring to, and what about them makes them a gossip?

He's the senior pastor of his church and a person made that statement as a representative of the church.  If you're going to reject the plurality of elders model and go the route of senior pastor, if someone from the church as a representative of the church is trying to cover up a scandal, "the buck stops here".

I agree with accountability in leadership, but it is my understanding per somebody on the forum that Chappell has since corrected the error of the assistant.  Furthermore, it requires a fair amount of speculation and motive-assumption to make the claim that Chappell knowingly told the assistant what to say about the deceased person's former role at the church.

 

[rsc2a]

What?

Who's on first.....THIRD BASE!

You said somebody was a gossip.  Who were you referring to, and what about them makes them a gossip?

There was a question mark at the end.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

He's the senior pastor of his church and a person made that statement as a representative of the church.  If you're going to reject the plurality of elders model and go the route of senior pastor, if someone from the church as a representative of the church is trying to cover up a scandal, "the buck stops here".

I agree with accountability in leadership, but it is my understanding per somebody on the forum that Chappell has since corrected the error of the assistant.  Furthermore, it requires a fair amount of speculation and motive-assumption to make the claim that Chappell knowingly told the assistant what to say about the deceased person's former role at the church.[/quote]

From my understanding, he corrected the error after they got called out on it. And I have no idea about his motives, but I would assume his sub-pastors are learning how to lead from him...or not learning which could be just as bad.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

What?

Who's on first.....THIRD BASE!

You said somebody was a gossip.  Who were you referring to, and what about them makes them a gossip?

There was a question mark at the end.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

He's the senior pastor of his church and a person made that statement as a representative of the church.  If you're going to reject the plurality of elders model and go the route of senior pastor, if someone from the church as a representative of the church is trying to cover up a scandal, "the buck stops here".

I agree with accountability in leadership, but it is my understanding per somebody on the forum that Chappell has since corrected the error of the assistant.  Furthermore, it requires a fair amount of speculation and motive-assumption to make the claim that Chappell knowingly told the assistant what to say about the deceased person's former role at the church.

From my understanding, he corrected the error after they got called out on it. And I have no idea about his motives, but I would assume his sub-pastors are learning how to lead from him...or not learning which could be just as bad.
[/quote]

I followed this back and forth. I understand what ALAYMAN is asking. I also think I understand what you meant rsc2a.

rsc2a, you said:
"But it is being a gossip when someone who is considered a leader in a denomination writes a book on transparency, and there is documented evidence of a cover-up by that leader's church (that he also leads) not a few weeks later when a scandal hits? Or is it accountability?"


What I think you meant was something like:
" But it is being a gossip when I expose someone who is considered a leader in a denomination writes a book on transparency, and there is documented evidence of a cover-up by that leader's church (that he also leads) not a few weeks later when a scandal hits? Or is it accountability?"
(Or at least words to that effect, perhaps not "I expose someone", perhaps "it gets exposed that someone")

You thought you were clear. Truth is, you weren't. Happens all the time. Coulda happened to Tim Christoson. Oh snap. What if that was what happened to Tim Christoson, and Paul Chappell had to clarify it the next day? Well that would mean... I'll let you make up your mind what that would mean.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Brian/Texas Tumbleweed ~

Nice to learn more about you, though I am sorry for the breakup of your marriage, as I always am in such situations.

I agree with you on everything you said, especially "let's bury this thing & move on with our lives" and "not tearing down a good church that has helped thousands of people".

As for Bro. Chappell "idolizing" Jeremy and "forgetting" Erik?  If (God forbid!!) my son ever killed his best friend, I would obviously & understandably have many fond memories to share of my son and very little to say about his friend whom I did not know.  I've watched the videos and read everything Dr. Chappell has said in print and I see nothing that would pass for "idolizing". 

Again, agreeing with Brian, there are issues here we will never know about, nor should we.  Proverbs 19:11 "The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression."  LBC is handling this with "discretion", not making every detail public which, in my understanding of Scripture, is God's intended way of handling such things.

Proverbs 29:11 "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards."  There's been a lot of folks "uttering all there mind" on this forum, and only a few acting as "wise men" (& women).

Hopefully, we can strive to "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Ephesians 4:29

But if we did, FFF and others like it would cease to exist.

Sorry, Roy.  I just gotta jump in here.

You seem to have joined for the purpose of quieting criticism of your MOG.  Please remember that criticism can be a good thing.  I know very few people at LBC.  I have never been there.  I am not completely familiar with the complex inner workings of that place.  I do, however, know very well the cloth from which the institution is cut. 

I have heard your arguments used to cover a multitude of sins, offenses, vice and crime.  The Bible nowhere tells us to turn the other cheek and allow sin to continue.  Your argument prevents Nathan from proclaiming "thou art the man" and refuses to hear the instruction of the prophets.  Peace, Peace, when there is no peace is proclaimed to us by admonishing us to pass over a transgression. 

We on the forum have no need to know all of the family details.  I have never claimed that we do.  Those are private and should be.  However - PLEASE - do not admonish people to accept what they believe to be sin because their MOG is involved.

Sorry Binaca Chugger, I just gotta jump in here.

This is the type of misdirection many are accusing Tim Christoson of. You are obviously an intelligent individual, and understand misdirection well. You yourself claim to be the victim of misdirection from FBCH, (which claim BTW, I have no reason to doubt).

Here is your misdirection.
You are correct, we are not supposed to turn the other cheek and allow sin to continue. What sin is Roy Payne turning the other cheek to and allowing to continue?

Here is is again
You then go on to admonish Roy Payne for admonishing those whose MOG is in (as yet unknown and yet to be determined) sin, and yet for the vast, vast majority of people posting, (at least in this thread) Paul Chapell is not their MOG in any way shape or form. Me included.

Apparently a bit of history and understanding is needed:

The three R's pulled out of the SBC and went different directions.  Roberson started a denomination which quickly became something else and fizzeld out.  Rice went with the printed word and rallied people in frustration against the liberalness of the SBC.  Roloff completely went off reservation, worked with the rejected children of Christians and fought against the state proclaiming that only he is right.  Jack Hyles combined all three of these sentiments into one group which I call the "Not-A-Denomination-Denomination."  Paul Chappel, though he disliked JH, is a part of the NADD and now seeks to be the new leader of the group, taking them into the modern century.

The NADD is steeped in charges of misconduct, both legal (like unto manipulation) and illegal (see the rest of the forum).  Not every NADD member is a felon or abuser.  The NADD is built on Performance-Based-Christianity, blind loyalty and a prosperity gospel.

Myself, I grew up, nursery through college, at FBCH.  I have abandoned (at great cost) the NADD, though I am a Baptist who believes in an autonomous church and the Bible (KJV) as my final authority (So maybe I am IFB, but not of "that" group).  I am a promoter of Relationship Based Christianity.

Recently, PC published a book.  Motives can only be construed.  In it, he challenged churches to abandon many of the errors of the NADD.  Now, in this story, we hear from church members the same old jargon from the NADD's "Golden" Era.  I have pointed out this irony.

I have repeatedly stated that we will never know all of the sordid details of this case, nor should we.  I have repeatedly asked people in the church to not practice blind loyalty.  I have not accused PC of any crime, I have spoken against such wild assumption.  I have encouraged people in such situations to ask questions to which they should receive answers.

"Passing over a transgression" is forgiveness of sin, not permission for sin.  "Hiding a multitude of sins" (James 5:20) happens by God at salvation (depths of the sea, under the blood, etc), not by Christians to excuse transgression.  When I was a HB punk, I played the role of Hirah (Gen 38).  I saw most of the leadership play the role of Hirah for other leaders.  No longer will I be a Hirah.  PLEASE:  DO NOT TWIST THE SCRIPTURE OF PROVERBS AND JAMES TO DENY RESTORING SINNERS IN A SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS (Gal 6) TO BE FOLLOWED BY MAT 18 CORRECTION.

I do not know of any particular sin being committed by anyone, other than me.  I am simply encouraging others to address the situation in which they find themselves.  God cannot work this together for your sanctification if you are unwilling to discover, acknowledge and confess your sin.  Stop trying to hide your multitude of sins and pass over transgression.  Confess it.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

Tarheel, no where have I suggested Paul needs to be arrested for murder or any such thing. The only person I think deserves a perp walk in this thread is Mark, as the SFL thread clearly suggests. If you wonder if the allegations against Mark are true why not ask Thomas Bish at Heritage Baptist Church in CT or maybe give John Wilkerson a call.

I am simply saying I do not trust him because of past actions and therefore require information independent of him before being satisfied with the issues surrounding Jeremy. 

I have also given my personal opinion that it is extremely questionable to write a book about ethical changes that need to happen with the IFB when you have/are violating many of the very changes you suggest. Supporting Mark's ministry at Freeway Baptist  and lying to the press are just two examples of this.

In the past you have alleged that Paul is the best  the IFB has. I completely disagree. The best of the IFB are those who are running their small churches in an ethical, God-honoring way. Not those who appear to be willing to say and do anything to gain a national audience.

But sadly, some folks just have to have a hero to tickle their ears.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=Roy Payne]I've supported what I've said with the clear teaching of Scripture.  And as I tell my congregation, if you are offended by that, your argument is not with me ... It's with God Who wrote the Bible.

I am constantly amazed that there are those who claim to be saved, but when confronted by Scripture, their response is, "Yes, but ..." or "Yes, but I think ...".

Anybody who says, "Yes, but ..." in the face of Scriptural teaching is not someone I care to listen to at all.

Without apology I say, "I don't care what you think."  I do care what God's Word says and I continue to challenge every Christian on this forum to obey Scripture.

And anyone who refuses to acknowledge that their understanding of Scripture is their understanding and who proclaims "Thus sayeth the LORD" about their own views is not someone I care to listen to at all.
[/quote]

And a big AMEN to that. 

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

BTW I have seen no published statement correcting the lie told to the AV Press.

 

[Texastumbleweed1968]

Tarheel, no where have I suggested Paul needs to be arrested for murder or any such thing. The only person I think deserves a perp walk in this thread is Mark, as the SFL thread clearly suggests. If you wonder if the allegations against Mark are true why not ask Thomas Bish at Heritage Baptist Church in CT or maybe give John Wilkerson a call.

I am simply saying I do not trust him because of past actions and therefore require information independent of him before being satisfied with the issues surrounding Jeremy. 

I have also given my personal opinion that it is extremely questionable to write a book about ethical changes that need to happen with the IFB when you have/are violating many of the very changes you suggest. Supporting Mark's ministry at Freeway Baptist  and lying to the press are just two examples of this.

In the past you have alleged that Paul is the best  the IFB has. I completely disagree. The best of the IFB are those who are running their small churches in an ethical, God-honoring way. Not those who appear to be willing to say and do anything to gain a national audience.

But sadly, some folks just have to have a hero to tickle their ears.

Amazed by Grace.  So you do not trust Paul Chappell to be your Pastor.  Great!!!  No problem it is a free country.  Why tear a man apart because his family members did some really bad things.  I agree Mark should be in Jail.  These are not Paul's crimes.  Paul has done a great job leading his ministry.  Why tear a good man down that is doing a good work.  If you do not like what he is doing you do not have to support him. I never post on these sites but I consider Paul Chappell a Good Man and  a Good Pastor.  As someone who was a member at LBC for many years I can say he does a great job.  As I said earlier is LBC perfect?  NO.  But if it was a perfect Church non of us would be eligible for membership because we are not perfect.  You get behind your Pastor and support them!!!!  And let the people at LBC support their Pastor.  Don't you realize we are all on the same side. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Coulda happened to Tim Christoson. Oh snap. What if that was what happened to Tim Christoson, and Paul Chappell had to clarify it the next day? Well that would mean... I'll let you make up your mind what that would mean.

Careful. Tarheel might jump on you like he did with A&E when they backtracked on Phil.

Never mind. Another argument for another day. Just had to tweak TB. Carry on.

 

[Roy Payne]

RSC2A ~ Nobody is talking about "their understanding of Scripture" ... certainly not me.  I simply quoted the Bible with no interpretation.

As Spurgeon said, “There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is to open the gate and let him out.”  Not that it matters, but I seem to recall hearing that he was also an Independent Baptist preacher.

I worry about people who, when confronted with the black & white words of the Bible, their knee-jerk defense is, "That's your interpretation."  I suppose some said that when Moses first read them the Ten Commandments !!

If you use that worthless argument to support your continued disobedience, you have my pity ... and my prayers for your salvation.  No born again child of God can reject the Word in so cavalier manner.

Matthew 7:20  "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."  Be careful ... your fruit is showing.  (Want to debate my "understanding" of THAT verse?)

 

[prophet]

Yes. But it is being a gossip when...

How does the assistant pastor's actions make Chappell a gossip?  What kind of definition of gossip covers that?

What?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

someone who is considered a leader in a denomination writes a book on transparency, and there is documented evidence of a cover-up by that leader's church (that he also leads) not a few weeks later when a scandal hits? Or is it accountability?

How did Chappell cover something up?  What cover-up did he initiate?

He's the senior pastor of his church and a person made that statement as a representative of the church.  If you're going to reject the plurality of elders model and go the route of senior pastor, if someone from the church as a representative of the church is trying to cover up a scandal, "the buck stops here".
[/quote]Exactly.  Methinks that the papists on this thread, having rejected the presbytery, preferring the Nicolaitine thing that God hates, see any pedestal-propped pastor as above "criticism".

All of this would be solved if we obeyed a few commandments:

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.


Anishinaabe

 

[prophet]

Tarheel, no where have I suggested Paul needs to be arrested for murder or any such thing. The only person I think deserves a perp walk in this thread is Mark, as the SFL thread clearly suggests. If you wonder if the allegations against Mark are true why not ask Thomas Bish at Heritage Baptist Church in CT or maybe give John Wilkerson a call.

I am simply saying I do not trust him because of past actions and therefore require information independent of him before being satisfied with the issues surrounding Jeremy. 

I have also given my personal opinion that it is extremely questionable to write a book about ethical changes that need to happen with the IFB when you have/are violating many of the very changes you suggest. Supporting Mark's ministry at Freeway Baptist  and lying to the press are just two examples of this.

In the past you have alleged that Paul is the best  the IFB has. I completely disagree. The best of the IFB are those who are running their small churches in an ethical, God-honoring way. Not those who appear to be willing to say and do anything to gain a national audience.

But sadly, some folks just have to have a hero to tickle their ears.

Amazed by Grace.  So you do not trust Paul Chappell to be your Pastor.  Great!!!  No problem it is a free country.  Why tear a man apart because his family members did some really bad things.  I agree Mark should be in Jail.  These are not Paul's crimes.  Paul has done a great job leading his ministry.  Why tear a good man down that is doing a good work.  If you do not like what he is doing you do not have to support him. I never post on these sites but I consider Paul Chappell a Good Man and  a Good Pastor.  As someone who was a member at LBC for many years I can say he does a great job.  As I said earlier is LBC perfect?  NO.  But if it was a perfect Church non of us would be eligible for membership because we are not perfect.  You get behind your Pastor and support them!!!!  And let the people at LBC support their Pastor.  Don't you realize we are all on the same side.

Let's see:

Great -ll
good-llll
nope, no man worship to see here.

Anishinaabe

 

[prophet]

RSC2A ~ Nobody is talking about "their understanding of Scripture" ... certainly not me.  I simply quoted the Bible with no interpretation.

As Spurgeon said, “There is no need for you to defend a lion when he is being attacked. All you need to do is to open the gate and let him out.”  Not that it matters, but I seem to recall hearing that he was also an Independent Baptist preacher.

I worry about people who, when confronted with the black & white words of the Bible, their knee-jerk defense is, "That's your interpretation."  I suppose some said that when Moses first read them the Ten Commandments !!

If you use that worthless argument to support your continued disobedience, you have my pity ... and my prayers for your salvation.  No born again child of God can reject the Word in so cavalier manner.

Matthew 7:20  "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."  Be careful ... your fruit is showing.  (Want to debate my "understanding" of THAT verse?)

And we have step 3 in the playbook:  accuse your brother of being a tare...
Raca...hmmmm.

Anishinaabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]You thought you were clear. Truth is, you weren't. Happens all the time. Coulda happened to Tim Christoson. Oh snap. What if that was what happened to Tim Christoson, and Paul Chappell had to clarify it the next day? Well that would mean... I'll let you make up your mind what that would mean.[/quote]

Someone ignoring the question mark at the end of my statement is akin to someone saying "He wasn't a pastor here" when what they meant to say was "He was a pastor here"?