The Blame/Guilt Game

[RAIDER]

It seems like there are several different thought patterns when it comes to who should take any, partial, or no blame for what took place at FBCH.  It seems that everyone agrees that Schaap must take 100% of the responsibility for what he has done.  There is no debate on that. 

Here is a scenario to consider.  If someone gets drunk, talks a friend into letting him get behind the wheel of a car and drive, and kills an innocent person, who feels guilt?
The guy that got drunk and killed an innocent person?  Absolutely!  He is 100% guilty and must pay for his crime.
How about the guy that let his friend get behind the wheel?
How about the guy that bought the final round of drinks?
How about the bartender who saw that the guy was stoned, yet continued to serve him?
How about the guy who bought the guy his first drink when he turned 21?
How about his friends who had first hand knowledge for several months of his drinking problem yet never spoke to him about it?
The truth is that this guy will go to prison to pay for a crime for which he was 100% accountable and responsible.  Are there not others who will feel remorse and guilt?  Are there not others who could have stopped this?  Are there not others who should have stepped up sooner?  Absolutely!!

I realize that may be a poor illustration, but I hope it makes us think.  Jack Schaap is going to prison for 12 years to pay for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  Are there not others who should feel remorse and guilt?
How about those who saw in print and listened to the blasphemous, sexual teaching of the Lord's Supper, yet said nothing?
How about those who sat in Schaap's office and heard him cuss like a sailor, yet said nothing?
How about those who heard Schaap's preaching become more and more bizarre and sexual, yet continued to sit in the pew?
How about the deacons who sat back and watched Schaap run off a multitude of IFB preachers who had been strong FBCH/HAC supporters, yet said nothing?
How about staff members who now say, "We wanted to get rid of him but just didn't know how"?
How about those who sat in his office and felt uncomfortable, yet did nothing?
How about those who "saw this coming" yet didn't want to be labeled a "troublemaker"?
How about those who lived by the principle "I'm going to be loyal to the preacher", and did nothing?

Yes, Schaap is paying for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  What if someone in one of the above mentioned groups would have taken a strong stand?  Maybe nothing would have changed.  Maybe this disaster could have been avoided.  I know that a multitude of people on the old FFF saw disaster coming (though maybe not in this fashion).  The signs were there and they were bold.

Just some thoughts! 

 

[Bull City Justice]

It seems like there are several different thought patterns when it comes to who should take any, partial, or no blame for what took place at FBCH.  It seems that everyone agrees that Schaap must take 100% of the responsibility for what he has done.  There is no debate on that. 

Here is a scenario to consider.  If someone gets drunk, talks a friend into letting him get behind the wheel of a car and drive, and kills an innocent person, who feels guilt?
The guy that got drunk and killed an innocent person?  Absolutely!  He is 100% guilty and must pay for his crime.
How about the guy that let his friend get behind the wheel?
How about the guy that bought the final round of drinks?
How about the bartender who saw that the guy was stoned, yet continued to serve him?
How about the guy who bought the guy his first drink when he turned 21?
How about his friends who had first hand knowledge for several months of his drinking problem yet never spoke to him about it?
The truth is that this guy will go to prison to pay for a crime for which he was 100% accountable and responsible.  Are there not others who will feel remorse and guilt?  Are there not others who could have stopped this?  Are there not others who should have stepped up sooner?  Absolutely!!

I realize that may be a poor illustration, but I hope it makes us think.  Jack Schaap is going to prison for 12 years to pay for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  Are there not others who should feel remorse and guilt?
How about those who saw in print and listened to the blasphemous, sexual teaching of the Lord's Supper, yet said nothing?
How about those who sat in Schaap's office and heard him cuss like a sailor, yet said nothing?
How about those who heard Schaap's preaching become more and more bizarre and sexual, yet continued to sit in the pew?
How about the deacons who sat back and watched Schaap run off a multitude of IFB preachers who had been strong FBCH/HAC supporters, yet said nothing?
How about staff members who now say, "We wanted to get rid of him but just didn't know how"?
How about those who sat in his office and felt uncomfortable, yet did nothing?
How about those who "saw this coming" yet didn't want to be labeled a "troublemaker"?
How about those who lived by the principle "I'm going to be loyal to the preacher", and did nothing?

Yes, Schaap is paying for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  What if someone in one of the above mentioned groups would have taken a strong stand?  Maybe nothing would have changed.  Maybe this disaster could have been avoided.  I know that a multitude of people on the old FFF saw disaster coming (though maybe not in this fashion).  The signs were there and they were bold.

Just some thoughts!

good thoughts IMO

 

[graceandtruth]

Your post is a great illustration of the problem that arises when a church degrades into a system based on a hierarchy instead of a family of equals with different gifts and ministries.  When we lose the concept of a "man of God" and return to the biblical concept of men of God, women of God, and children of God making up the churches then someone will be willing and able to stand up and encourage their brothers gifted to preach,  teach, and/or administrate to walk in the truth and to avoid temptations.  Someone will be willing and able to challenge what is being taught by their brothers gifted to preach, teach, and/or administrate and call them to examine their teachings in light of Scripture.  When we return to this biblical pattern for the churches we will not have to worry about error or sin going unchecked and our churches will once again be the pillar and ground of the truth instead of the pedestal for would-be-kings.

 

[RAIDER]

Your post is a great illustration of the problem that arises when a church degrades into a system based on a hierarchy instead of a family of equals with different gifts and ministries.  When we lose the concept of a "man of God" and return to the biblical concept of men of God, women of God, and children of God making up the churches then someone will be willing and able to stand up and encourage their brothers gifted to preach,  teach, and/or administrate to walk in the truth and to avoid temptations.  Someone will be willing and able to challenge what is being taught by their brothers gifted to preach, teach, and/or administrate and call them to examine their teachings in light of Scripture.  When we return to this biblical pattern for the churches we will not have to worry about error or sin going unchecked and our churches will once again be the pillar and ground of the truth instead of the pedestal for would-be-kings.

We can only hope that this disaster will make a multitude of IFB rethink the blind loyalty stupidity.

 

[myeyesareopen]

This has been at the heart of my dissatisfaction. There is a strong sense of corporate guilt that has never been addressed. We have staff who are  'trained' counsellors - if so, shouldn't they have been speaking to the congregation and addressing this sense of corporate guilt? Or the new pastor, who is purported to be expert at helping hurting churches? This needs to be acknowledged.

 

[RAIDER]

This has been at the heart of my dissatisfaction. There is a strong sense of corporate guilt that has never been addressed. We have staff who are  'trained' counsellors - if so, shouldn't they have been speaking to the congregation and addressing this sense of corporate guilt? Or the new pastor, who is purported to be expert at helping hurting churches? This needs to be acknowledged.

I agree.  There are some things that don't need attention from the pulpit, but I don't think this is not one of them.  I don't think it even needs to be belabored.  It doesn't need to be an open floor forum.  It could be done in one Sunday evening or even a weeknight meeting.  There needs to be a "we failed in these ways and here is the new direction we are going" type speech.  I believe the church members would respect the staff and deacons for publically admitting this.

Of course, with the legal attachment to this case maybe it would not be wise.

 

[ifbteaparty]

It seems like there are several different thought patterns when it comes to who should take any, partial, or no blame for what took place at FBCH.  It seems that everyone agrees that Schaap must take 100% of the responsibility for what he has done.  There is no debate on that. 

Here is a scenario to consider.  If someone gets drunk, talks a friend into letting him get behind the wheel of a car and drive, and kills an innocent person, who feels guilt?
The guy that got drunk and killed an innocent person?  Absolutely!  He is 100% guilty and must pay for his crime.
How about the guy that let his friend get behind the wheel?
How about the guy that bought the final round of drinks?
How about the bartender who saw that the guy was stoned, yet continued to serve him?
How about the guy who bought the guy his first drink when he turned 21?
How about his friends who had first hand knowledge for several months of his drinking problem yet never spoke to him about it?
The truth is that this guy will go to prison to pay for a crime for which he was 100% accountable and responsible.  Are there not others who will feel remorse and guilt?  Are there not others who could have stopped this?  Are there not others who should have stepped up sooner?  Absolutely!!

I realize that may be a poor illustration, but I hope it makes us think.  Jack Schaap is going to prison for 12 years to pay for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  Are there not others who should feel remorse and guilt?
How about those who saw in print and listened to the blasphemous, sexual teaching of the Lord's Supper, yet said nothing?
How about those who sat in Schaap's office and heard him cuss like a sailor, yet said nothing?
How about those who heard Schaap's preaching become more and more bizarre and sexual, yet continued to sit in the pew?
How about the deacons who sat back and watched Schaap run off a multitude of IFB preachers who had been strong FBCH/HAC supporters, yet said nothing?
How about staff members who now say, "We wanted to get rid of him but just didn't know how"?
How about those who sat in his office and felt uncomfortable, yet did nothing?
How about those who "saw this coming" yet didn't want to be labeled a "troublemaker"?
How about those who lived by the principle "I'm going to be loyal to the preacher", and did nothing?

Yes, Schaap is paying for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  What if someone in one of the above mentioned groups would have taken a strong stand?  Maybe nothing would have changed.  Maybe this disaster could have been avoided.  I know that a multitude of people on the old FFF saw disaster coming (though maybe not in this fashion).  The signs were there and they were bold.

Just some thoughts!

Everything you put in print is spot on! Every single last pastoral staff member under Schaap should be flipping burgers at McDonald's working a real job due to their ungodly lack of discretion. Eddie Lapina should be first in line.

 

[lnf]

Raider, your OP reminds me of Ezekiel 33: 3-6

3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Your post is a great illustration of the problem that arises when a church degrades into a system based on a hierarchy instead of a family of equals with different gifts and ministries.  When we lose the concept of a "man of God" and return to the biblical concept of men of God, women of God, and children of God making up the churches then someone will be willing and able to stand up and encourage their brothers gifted to preach,  teach, and/or administrate to walk in the truth and to avoid temptations.  Someone will be willing and able to challenge what is being taught by their brothers gifted to preach, teach, and/or administrate and call them to examine their teachings in light of Scripture.  When we return to this biblical pattern for the churches we will not have to worry about error or sin going unchecked and our churches will once again be the pillar and ground of the truth instead of the pedestal for would-be-kings.

Just a few weeks ago I taught a Sunday School lesson on the Priesthood in the Bible, and Exodus 20:19 really jumped out at me. There we read "And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, let we die." We have a tendency to want to shirk our priestly responsibility of our personal relationship with God and let someone else tell us what God expects of us. I think part of that is realizing the holiness of God compared to our human frailties. We make a mistake in thinking that the "Man of God" is somehow less touched by human temptations and thus has an "inside" line on God's mind, and sometimes that is because the "Man of God" wants us to think that.

 

[Evelyn]

...I realize that may be a poor illustration, but I hope it makes us think.  Jack Schaap is going to prison for 12 years to pay for a crime for which he is 100% responsible.  Are there not others who should feel remorse and guilt?
How about those who saw in print and listened to the blasphemous, sexual teaching of the Lord's Supper, yet said nothing?
How about those who sat in Schaap's office and heard him cuss like a sailor, yet said nothing?
How about those who heard Schaap's preaching become more and more bizarre and sexual, yet continued to sit in the pew?
How about the deacons who sat back and watched Schaap run off a multitude of IFB preachers who had been strong FBCH/HAC supporters, yet said nothing?
How about staff members who now say, "We wanted to get rid of him but just didn't know how"?
How about those who sat in his office and felt uncomfortable, yet did nothing?
How about those who "saw this coming" yet didn't want to be labeled a "troublemaker"?
How about those who lived by the principle "I'm going to be loyal to the preacher", and did nothing?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes (a BIG yes for that last one.)  I think that covers them all.

 

[Evelyn]

This has been at the heart of my dissatisfaction. There is a strong sense of corporate guilt that has never been addressed. We have staff who are  'trained' counsellors - if so, shouldn't they have been speaking to the congregation and addressing this sense of corporate guilt? Or the new pastor, who is purported to be expert at helping hurting churches? This needs to be acknowledged.

I agree.  There are some things that don't need attention from the pulpit, but I don't think this is not one of them.  I don't think it even needs to be belabored.  It doesn't need to be an open floor forum.  It could be done in one Sunday evening or even a weeknight meeting.  There needs to be a "we failed in these ways and here is the new direction we are going" type speech.  I believe the church members would respect the staff and deacons for publically admitting this.

Of course, with the legal attachment to this case maybe it would not be wise.

That's not going to happen.  For that to happen, somebody somewhere would have to admit that God had nothing to do with it.  IOW, when they said they were acting on behalf of God and His teachings.... they were lyin'.

 

[Evelyn]

I think those are all good thoughts, Raider. 

I also think when this happens in a church that a licensed therapist should be made available to the congregation.  I would also LOVE to hear an IFB pastor say from the pulpit that we ALL need to protect those who are vulnerable among us, whether it's a young girl or a retarded child.  The days of all of us excusing those who are predators should be over, and the secrecy should end.

I guarantee you 30 years ago stuff like this was happening in IFB churches.  If our generation had done more to expose the perps, it might have made a difference.  I hope you and your generation will talk more about this stuff, so your children and relatives don't go through it.

My husband and I had to report something to CPS in our church a couple years ago while we were waiting for our next pastor (iow, no pastor at that moment).  We are mandatory reporters as teachers in the Sunday School and with my husband's church position as youth pastor.  HOLY COW!  When we met with the deacons to explain the situation, one of them said to me, "Now, Ms. Evelyn, I've always been taught that we don't tell stuff that people say to us in confidence."  <blink, blink>  Another deacon who happened to have been a school teacher for some 30+ years immediately corrected that situation and explained that we had narrowly escaped a lawsuit and charges against the church purely because we HAD reported it. 

The old ways are hard to change.

 

[RAIDER]

Yea, and I bet you turned Teri in to CF too!! 

 

[Evelyn]

Yea, and I bet you turned Teri in to CF too!! 

I only turn them in when my own rear is on the line. lol  Or when Snickers are the reward.  'Cause that's how I roll.  Literally roll. lol

 

[RAIDER]

I like how you associate a conversation about Teri with a Snicker bar.