Pensees: It is Due Process

Deleted by author.

I’m confused, Pastor.
Am I missing something?
I thought your relationship with Johnson and others of GCC’s staff was pretty well established. Enough so as to provide an adequate foundation for frank dialogue among peers and men of God?

I didn’t note a malicious spirit nor lack of due process, but maybe I was skimming. (I like to do that sometimes to hone my blind-allegiance-to-Pastor skills.) Sounded to me like you were merely calling upon some colaborers in the faith to explain an apparent and public incongruity.

Were you name-calling? Were you slandering? Were you committing calumny in any way, shape or form? Maybe I should read it again. Maybe reading between the lines is a prerequisite for sensing accusations below the belt?

From what I understand of the situation, the men upon whom you call for some sort of clarification of their position are men with whom you have established a pretty decent rapport, men who have proven themselves to be thoughtful and gracious and deliberate and committed to the testimony of Christ. They do not seem like men who would quail at the prospect of answering a few pointed questions.

Sounds like you’re being pinned with a bit of duplicity/talking out both sides of your head or something. I know I’ve been out of town and away from my computer a lot lately, but I did just see you in the pulpit yesterday, and I think I would’ve noticed had you grown an additional mouth….

Bob, what irritates me most about this whole episode is the way you have blithely ignored the actual concerns I expressed privately in two e-mails to you, while defending yourself publicly on your blog against complaints I haven’t made (and haven’t even heard anyone else make).

Since you are apparently determined to air this whole thing publicly while misrepresenting what I have said privately, I’ve decided to answer you in the venue of your choice.

To set the record straight: I never once suggested that you had a moral duty to squelch already-public information or to refrain from raising questions about whether my preaching is consistent with my public behavior. You have every right to do all of that.

I also never complained that you embarrassed me or Grace Community Church. I’m somewhat embarrassed by the issue itself, but that is not your fault, nor did I ever so much as hint that it was.

What I did question in this case was the wisdom and prudence (those were my exact words) of one pastor publicly challenging another pastor about the behavior of a specific member of his flock before bothering to ask the fellow-pastor himself if he is aware of the circmstances that have prompted the concern.

The example I cited was this: If I learned one of your deacons had been charged with DUI, even if the arrest were already technically a matter of public record, I certainly would have spoken to you personally as the guy’s pastor in order to make sure you were aware of the situation before publishing a “What is Bob Bixby going to do about this?”-style post at my blog and addressing it to the world in general.

I’m very sorry the reasonableness of that appeal so utterly escapes you.

Here are some more facts that need to be made clear:

1. I absolutely do indeed think there is an irreconcilable inconsistency between a career that involves singing the kind of lyrics you spelled out in your post and a ministry that involves leading worship in church. That point has never been in dispute by me, John MacArthur, or (to my knowledge) anyone in leadership at Grace Church. I made that plain to you in my very first message after you brought this matter up. To portray me as indecisive, unclear, or evasive on that point is inexcusable.

2. Furthermore, no one on this end has ever said you ought to have kept this “hush-hush.” What I and others have complained about is the eagerness with which you first spread the scandal before troubling yourself to check the facts about whether I even knew anything about the issue (because by your own admission you apparently found this approach “useful to demanding attention”—i.e., you were grandstanding). In doing so, you thoughtlessly pre-empted and undermined your fellow shepherds’ ability to minister in a gentler and less humiliating way to one of their sheep.

3. From my first message to you, my only plea was simply for an opportunity to deal pastorally and personally with the individual in question before debating his fitness for ministry on the World Wide Web. I’m sorry you did not give us that courtesy. I’m even more disappointed that you have continued to air your complaint while hypocritically giving your readers the impression that my private complaints to you were something other than they really were.

4. For example, I never once complained that your post “put [me] in a pickle because [you] connected [me] to [my] church.” Nor did I suggest that you “forced [me] into a sticky situation.” On the contrary, I indicated my absolute willingness to answer your questions publicly and in full, in the proper time. I merely asked for the courtesy of an opportunity to deal individually and privately with a brother before you milked this scandal on the World Wide Web in order to magnify what you evidently perceived as a personal embarrassment to me.

5. Even if you can justify in your own mind this kind of public challenge to a fellow pastor (publicly questioning the spiritual fitness of a third party by name), I still think the way you did it was thoughtless and despicable. You made the challenge here at your blog, where you could not even be sure I would see it (despite the fact that it is ostensibly a reply to something I blogged). You didn’t e-mail me to be sure I saw it; and you left no comment at my blog about it. (Someone else did that). Again, it’s hard to see that as anything other than simple grandstanding. It certainly is not “due process,” your protestations notwithstanding.

6. Your post also included some petty and uncharitable personal innuendo about me: “it at least seems like your preaching on holiness is not serious.” Why did it “seem” that way, Bob? One reason: Because you made your own assumptions about what I knew and what I might or might not do in an instance like this—without even asking me.

7. While I’m at it, I might as well also say that I think your public accusations about “an apparent disingenuousness on the part of the elders of Grace Community” were totally out of line, especially given the fact that you know some of us personally and could easily have asked a few pertinent questions before lobbing that kind of false accusation into the blogosphere aimed at no one in particular.

So I still think your original post was wrong. More than that, I think your dogged, misleading self-defense and continued grandstanding are utterly indefensible—especially coming as they do after I carefully explained that although I do not want to debate this in a public venue right now, I will answer all your questions about it once we have had an opportunity to fulfill our duty as shepherds to this person.

Joy McCarnan’s comment above reflects a misunderstanding I think you have cultivated in many of your readers. I have never made any of the arguments she objects to. But for three days running, you have implied many of these things while doing absolutely nothing to make clear what my actual complaint really is. So I am forced to speak out publicly even though I begged you not to put me in this position. That’s not defensible by any measure, Bob.

Phil,

I haven’t implied as much about you as you say I have. In fact, I have said nothing about your email to me or your response. I have not made allusion to it unless it was in a very positive way. I have repeatedly “bought time” for your response, saying that I am confident that you or Grace will respond. Nothing, I am sure, has even hinted that I was getting email from you. There are more people writing me than you. I was giving you the opportunity to answer in time. I have been answering accusations from many other people about their reasoning. You are practically accusing me of answering your email publically and that is not what I am doing. You just said,

So I still think your original post was wrong. More than that, I think your dogged, misleading self-defense and continued grandstanding are utterly indefensible—especially coming as they do after I carefully explained that although I do not want to debate this in a public venue right now, I will answer all your questions about it once we have had an opportunity to fulfill our duty as shepherds to this person.

Phil, I have said this several times in several ways. In these threads. I have not had an official word from GCC up to this point. I have stated in several ways that you need time and that you are going to handle it.

Your email was reasonable, reassuring and clear. I have not attacked your character. You said you didn’t know about it and I believe you. But, in my defense (the second post), I asked why was I to assume that you didn’t know anything about it before my original post. That does not mean that I don’t believe that you are telling me the truth. I have no reason to doubt it. You are making a number of accusations about my character which for the time being I’ll ignore. But since you seem to want everyone to know that you have written me, I will tell everyone here that I am pleased to say that you are working agressively and biblically on an issue that you were hitherto unaware of. I am not grandstanding. I have the right to defend my character if I so choose and I am not the one who made the egregious public error in the first place. You can make this about you and me if you want, but that is not my intention. It doesn’t help you to accuse me of insinuations against you when I have been overtly declaring my confidence in your good character and the way you will deal with it. To paint me as someone who is blithely ignoring your personal email in order to get my day in the sun is flat wrong, brother. The reason I’m up at three in the morning is to pray for one of my favorite churches, GCC. And to pray for you. And Ebner. Call that grandstanding or showboating or whatever, but it’s the truth. I am challenging you to deal with a public problem. That’s it.

You are the one who is ignoring private email. I told you, Phil, how I reasoned that you would be sure to see my post. Why are you bringing up the charge that I was attempting something behind your back when I already answered that to you personally? In short — now that it is public — I knew you would see it.

Again, I am/have not brought our conversations into this. You have ignored what I have said in the threads and are misreading what I am saying in my rationale post.

Phil,

What I actually said:

I know that Phil doesn’t think I transgressed ethically, but this did put him in a pickle because I connected him to his church. I forced him into a sticky situation. I’m not sure that he shouldn’t be in the pickle or sticky situation, but let us all remember that a church is much more complex than the one blog we know that emanates from that church. So, while I am not sorry for asking an aggressive question of some of the foremost teachers in the land about a public matter, I am sympathetic to the fact that Phil can take all the time in the world to shape an answer that will best represent his church.

And what you are saying I’m saying:

I’m even more disappointed that you have continued to air your complaint while hypocritically giving your readers the impression that my private complaints to you were something other than they really were.

4. For example, I never once complained that your post “put [me] in a pickle because [you] connected [me] to [my] church.” Nor did I suggest that you “forced [me] into a sticky situation.” On the contrary, I indicated my absolute willingness to answer your questions publicly and in full, in the proper time. I merely asked for the courtesy of an opportunity to deal individually and privately with a brother before you milked this scandal on the World Wide Web in order to magnify what you evidently perceived as a personal embarrassment to me.

There is not hint that you said anything about being in a pickle. Unless you derive that from the statement that I know you didn’t think it was unethical. (It’s clear as day that I wasn’t unethical). The “pickle” line is is my own assessment of my own action. Rather, you are deliberately painting me to be hypocritically placing words in your mouth when, in fact, I was admitting to having put you in a tough spot AND I said that I am sympathetic to the fact that you would need all the time you would take to shape an answer that would best reflect on your church.

I feel like I’m listening in on a private conversation. For the sake of your testimony, “Could you guys take this outside?”

Bob,

I see that fundamentalists haven’t changed much in the years since I left the movement. You never miss a chance to point out the splinter in someone elses eye - and the more fanfare and publicity, the better. I’m not a big fan of John MacArthur but this was a pretty cheap shot.

Despite Andy’s reticence at “listening in” on a private conversation, this is not a private matter.

There seems to be an implication that no one knew about the performer’s background, lyric content, and associations, etc…

This reality is perhaps more distrubing to me than someone who would knowingly/willfully think that Ebner is qualified to lead worship. Me thinks some folks at GCC are too busy and let one “slip through the cracks.” I guess I find that possibility as improbable as any other.

The “cult of personality” is evidence of our bankruptcy spiritually. By that I mean the near worship of folks like Brother MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, etc…etc…etc…by fawning followers. They are both pretty fair Bible teachers. We have had much better in the past. What we settle for is as revealing as anything these days.

I guess in an age of “handlers” (ad and marketing agencies) of our “stars,” why not have someone like Ebner involved? He stands as subsantively no different in the way he is managed than Ambassador Advertising handles its “clients.”

I think the deeper lesson here is there is currently in vogue a mindset among large ministries that bears a greater resemblence to the Hollywood crowd than they would like to think. I have observed this for many years. Just attend a National Religious Broadcasters meeting sometime for a first hand taste.

I don’t think it’s a particularly cheap shot. It’s a real situation that has been quite public. It is also much more able to be addressed and resolved than many of the more general concerns often aired out in discussion of this nature. Bob has been direct- but he has not been slanderous toward Phil, GCC, or even Mr. Ebner. I believe I understand his reasoning behind taking this action, and I look forward to seeing it in process.

Sorry, Bob,

You have handled this in a a very good manner. Phil has clearly quantified his concerns.

I am a little concerned about his “you should have talked to GCC pastors” as a professional courtesy mentality. I wasn’t aware this was a “boys in the club” endeavor in which we are all engaged…

Pastor Johnson,

Regarding your statement “Joy McCarnan’s comment above reflects a misunderstanding I think you have cultivated in many of your readers. I have never made any of the arguments she objects to.”

My comment reflects a lack of a thorough reading of the comment threads and personal emails that have ensued after Pastor’s initial post. I’d like to clarify for the sake of truth that the opposition to which I was referring was that from folks nowhere near GCC. I have a great deal of respect for your elders and the community there. It is your answer and perception that concern me.

I asked Pastor privately about GCC’s response, because it seemed to me that public remonstrants were empathizing unnecessarily in your behalf. My above comment was not questioning you or your handling of the situation, but the vibes and aggravated commentia that I’d (admittedly) skimmed or heard about. I apologize for conveying any implication that you were whining or unwilling to field frank questions about an apparent and apparently public incongruity between word / deed and truth. That you or any of the folks at GCC would respond with that kind of attitude was far from my thinking, and I never meant to convey the impression that I was referring to you.

On the contrary, I’ve appreciated the opportunity to learn why you didn’t/don’t view Pastor’s initial post as “due process,” and I understand your rationale much better than I do the expressed rationale of others. Your own comment above explains your perspective clearly, and I have read that comment in full. =} And I am considering its full import, as well.

As for others expressing rationale, I owe an apology as well, for, as previously admitted, skimming and failing to give full attention to the threads. When reading any blog, I generally put the most stock in the initial article and respond to it, but since I was responding also to the commentia and vibes, I would’ve done well to read them more comprehensively.

I hate to see any believer misrepresented, especially at the expense of Christ’s testimony, and I don’t want to be guilty of doing that myself. Forgive me for sacrificing conscientious consideration on the altar of quick response.

David: “I am a little concerned about his ‘you should have talked to GCC pastors’ as a professional courtesy mentality. I wasn’t aware this was a ‘boys in the club’ endeavor in which we are all engaged.”

That’s an unnecessarily cynical interpretation of what I said.

Once more: I have not complained about the “embarrassment” of a public debate over whether someone in leadership at GCC dropped the ball. If you want to keep having that discussion, knock yourselves out. That is perfectly fair and I did not utter a peep of complaint about it.

I also said nothing about “professional courtesy” or any “club.” I simply appealed for a little pastoral compassion towards someone who needs to be shepherded. Bob could have challenged me about all of this—even publicly—in a way that kept the third party’s actual name out of the public scandal, at least until his pastors had an opportunity to deal with him personally. That is the only point I have made in all of this. To try to turn that complaint into an accusation that I’m trying to claim the prerogative of some kind of old-boys’ club is absolutely ludicrous. Do some of you guys seriously have no concern for the actual individuals whom you shepherd?

Again, if the reasonableness of that appeal truly escapes everyone, chalk it up as one more major problem serious fundamentalists need to deal with in their own movement.

I’m finding it a little difficult to understand the criticism of Phil’s request to talk to the GCC pastors before spreading the problem all over the internet. If you have a problem with something at someone elses ministry, it seems perfectly reasonable to go to that person and express your concerns and see what response you get before you air your opinions in a public forum. Especially, when your concern has the potential to smudge the ministry’s reputation.

The attitude that “this isn’t a boy’s club and I can say whatever I want” is just plain wrong. Christian courtesy is never out of style.

Bob uses the example of Paul confronting Peter to his face. I think the key here is “to his face” which is not what happened in this exchange. Paul may have confronted Euodia and Syntiche in a public letter but Paul did not have the advantage of instantaneous email and global phone service that we have today. A private confrontation in Paul’s day could have taken years - not the case here.

Phil publishes an essay on “worldliness” and Bob uses it as a launch pad to attack an issue that has apparently bothered him for some time (but apparently not enough to email any of the GCC pastors).

I think Phil’s right on this one.

Steve

Phil,

I don’t believe it is too cynical. And it is meant with the highest respect possible. I love your web site and blog and visit frequently.

I have been involved in Christian broadcasting too long and seen too much not to be cynical. You know Ambassador and its ilk and I know personally several decisions they have made over the years that qualify as truly despicable.

I am not in a quandry as to why the Church in this country is so powerless despite the pethora of good teachers, the greatest wealth and resources which have ever been available to the Christian community——take a look at the people “in charge” and the “handler” mentality. Rick Warren and Bill Hybels are the logical extension of the mentality which has been resident in much more conservative leaders for years. Warren and Hybels are just a little less inhibited about public declaration, that’s all.

Maybe Christian courtesy, but not Biblical injunction, demands that Bob go to GCC prior to discussing publically what is public knowledge…that is within Bob’s discretion I think.

Dr. MacArthur’s decisions can withstand public scrutiny. He is human. He makes mistakes and has errors in judgment. No one should kid themselves. And in the end, this one lands on his desk. It’s part of the job description. He’s big enough to handle it.

Lord give us leaders who can admit when they are wrong and be broken by the true condition of the people of God in this country and our “ministries.”

Steve Gentry,

I am a fan of John MacArthur. I made a deliberate and conscientious public challenge about the public problem. The wisdom of that is up for grabs, granted. But my intention, Steve, was to obligate Phil to explain. I said that there was an appearance. Something seemed drastically wrong. I assumed Phil knew about it and that they had a rational explanation/justification for it. I said that his preaching on holiness didn’t “seem” serious with this contradiction. He had to have an explanation. (Seem and appearances were the words I consistently emphasized). I was honestly floored when I found out that Phil did, in fact, NOT know about it. I completely sympathize with his pastoral pit-in-the-stomach feeling that comes when you are suddenly made aware of an issue that you did not previously known about. Again, I was expecting an explanation. My pea-picking brain couldn’t figure out what that explanation would look like, but when I said, “if anyone can explain, Phil can,” I sincerely meant it. I was looking for an explanation. And I was, I admit, feeling a bit betrayed by the fact that GCC had a singer who sang those songs when I have consistently defended them. Just look at some of the archives on this site and see how I have gone to the block for John MacArthur.

I am sincerely grieved that folks are hurt. My wife and I knelt together this morning and prayed for the Ebners. (After we had devotions with our 4 year old from MacARthur’s book for kids :-))But, in the end, I am not the one responsible for leaving them vulnerable like this. Yet had I the faintest idea that an elder would be uninformed about someone as prominent as Ebner, I am sure I would have addressed it privately.

I understand Phil’s beef. Even my wife does (and she is willing to claw anybody’s eyeballs out that attacks me). We do sympathize.

But I did not take a cheap shot. Nor was it the result of long, pent-up eagerness to explode upon them. I found out about it and, seeing the public nature of it, immediately assumed an explanation would be available and that it ought to be public whatever it was.

My wife and I are encouraged because we believe that GCC will respond with vigor. We are even encouraged that Phil is venting at me (even though it irritates me a little). As my wife says, it’s nice to know that they’re human over there, too!

As I have said many times, Phil needs time to answer. My answers to this point are in response to the posts and email that I get from people uninvolved in Phil’s scenario. Thus, I put the disclaimer at the top of my “rationale” to avoid further misconceptions that I am somehow responding to Phil or anyone official at GCC. My expection is that GCC will perform in exemplary fashion. That has always been my expectation.

Yet another clarification (argh):

“It is your answer and perception that concern me.” ~ me

Yikes. That was NOT meant in the sense that your answer/perception alarm me or are a point of concern, but in the sense that I’d prefer to hear YOU on the matter, YOUR answers—rather than hear others remonstrate about how you might be receiving the question.

Wording is tricky. Sorry if mine was yet another ridiculous detraction from the crucial topic.

Phil:

Who do you mean “needs to be shephered?” Dr. MacArthur? I am unclear on this point.

“Worldliness” ——fashioned after the the structure of the cosmos—-adopting the “cult of personality” mentality seems to qualify, whether they are “Christian” personalities or otherwise.

Tozer was alot more cynical than I am on these issues. You should hear his first, last and only address to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1962—-scathing! And that in a public meeting to which they had invited him. “Worldlings,” as he was oft apt to say, folks whose form, fashion and methods are adaptations of the godless ethos which is a part of us all by birth, must be dealt with in summary fashion. That’s what “the old cross” used to do.

Your implied characterization of fundamentalism is duly noted and mostly true as well. But I do not detect the usual abrasive/dismissive attitude in Bob that is atypical in alot of our fundamental brethren.

This conversation should not degenerate into a taking sides scenario or writing someone off attitude. I hope it does generate a real and honest evaluation of our means, methods and modus operandi——and what truly constitutes “worldliness.” Fundamentalists have alot to deal with in this area as well.

IN the interest of precision and fairness, I want to make clear one of my errors:

FACT: Christian Ebner’s website is linked to from GBI’s site with praise. Updated 12/06 - In fact, his website is only mentioned. There is no link. It seems to be a typical product blurb. Check it out. That’s an endorsement, folks. Update - it’s not necessarily an endorsement by GBI

For some very helpful comments that may relate to this whole situation, let me refer you to the most recent post by my good friend Ben Wright at:

http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/

It is called,” When My Time Comes An Appeal For Due Process”

-Jason

Phil,

Frankly, I’m “torn” in how I feel about this situation, because I think the situation itself is divided in two because of GCC/TMS’s dual ministry focus (local church and international institution):

First, I do understand and empathize with the need to deal with Mr. Ebner privately and graciously way. As you state, that should be the heart of every pastor. All of us are dealing with believers who need to mature and change to Christlikeness. To minister to people (ourselves included) who are battling sin and progressing from immaturity is the mark of success, not failure. This situation is a grief, and I feel sick for him that this has to be dealt with. I will pray with you that it leads to his growth and not his ruin. In that sense, his mistake is a private, pastoral matter.

But this is also a public, institutional matter. It is public because GCC has made Mr. Ebner’s ministry public, both in your community and nationally (internationally?) by your endorsement of him (in meetings, by selling his disc, by directing people to his website, by promoting him in GCC materials). It is public because the inconsistency of his work and website is public. It is institutional because GCC teaches thousands of pastors how to pastor, and has made a very unfortunate mistake. Please understand, we all make mistakes…these very kinds of mistakes. But not all of us influence thousands, and not all of us promote a man’s ministry to thousands. This part of the issue is public and needs to be addressed in public — and that’s not Bob’s fault or even Mr. Ebner’s. It’s GCC’s.

(There is a sense in which Mr. Ebner should have been “protected” from this by his spiritual leadership. Bob didn’t put him in this very unfortunate and embarrassing position.)

I believe that your hypothetical analogy of Bob’s “DUI deacon” breaks down for a couple of reasons: (1) Bob’s deacon hasn’t been promoted far and wide by his church and its seminary. If his influence has been “in-house,” the correction can be “in-house.” (2) Perhaps more importantly, Bob’s deacon became involved in a situation that was an “event,” or more probably a “habit,” but not a profession. It’s like the difference between a premeditated crime and a crime of passion. A more fitting illustration would be that Bob’s church has a deacon who has for years owned an on-line liquor store…one that he publicized himself in conjunction with his other spiritual endeavors, and one to which Bob’s church (!)directed people from their own website. (I hope that distinction makes sense.) The point is, the errors of Mr. Ebner and of GCC were perpetual and public, not occasional and private.

As pastors, you need to deal with Mr. Ebner about his mistake privately. And that’s not our business. But as teachers and as a national voice, you need to deal with your own (corporate) mistake publicly.

GCC has made an unfortunate mistake, perhaps owing to a broader philosophical error. (That question is at least worthy of your consideration.) At any rate, it is a mistake. You have (kind of) admitted as much. Were you to address it that way, I think the issue would be resolved, at least outside of GCC. IMO, something like this could end the entire discussion:

“We have made a mistake with regards to our promotion of Mr. Ebner’s music ministry. We are working with him in private as his pastors, and we are praying that this will result in his growth toward Christlikeness.

However, we also realize that this error extends beyond our own local church because of our promotion of Mr. Ebner. That is our error, not his. We apologize, and we want everyone to understand that (1) we do not endorse the kind of entertainment Mr. Ebner has been involved in, and (2) we do not believe that one can “compartmentalize” worldly living and godly ministry. We apologize for not being more careful in this matter.”

____________

In closing, my bringing up your treatment of fundamentalism was poorly timed. I stand by my concerns, but I didn’t need to muddy the waters, especially when you are dealing with this situation. It was poor judgment on my part, and I apologize.