If there’s anything that’s going to get everybody talking, it’s when a pastor publicly fails on a moral level. This isn’t entirely unexpected, to be sure. And sometimes folks aren’t talking just to be busybodies and gossipers. Sometimes they just need to talk through things to process what happened and navigate the horrible event to which they’ve become privy, even if they’re separated from it by a degree or two. But this is sure: when a pastor morally fails, it rocks their sphere of influence. Hard.
What happened this time?
Recently, a well-known and highly respected pastor and teacher of the Bible (let’s call him Garth, since many of my readers won’t know the man to whom I’m referring and I’d rather not plaster the internet with more mentions of his name for free website clicks) admitted to unfaithfulness to his wife and stepped down from the pulpit. There seem to be other, more sordid details having to do with the tenure and extent and even multitudinous nature of it, but I’ll be like Jack Webb for now and try to stick to “just the facts” if I can. Because whether or not it was one time with one woman or a hundred times with a hundred women, the outcome is the same: this pastor is now benched. Ideally for life. And his family and his church are left to pick up the pieces.
Okay, so another one bites the dust. So what?
This particular case seems to have merited special attention for a couple of reasons. First, the environment. See, this isn’t like we’re talking about a flashy L.A. megachurch whose pastor dressed in way-too-expensive designer logowear and drove multiple luxury cars and had lucrative book deals. Call me cynical, but the exposure of marital infidelity from that sector of so-called “Christianity” shocks me about as much as when I step on a dead watch battery. There’s just no jolt whatsoever. It’s tragic, of course, but it just seems par for the course to me. Meh.
But on the other end of the spectrum, this church was also not part of the angry, red-faced shouting, buffoonery-exalting, obesity-excusing, stompin’, spittin,’ and snortin’ style of Independent Fundamental Baptist movement of churches, where sexual sin seems to be often just as rampant. Sure, this church would have identified as both independent and Baptist, and held to the fundamentals of Scripture, but it was nonetheless a far cry from the sort of goofy and outlandish caricatures of some other “IFB-Style” churches with which I have been acquainted.
In fact, despite my myriad minor (and a few not-quite-as-minor) disagreements with the philosophy of this particular church, I know from experience that this one wasn’t steeped in the same kind of mindless dreck in which some other IFB churches are stagnantly mired. No, this church was quite a bit more balanced in practice, especially when contrasted with some other churches in its same movement (some have called this movement the “HBBC/GIBF” movement. If you don’t know what those stand for, that’s okay).
So that’s one reason it was a bit surprising: the environment. Yes, the church has a polished and shiny appearance both inside and out, complete with its suits and smiles, but (contrary to our church-exposé-TV-special saturated minds) that doesn’t mandate that there’s corruption lurking behind every happy face. For those who know this church well, they’d actually attest that this church really wasn’t the place most folks would have expected a scandal like this to erupt (except for the few bitter folks who sit in front of their monitors all day waiting — nay, almost hoping — for something like this to happen in order to validate their disdain for their former religious associations). What’s more, we sure didn’t expect it from this pastor.
Kind of a kick in the head, eh?
This is the second reason why this scandal has garnered so much attention; you see, it wasn’t just the environment that made this more unexpected than it would be in most other churches; it was the pastor himself.
If you’d asked me any time in the last fifteen years who my favorite “handler of the Word” was, I would have quickly and easily said it was Garth. Every time I heard him preach, it was profound, careful, skillful, and balanced. Even if I didn’t agree with every decision he made, every doctrine he held, and every standard he bore (and I sure didn’t, on all three counts), I considered him to be a serious man of the Scriptures, a man who wouldn’t likely ever fall morally in this way, and — very importantly — the kind of man who, if he ever did fall, would confess and recuse himself from the pulpit immediately.
Turns out he was not actually that kind of guy.
Now, this doesn’t necessarily invalidate the entirely of his ministry, as I’m certain there was positive fruit borne from his work that will abound for generations to come. But it certainly takes a toll on those who looked up to him and reflects poorly on his religion, a concept which really leads me to the crux of this post: After his sin came to light, there were many who said “See? This sort of monster is exactly what the IFB and the HBBC/GIBF machine produces! Come see the dishonesty and sexual sin inherent in the system!” Others said, “Let’s be clear: this has nothing to do with their movement or denominational tradition; it’s an individual failing.”
Unsurprisingly, I think the truth lies somewhere in the balance.1
So what went wrong?
It’s the classic question we ask when we discover the next Dahmer or BTK Killer: Did his parents mess him up? Or was he raised in a perfect home and then later something just…snapped? In short: was this nature or nurture? And for the life of me, I am continually astounded by our insistence, conscious or otherwise, in divorcing those two factors. I submit to you that it is almost always both.
First, to the reality of the nature: whether you embrace Augustine’s view of human depravity or an Eastern Orthodox one or anything in-between, it’s fairly clear that we humans do a really good job of sinning and finding ways to sin regardless of epoch or positions or environs. Since the dawn of time, men have possessed an extraordinary ability to be selfish, power-abusing pigs2 and women aren’t too far behind.3 Fact is, whether we’re born “vipers in diapers” (to borrow from Voddie Baucham) or we lose that innocence along the way, we are all sinners in desperate need of a radically soul-saving, life-altering Gospel.
To wit, the Apostle Paul seems pretty set on the fact that if someone’s life is characterized by sexual immorality, they don’t have anything to do with God’s Kingdom.4 Do with that what you will, but I confess it is hard to reconcile someone’s hidden life of adultery with a life-changing Gospel. Now, don’t get me wrong: even as I sit here and write this, it’s awfully hypocritical of me — haven’t I committed adultery already in my heart at times?5 Would Paul not write me off at times, too? So I say: do with this what you will. But in the end, we can all agree that an adulterous pastor is far from a poster child for a life-changing Gospel.
Anyway, I digress a bit. Back to the point: one could say, “well, it’s because he was part of that awful HBBC/GIBF crowd! They turn ’em out like this all the time!” No, this is the Fallacy of Composition6 in tandem with the Availability Heuristic.7 While it certainly may be true that any given movement produces (or fosters) more sexual deviants than others, you’ve got to rightly shoulder the mantle of responsibility when making an assertion like that. In other words, you can’t just say “this is true” and hope people believe you. No, you instead have to say, “let me demonstrate this using real-world numbers and statistics.” And the reality is, any such demonstration will reveal that men commit sexual sins from the Oval Office to the alleyways of Washington, D.C. and everywhere in-between. The IFB and its subsets do not have a monopoly on sexual sin and scandal.
Ok, but now talk about the other end of the balance
But what if the HBBC/GIBF detractors are right? Is there, in fact, a higher number of sexual scandals associated with certain groups, namely the HBBC/GIBF circles? If there is, then this would certainly warrant the attention of this second section dealing with nurture. Are some folks correct when they use this sin-sick incident as fodder for their attacks on the movement to which this preacher belonged? Is it fair to malign someone’s movement for the actions or inactions of individuals within it?
That’s a complex question that demands something a bit longer than “yes” or “no,” but I’ll nonetheless try not to obfuscate the point too much. Here’s the thing: if the HBBC/GIBF movement at any time encouraged or winked at sexual sin and moved to cover it up at any point, then yes, I think they would be at least partly culpable, at least to the degree that they would have provided either training or some sort of facilitation for a motive to conceal or even commit sin in this scenario. Because moving to cover up sin rather than to expose it and deal with it minimizes the heinous nature of sin and its effects on everyone impacted by it.
But did the HBBC/GIBF movement ever encourage such a thing? I don’t know of any time that they have. Now here’s where I’m willing to stand corrected, since the very nature of hush-hush secrecy means that I naturally wouldn’t know about it if it were secret. But from what I can tell from my years at HBBC and subsequent ministry in the periphery of the GIBF, I was never aware of any sort of endeavor or mentality to conceal sin. Instead, the opposite was true: when sin was found out, it was called out. Sometimes even more openly than a young version of me thought was apropos, to be honest.
So there’s that factor. And — mind you — I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m certainly no friend to the HBBC/GIBF movement. That’s not to say that I don’t like them, but rather it’s pretty much the other way around. To them, I am a compromiser, a black sheep, and so on. But that’s neither really here nor there. My point in saying that is to let you know I have no skin in this game. I’m not rising to the defense of the HBBC/GIBF crowd because we’re just so darn close; no, we’re anything but. All I’m saying is that I don’t know of any sort of teaching or direction to cover up scandal or hide sexual sin. I know that seems to be characteristic of some IFB sects, and I could name a few pastors that I think belong in jail rather than behind the pulpit, but none of them are anywhere close to the HBBC/GIBF leadership or influencers to my knowledge.
Yeah, but there’s more to it
Some might then say, “well, sure, they don’t outright say to cover up sin or hide sexual scandals like some other IFB churches and groups do, but there’s other ways to encourage this sort of behavior, like hero-worship and such.” Well, yes, I think that any group or organization that fosters a sort of put-that-pastor-on-a-pedestal mentality may certainly be contributing to a hero complex that might eventually (but not inevitably) contribute to the kind of pride that might motivate a pastor to cheat on his wife.
But can I be transparent with you? That’s more of a stretch than one might think. It’s actually really natural to look up to certain leaders and — shy of idolizing them or making too much of them — considering them to be good influences and powerful voices within any movement. So while some say, “this could have been avoided if they’d just stopped praising these men so much,” I don’t think it’s anywhere near that simple. Besides, what about the men who have been praised and didn’t have scandal? Many men from Billy Graham to Barack Obama shine as examples of people who had cult-like followings but never committed infidelity (that we know of).
So I don’t think it’s equitable or just to crucify or lambast (or, in this case, incriminate) an entire group or movement because they didn’t do enough to somehow keep the hero-worship down, so therefore the pastors cheated on their wives in spectacular fashion and, well, ultimately, the whole thing should have been expected all along. That’s poppycock, and I would really, really hope that more Christians would be discerning enough to see through this.
I came back to this post a few hours later to add the following, after speaking with a trusted pastor friend (and then seeing Daniel Ligon’s helpful comment below on the way back!): I was remiss to not seriously consider the insulation from accountability that often comes with the “untouchability” of the “celebrity pastor” status. I think the reason why this didn’t occur to me was because I have never considered a pastor above reproach or the need for accountability. This might come from growing up in a pastor’s home, or being a pastor myself for over a decade, I don’t know. But I should have factored this in more seriously to my considerations in this article.
True, Garth may have, due to being a “superhero” of sorts, enjoyed a lack of accountability or at least a false perception of no need for it. And what Garth called “predictable carelessness” in his rather sanitized swan song-address on the way out of his church, I’d probably more likely call “intentional insulation.” Indeed, the “superstar” status does tend to lend itself to a nebulous air of invincibility where a pastor may feel that he does not need or even want the vulnerability of accountability.
So I think it’s a very good point, and one well worth stating. It’s not entirely poppycock to suggest that hero worship can contribute to sexual sin. I stand corrected. But I still think the word poppycock is a fantastic N.T. Wright-style word, and I will use it again someday, without apology.
Could there have been more accountability from the HBBC/GIBF crowd? More check-ins? More common-sense advice to probably not have a whole lot of alone time with a woman who’s not your wife, even if you can’t cite Scripture and verse? Maybe some counsel to not have a secretary who is a woman to whom you’re attracted? Sure, maybe. But in the end, the heart of man is cunning and sharp and subtle and terribly, terribly drawn toward that forbidden fruit.
Hey, actually, that’s a great closer
Consider the Garden of Eden — later called Paradise by Jesus himself. It was the perfect environment in every imaginable way, safe from the “wild and waste” that existed outside its verdant walls. And yet Eve and Adam still rebelled. They still drooled lustfully, glossy-eyed and slack-jawed, over that which they couldn’t have. And their sin serves as a picture and a pattern of what we all do: we find ways to rationalize, redefine, and redraw boundaries to have our cake and eat it, too.
It wasn’t God’s fault. It wasn’t the Garden’s fault. Why, it wasn’t even really the Serpent’s fault — not really. It was mankind. And the sooner we get to the heart of the issue instead of throwing groups and denominations under the bus, the better. And what is the heart of the issue? Why, the heart of man, of course. It needs rescuing. And then after that, it needs guarding. Proverbs 4:23 (NIV) says, “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.”
Garth didn’t guard his heart. That’s really what this comes down to. It’s not HBBC’s fault, and GIBF didn’t “create this monster.” Could they do better? I mean, I guess we all can. But there’s only so many warnings one can give and so many accountability tactics one can use. Even if everybody stopped praising everybody and everybody stopped going to other people’s conferences and preaching for other pastors, this stuff would still happen. And it’s naive to suggest it wouldn’t.
And so — another one bit the dust. Another heart stopped guarding the gate. The last pastor I would have expected to, to be frank with you. But here we are. And instead of looking around for groups and denominations and institutions to blame, the right thing to do is look inward, check our hearts, evaluate our guardrails, and determine to be faithful to the King of Kings, enduring to the end in purity and faithfulness.
Even so, Lord. Come quickly. Before another one of us falls.
- Hi, there. Welcome to the footnotes. We’re really glad you’re here. This is a shameless plug for my podcast, Equipoise, which is all about balance. ↩︎
- Lamech, for one ↩︎
- Jezebel, for another ↩︎
- See I Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Also, Paul makes the same case to other churches in Galatians 5:19–21 and Ephesians 5:5. He doesn’t mince words.
↩︎ - Jesus said the following in Matthew 5:27-28 (NIV): “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ↩︎
- See here ↩︎
- See here ↩︎
Very good stuff, and I’m in 97ish% agreement. Here’s where I would push back. I think this scandal shows a dangerous lack of expectations for pastoral accountability and transparency within this church in particular, and potentially throughout much of the IFB (and many other denominations, to be fair). A plurality of church leadership would hopefully help. Having a church where people held the pastor spiritually accountable in specific ways could help. Expecting that pastor to be transparent with someone (if not the whole congregation) would help. I’m less bothered by the fact that these horrific sins happened, than that he got away with it for 15 years or more. Whatever processes need to be in place to uncover these sins sooner than that, that’s what churches need. No one should have allowed him to get away with the shady things that he did for all these years, and the church needed better systems to confront and correct pastoral failure.
You beat me to the addendum — I was coming back to this post to add a section about the insulation from accountability, and I saw your comment. Looks like you were one step ahead of me on this one. Excellently spoken, my friend!