The Christian Chronicle just ran this astonishing story. The full story is from the Washington Post, and it’s a fascinating, disturbing read.
It seems that a Virginia Church of Christ hired a minister who had been convicted of beating his girlfriend’s 14-month-old son to death and who later pled guilty to a crime held up by the federal government as one of the nation’s worst cases of Medicare fraud. He also was twice divorced, both times due to his adultery.
None of the came to light until he led the church in overthrowing the eldership and taking over the congregation’s funds.
Surely there’s a lesson or two to be gleaned from this story. Read the story and then come back here to reflect.
Jay,
That may have been the saddest article I have ever read about a church. Before I read the article, I had been reading the book of Titus. It reinforced these words,"Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us" (Titus 2:7-8, ESV). This article shows how important it is for every Christian to be a person of integrity.
Jay, I have always thought your comments of how background checks and ministers being accountable for their time are right on the mark. However, Christains, and I'm speaking of those who live Christ conscience lives, are trusting individuals, especially of those they believe will put a spark into the congregation, and I'm not sure how we change spirit filled people to be otherwise. But I do have a thought or two.
I recall a preacher I knew personally years ago who could not write his own sermon if his life depended on it. He bought sermon books and preached them word for word. But he was a very good public speaker and a charming man. People thought they had a winner when he came to town. However, as strange as it may seem his trouble making and sexual misconduct would come to light about the time he was running out of sermons; time to move. The irony of all this is that it would not be a stretch to say he could move down the road and start all over.
I used to believe it was a problem of congregational autonomy. I still partly believe so, but I think that a lot of teaching of how Christians should be "worldly wise" is the answer. Jesus did say "Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves". And sometimes that means being negative about someone even when the majority is praising themselves on how positive they are.
The odd thing about the case of this person is that it is not a stretch to say he could easily sway, with his talent and charm, a church just down the road.
My apologies for the repeated last paragraph above. A result of hurried typing.
Should we do a background check before we choose an attorney?
Why does my picture not come up? Now we can't tell the 'Johns' apart.
John,
The bar association does that for you. We disbar lawyers guilty of such things and won't let them practice law.
Jay:
I read the WP article and I feel compelled to share it with the church. Thanks for it
Been living this one. We have been the recipient of 3 waves of refugees from the stricken congregation – left because preacher was fired, left because elders were fired, left because they found out about minister's past. This was a bad situation all around. I met Bill D. last winter and he was talking about his elder problems – very similar to ones I had faced in the past. We both felt his days were numbered and he seemed fine with that. Imagine my shock when things went down as they did. The past issues bothered me less than the rebellion (Preachers when we're fired its time to go, period. Bad elders will answer to God, it is not our job to "save" His flock from them.)
Now, do I think background checks would have prevented Bill from being hired? No, not really. This particular body has had negative experiences with too many ministers and has limited resources so they took what they could get. I think it would however have allowed the leadership/congregation to be aware of potential problem areas and possibly kept the 3 way fracture from happening.
The article suggests that all of this happened because of a difference over what happens to the soul after death. Actually this was about differing views of power. When someone accused one side or the other of believing in "soul sleep" as a damnable heresy I had to stop them and ask exactly what they were talking about. It is funny (actually tragically sad) how we will take any little issue and make it the big issue to justify getting our way.
Jay,
I read the article closely. Harrisonbusrg is only 30 miles from my house. I have driven past that church a few times. I know what happened there is not restricted the the COC, but I am very glad I left that sect in 1971. That man has no business in the ministry with a history of ongoing sin: murder, medicare fraud, and serial adultery. Also he did not understand the polity of the Restoration Movement-"elder rule".
Todd,
A very good point about the past issues bothering you less than the rebellion. There is forgiveness, to be sure.
But it is disturbing when a church, in thinking they HAVE to have someone, asks very little to even determine what kind of history is there and if there has been a change since. If there ever has been a recipe for disaster it is in an area where any scam artist, or "Elmer Gantry" can come along claiming to be a minister, and the small town or rural church, where leadership may be lacking, due to very little training, less wisdom, and a whole lot of ego.
I think there is wisdom in background checks, but as is the case with all tools of this nature, we need to be careful with how we use them. I fear that such would have probably been used to disqualify Paul from the ministry, and he was God's chosen instrument.
This was a sad story.
John,
Could not agree more.
Comydoc, Where do you live? I'm in Dayton.
Actually he did believe in elder rule. He felt however that these elders were seriously off the rails and that he had a duty to correct that. This is what he told me anyway.
True, however you can always explain what is in the background check. I hope no one would ever use it as the reason not to hire, but at least you know what questions to ask. Consider how Paul's work could have been harmed if he had not been open about his past. "Hey don't listen to this guy, do you know what he did?" Instead he used it as an example of grace. Ministers with pasts have the same opportunity – and it also allows them to show it is indeed a "past."
The article states "He volunteered that he had taped it secretly, without their consent, explaining that it was "well held in the ministry" that all meetings with congregants and church leaders should be taped, even without their knowledge"
Is this true?
Todd,
Thanks for the additional background. And thanks for this: "Preachers when we're fired its time to go, period. Bad elders will answer to God, it is not our job to "save" His flock from them."
This is, to say the least, a controversial opinion, but I think it's quite correct. Elders shouldn't have to worry about the minister splitting the church or opening a competing congregation across the street just because they come to disagree over something.
Todd and John,
My congregation is required by its insurance carrier to do background checks on all hires. I suspect most churches have the same requirement. We do it, and it's no secret.
I agree that if the minister has some serious sin in his past, he should confess it as part of his job interview and explain how he's changed. Some of the most powerful sermons I've ever heard were from men who'd fallen and repented.
I understand a minister's reluctance to confess his failings, as many want their ministers to be perfect. But I find that churches actually prefer a minister who's made a mistake or two, been humbled, and feels comfortable off the pedestal.
On the other hand, the preacher in the story strikes me as a very dangerous man who should never have been put in that position.
And isn't it disappointing how easily the church was persuaded to rebel against their elders over the fate of the soul after death?
BurntRibs,
Not even close to true. To me, it sounds like a clever lie told by a sociopath. (I've known a few.)
By the way, I totally support background checks and calling all references and even members of church leadership left off of resumes. Again, I can explain, but I don't get to if you don't know what to ask. I may not know what I need to volunteer – though with such a varied rap sheet Bill should have said something.
As for the recording stuff, I know folks who do it, but it always strikes me as automatically creating the expectation of an adversarial relationship. To do so without at least informing the other party is down right unChristian. Sorry, it just is.
And from the preacher's perspective: give the best scriptural advice you can, disciple all you can, be flexible when you can, a rock when you can't, pray for wisdom to know when one becomes the other, when rejected prayerfully wait for marching orders and remember what God told Samuel – It isn't ever about you, unless you have made it so.
Jay; a question. Do you think that a system, like that of the Methodist, where the minister is appointed by the Bishop, does a better job in keeping the wolves out of the sheep? I understand they and other denominations have their own share of scoundrels. However, it does seem to me that denomational organization does a better job of knowing, over all, what kind of people are filling their pulpits, whereas congregational autonomy, which I know is sacred to most in the restoration tradition, makes small, not well led congregations, good pickings for bad ministers.
I personlly believe that there are times when people begin to question the way things are done because of problems that seem to be out of control, and changes start to happen. The problem of what kind of ministers are filling the pulpits is one that challenges local autonomy. After a movement becomes a sect, then starts its growing pains into a denomniation, does local autonomy really work?
John,
Every system has advantages and disadvantages. Our system of congregational isolation has very serious drawbacks, as there's no way to pool knowledge. Scoundrels can easily move from church to church. Worse yet, elders are bad to give good recommendations to bad former ministers — out of a misplaced sense of compassion.
The Methodists don't much like their system, because good preachers get transferred to bigger churches, making it hard for a smaller church to grow. In many cases, the ministers also don't get to stay long enough to do the most good.
The Baptist system preserves autonomy, because you join the convention voluntarily and it has no authority over each church. But it allows churches to pool resources and work together. Then again, it's a majority vote sort of thing, and the majority sometimes is wrong.
The independent Christian Churches are somewhere in between the Churches of Christ and Baptists. They have various coordinating organizations, but they have less authority than the Southern Baptist Convention and are more easily joined and left.
Every system has its flaws. I'm not entirely sure what the outcome would be if I had my way. But I know we'd be FAR less isolated from each other.
Jay, I sent a link to this conversation to the Elders at my Church and was suprised to find out that our Church is unincorporated and has no bylaws. Apparently this is the case for many CofC in Alabama. As a result, He thought that our Church couldn't get into the legal issues that the Church in VA had faced. I was wondering about the advisability of this situation. For example, if a minister, sunday school teacher, elder or deacon was guilty of some sexual crime, who could or would carry the legal responsibility for that act for an unincoporated Church? Could it reflect all the way back to the individual members of the Church?
Doug,
Yes and no. The issue with the bylaws wouldn't come up in most states, but there is still plenty of room for problems. I'll try to post something on the question in a few days. Remind me if I don't post something in a week or two.
I liver in Stuarts Draft.
My liver is in Stuarts Draft and all the rest of me!
Jay,
In VA, a church does not have to incorporate or have 501C3 status. But it is a good idea to have a set of by-laws that spell out the type of governance and its role. The Mennonite Churches I have been in have a pastor with a trustee board, and an overseer outside of the congregation to settle disputes. I have seen this in action and it is very bad. The Overseer is not from that church and whoever the best BS artist is, usually "wins".
Comydoc,
I'll be posting something on this in a few days.
Thanks for putting all of this together Jay. It gave me several things to think about in the area of by-laws. (elder Cedar Creek CofC Ft Wayne IN)
Jay and others,
I personally believe in "Free Church" withoutincorporation or 501 c3 status, but with a set of bylaws. Also I no longer believe in a "one-man/woman" preacher/pastoral position. A lot of this trouble could be avoided if we adhered to a more New Testament way. I find elders in the NT, as well as deacons, teachers and evangelists, but no preachers like most churches currently have. I was on a ministerial team twice: at a Mennonite Church, and then at a community church. It worked well for those not wanting to be "the pastor". Those folks took the team as a way to eliminate rivals to end up with one pastor rule.
This seems to be a situation of an ungodly minister at odds with ungodly elders. Nobody is clean in this situation. This minister was obviously a con artist who should never have been hired but it also seems as though these elders would have had raging power issues no matter what.
Nobody wins.
At least the elders were right in this case.
Did they have deacons? It is a distrurbing story. It does seem that the elders were a big part of the problem also and should have learned a lesson.
No deacons. Few men who were qualified for church leadership even under a generous reading of Paul's guidelines. And as the smoke begins to clear it appears that no one learned anything except "they won."
I have read your posts on this and I agree with you on all the points you raise. We had two men in our congregation put their names before the congregation to be installed as elders. Seven men came forth to voice objections to these men being elders, they agreed that they needed to work on the areas they lacked in being qualified and that would not impeed them from doing "their job". A vote was held as to whether to install them or not. The vote was taken in a men's meeting and 7 voted not to install them and 6 to install them. They then said they had not voted and when they did the vote was 8 for, 7 against. The church split less than 6 months later
Whatever happened to the attitude that we're all just forgiven sinners? So he was a infanticidal maniac in his past. Big deal. We're saved by faith not works.
"He said the Chester incident was unfortunate but understandable because, 'We never knew he was a dog.'" LOL.
Pingback: One In Jesus » Church Finances and Business: Should My Church Incorporate? (State law)