Comments on: How to Handle a Crisis http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/ Change Revolution Tue, 22 May 2012 20:38:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: tm http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5586 tm Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5586 <p>I think your first two points play into point 3. They are all important and related to the external experience of a 'brand'. Not only is the 'brand' of that church in full view, but every time this happens to any organization, the brand of the faith/religion as a whole is brought into light. How will the rest, if any, of the body of Christ respond?</p><p>I'm very curious to know how PBC's leadership handling things, internally, with him. Is the church helping him through this period, offering counseling, praying with him/for him, for his family, etc. etc.? Or are they just accepting his resignation and washing their hands of him? Jack said from the pulpit that they will 'handle things' but that refers to helping with the police investigation, etc.</p><p>We've seen how the church responds to the public, how will they respond behind closed doors? </p> I think your first two points play into point 3. They are all important and related to the external experience of a 'brand'. Not only is the 'brand' of that church in full view, but every time this happens to any organization, the brand of the faith/religion as a whole is brought into light. How will the rest, if any, of the body of Christ respond?

I'm very curious to know how PBC's leadership handling things, internally, with him. Is the church helping him through this period, offering counseling, praying with him/for him, for his family, etc. etc.? Or are they just accepting his resignation and washing their hands of him? Jack said from the pulpit that they will 'handle things' but that refers to helping with the police investigation, etc.

We've seen how the church responds to the public, how will they respond behind closed doors? 

]]> By: Phil http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5587 Phil Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5587 I'm not an attorney, but I do know that there are legal ramifications when an alleged sexual issue with minors are involved.  In these cases, what the church can do is limited by the courts.  They can certainly help the family, and I'm sure they're doing that, but direct intervention with the perpetrator is a legal issue and has serious limitations while the case proceeds. I'm not an attorney, but I do know that there are legal ramifications when an alleged sexual issue with minors are involved.  In these cases, what the church can do is limited by the courts.  They can certainly help the family, and I'm sure they're doing that, but direct intervention with the perpetrator is a legal issue and has serious limitations while the case proceeds.

]]> By: bygracenotmerit http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5588 bygracenotmerit Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5588 I'm glad you brought this up, Phil. Your reference to Billy Graham (which I thought of today) leaves me with a question maybe you can answer. This is becoming all too common in our churches. (Last year we had Ted Haggard). Billy Graham never traveled alone - he didn't even go in the elevator alone. So why do we not take this extra step in our churches today? It would prove much more beneficial to head off the problem before one can develop instead of always dealing with it after the fact. It will also provide accountability that most people need. I agree with you that the way the church handled it was appropriate but I still don't understand why we don't go the extra mile. Billy Graham said he took the extra measure because he was unwilling to jeopardize the gospel, his family, and his ministry. So what's different about today? I think we have come to a point in time that we need to re-institute similar precautions so there is appropriate accountability at all times for all those who are in leadership. Not just for the sake of the church and the gospel, but for those who might be falsely accused. Having said that maybe, it is interesting to me that accountability isn't something we hear about a lot nowadays. Maybe it is finally time for the body of Christ to revisit the subject. Remaining Steadfast, Dominique http://anunlikelyperspective2.squarespace.com I’m glad you brought this up, Phil.

Your reference to Billy Graham (which I thought of today) leaves me with a question maybe you can answer.

This is becoming all too common in our churches. (Last year we had Ted Haggard).

Billy Graham never traveled alone – he didn’t even go in the elevator alone.

So why do we not take this extra step in our churches today? It would prove much more beneficial to head off the problem before one can develop instead of always dealing with it after the fact. It will also provide accountability that most people need.

I agree with you that the way the church handled it was appropriate but I still don’t understand why we don’t go the extra mile. Billy Graham said he took the extra measure because he was unwilling to jeopardize the gospel, his family, and his ministry. So what’s different about today?

I think we have come to a point in time that we need to re-institute similar precautions so there is appropriate accountability at all times for all those who are in leadership. Not just for the sake of the church and the gospel, but for those who might be falsely accused.

Having said that maybe, it is interesting to me that accountability isn’t something we hear about a lot nowadays. Maybe it is finally time for the body of Christ to revisit the subject.

Remaining Steadfast,
Dominique
http://anunlikelyperspective2.squarespace.com

]]> By: Aaron Fowler http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5589 Aaron Fowler Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5589 <p>I think a key point to remember is Integrity. I think that people have the biggest problem when a scandal happens in the midst of judgment or hypocrisy. A perfect example is former NY Governer, Spitzer, who took a tough position on crime, then committed a pretty egregious one himself.  Those in New York who were most effected by both his position and his crime felt betrayed. His one saving grace (and the only reason anyone still has a shred of respect) was that he didn't deny it, and more or less "owned up" for it by resigning (granted, he would have been ousted quickly). You spoke of integrity of both Prestonwood and the Billy Graham organization, and I think that something often forgotten is that integrity is an active trait. It requires both honesty and grace. </p><p>I know Billy Graham to be a very non-judgmental person. He speaks to sin as painful rather than abhorant. And I believe I have heard similar things from PBC. The recognition of man's sinfullness, the willingness to forgive and show grace, as well as a consistently honest position is very important to surviving such "scandals". As for why we must scandalize sin, I am still at a loss.</p><p>To sum, Integity, as it was demonstrated, was more than just honesty. It was living the graceful, sin-aware, loving lifestyle Christ showed us when he allowed prostitutes to anoint his feet, saved an adulterous woman, and allowed tax collectors to walk with him. </p> I think a key point to remember is Integrity. I think that people have the biggest problem when a scandal happens in the midst of judgment or hypocrisy. A perfect example is former NY Governer, Spitzer, who took a tough position on crime, then committed a pretty egregious one himself.  Those in New York who were most effected by both his position and his crime felt betrayed. His one saving grace (and the only reason anyone still has a shred of respect) was that he didn't deny it, and more or less "owned up" for it by resigning (granted, he would have been ousted quickly). You spoke of integrity of both Prestonwood and the Billy Graham organization, and I think that something often forgotten is that integrity is an active trait. It requires both honesty and grace.

I know Billy Graham to be a very non-judgmental person. He speaks to sin as painful rather than abhorant. And I believe I have heard similar things from PBC. The recognition of man's sinfullness, the willingness to forgive and show grace, as well as a consistently honest position is very important to surviving such "scandals". As for why we must scandalize sin, I am still at a loss.

To sum, Integity, as it was demonstrated, was more than just honesty. It was living the graceful, sin-aware, loving lifestyle Christ showed us when he allowed prostitutes to anoint his feet, saved an adulterous woman, and allowed tax collectors to walk with him.

]]> By: Aaron Fowler http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5590 Aaron Fowler Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5590 <p>Billy Graham made those decisions as a personal safeguard.  I think that many pastors and leaders are taking it seriously, but I think the church is trying a little too hard to "police" these things.  I know a pastor at a local church had a hard time avoiding alcohol abuse.  He had been an alcoholic in the past, and had been going to counseling ever since.  He was sober, but he struggled.  Word got out after his fellow pastor, the man who he was seeing, committed an indiscretion of his own, and suddenly everyone took it upon themselves to handle the issue in a 'loving-but-strict' way.  Several people told their kids to watch him carefully when they went over to play with his son, and at picnics at least a half dozen people wanted to check his punch for alcohol.  Eventually, he got fed up and moved.  He stopped going to counseling and ended up falling apart for a while.  </p><p>I think you are right, we need accountability, but it never works well when regulated or forced.   We in America have a romantic view of our leaders as responsible to us all, as if the President himself needed to do a broadcast confessional every week.  However, sin and handling it is a personal issue, between us and God.  Not to say we ought not bring others in for support.  We are, after all, a community.  Sin of one may effect us all, but forcing them to take a specific action, or requiring broad accountability may not be the best option.</p><p>Just a thought from a young guy who grew up in a post-grahamian era. </p> Billy Graham made those decisions as a personal safeguard.  I think that many pastors and leaders are taking it seriously, but I think the church is trying a little too hard to "police" these things.  I know a pastor at a local church had a hard time avoiding alcohol abuse.  He had been an alcoholic in the past, and had been going to counseling ever since.  He was sober, but he struggled.  Word got out after his fellow pastor, the man who he was seeing, committed an indiscretion of his own, and suddenly everyone took it upon themselves to handle the issue in a 'loving-but-strict' way.  Several people told their kids to watch him carefully when they went over to play with his son, and at picnics at least a half dozen people wanted to check his punch for alcohol.  Eventually, he got fed up and moved.  He stopped going to counseling and ended up falling apart for a while.  

I think you are right, we need accountability, but it never works well when regulated or forced.   We in America have a romantic view of our leaders as responsible to us all, as if the President himself needed to do a broadcast confessional every week.  However, sin and handling it is a personal issue, between us and God.  Not to say we ought not bring others in for support.  We are, after all, a community.  Sin of one may effect us all, but forcing them to take a specific action, or requiring broad accountability may not be the best option.

Just a thought from a young guy who grew up in a post-grahamian era. 

]]> By: Mary Hutchinson http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5591 Mary Hutchinson Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5591 The press clips I saw indicated that the leadership is praying for him, and helping his family through this.  The press clips I saw indicated that the leadership is praying for him, and helping his family through this. 

]]> By: Bart Breen http://philcooke.com/prestonwood_crisis/#comment-5592 Bart Breen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/Prestonwood_Crisis#comment-5592 <p>I've been involved in a few of these situations to varying degrees.  I've never known the Church to be limited in terms of how they work to assist the perpetrator or the family in this regard.  There certainly may be and should be limitations in terms of exposure to minors and ministry roles, formal or informal within the Church.  Providing counselling and/or providing an internal plan to assist and work with someone as a Church Member and their family when they are no longer a member of the staff is an internal Church ministry matter that the state has no business interfering in.</p><p>More to the point is the PR work within the Church and within the community.  Fail to place an emphasis upon the victims and their needs while appearing to sweep a matter under the rug and the Church's image will suffer within those communities.</p><p>If the perpetrator is repentant and willing to submit to Church Discipline for the purpose of restoration and restitution within reasonable bounds (i.e. a convicted or admitted pedophile should not be involved in ministry to minors, period) then it says a lot as to whether a Church will work in that situation or just extend the right foot of fellowship.  This is an opportunity for the Church to be the Church.</p><p>Jack Graham was my pastor for several years when he was at First Baptist Church in West Palm Beach, Florida.  What I know of him would make me hopeful that just as he had a good plan in place to respond initially to this situation that there has been equal thought and planning for these issues as well.  A lot will depend upon the man's willingness to accept discipline however.</p> I've been involved in a few of these situations to varying degrees.  I've never known the Church to be limited in terms of how they work to assist the perpetrator or the family in this regard.  There certainly may be and should be limitations in terms of exposure to minors and ministry roles, formal or informal within the Church.  Providing counselling and/or providing an internal plan to assist and work with someone as a Church Member and their family when they are no longer a member of the staff is an internal Church ministry matter that the state has no business interfering in.

More to the point is the PR work within the Church and within the community.  Fail to place an emphasis upon the victims and their needs while appearing to sweep a matter under the rug and the Church's image will suffer within those communities.

If the perpetrator is repentant and willing to submit to Church Discipline for the purpose of restoration and restitution within reasonable bounds (i.e. a convicted or admitted pedophile should not be involved in ministry to minors, period) then it says a lot as to whether a Church will work in that situation or just extend the right foot of fellowship.  This is an opportunity for the Church to be the Church.

Jack Graham was my pastor for several years when he was at First Baptist Church in West Palm Beach, Florida.  What I know of him would make me hopeful that just as he had a good plan in place to respond initially to this situation that there has been equal thought and planning for these issues as well.  A lot will depend upon the man's willingness to accept discipline however.

]]>