Dallas Theological Seminary Makes A Horrible Choice!

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
God forgives sinners. But God also sets high standards of conduct for elders. This man violated that standard, and though forgiven by God and man should never have been allowed back into seminary.

The problem with seminaries today is the feeble excuse that the church ordains, calls, etc.

If a man is known to have committed the sin of perversion with a child, he is no longer qualified to train in a seminary.

DTS failed miserably, and not just in hindsight!

Paul, this is a situation that you should view with fear and trembling. There are real child molesters in the church but there are also many false accusations. At a point in time, there may have been a real doubt as to whether this guy was guilty. We are arguing without having the complete story.

Have you ever considered how you would defend yourself or your ministry from a charge of child molestation? Of course, you could simply tell the truth and deny it. But who would believe you? People do have axes to grind and pastors are falsely accused. What plans and procedures do you have for handling a child sexual abuse case—either false or true? Do you have policies and a manual proscribing procedures to prevent charges of sexual abuse against your church workers? How do you handle yourself to forestall false charges? Do you have a prevention program in place? Perhaps you should hire me as a consultant to set up such a program in your ministry. I do this, you know? (My consulting fee is a reasonable $750 per day plus expenses including food, lodging and travel. I can do it in three days including plan, staff training and manuals.)

Here you are cussing DTS for their malfeasance, negligence, lack of foresight or just plain blundering and I would wager that you have no preventative program or plan in your own ministry. Would you know what to do? Let’s get our own houses in order first. Fact is that you and the others don’t know what they would have done in DTS’s situation. Somehow, I fail to perceive a sinister motivation on their part. Personally, I think they found themselves in a hot situation that they didn’t know how to handle. It could happen to you or any one. And you really don’t know what you would do until you’re there. I’ve seen savvy guys do really dumb things in the pressure cooker.


Paul, please be patient and understanding in my singling out your post. You are by no means the worst or most vehement critic. It is just that you and I have clashed sabers before and I feel as if I know you somewhat. So, I figured you were strong enough and sensible enough to take the thrust and let me make my point to the whole bunch. Thanks, buddy.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
That is unrealistic when the ones who actually know are covering it up.

Joseph Botwinick

God sees and knows. I believe in a righteous, holy, just and all-knowing God Who will judge and do righteously. God will judge.

 

[Broadus]

The gospel ministry is the highest of callings, with that I'm sure we all agree. The highest of callings requires the highest of standards, as Paul delineates in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. That an elder is to be "blameless" or "above reproach" indicates that standards are required which are not required for other church members. Consequently, the incident with restoring the repentant man in 2 Corinthians is not applicable. A repentant sinner is to be restored to the fellowship but not necessarily to the ministry.

Being "blameless" or "above reproach" does not, of course, require sinlessness. Who would qualify? Hiebert, in his commentary on Titus in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, explains: "'An elder must be blameless' marks the basic qualification, demanding an irreproachable reputation in the community. The original, 'if anyone is blameless,' does not imply doubt but rather assumes that the fact is established."

If it was established that the DTS student did commit child molestation, at the very least a school established for the training of ministers should have never readmitted the expelled student. If one argues that DTS should have readmitted the student after repentance and counseling on the basis of forgiveness and restoration, would one go on to argue that after the now-admitted molestor serves his sentence he could be restored again to the ministry?

Again, I'm not getting into allegations of cover-up or whatever. I am responding to what I perceive a minimizing of the requirements for the ministry.

Off topic---Paid, aren't you in (or around) Greenville? If you come buzzing down I-385 and I-26 and have a little extra time, why don't you stop by for a visit?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[preachinjesus]

couple of quick hits here:

1. none of us know the inside story so right now there is a lot of gossiping going on right here

2. most every seminary I know of relies on churches to send "qualified and vetted" candidates to them. The seminaries can't know every single student as intimately as their local church does.

3. I wonder what would happen if we approached evangelism with the same zeal that is seen in this thread in ragging against a seminary

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
God forgives sinners. But God also sets high standards of conduct for elders. This man violated that standard, and though forgiven by God and man should never have been allowed back into seminary.

The problem with seminaries today is the feeble excuse that the church ordains, calls, etc.

If a man is known to have committed the sin of perversion with a child, he is no longer qualified to train in a seminary.

DTS failed miserably, and not just in hindsight!

Paul, this is a situation that you should view with fear and trembling. There are real child molesters in the church but there are also many false accusations. At a point in time, there may have been a real doubt as to whether this guy was guilty. We are arguing without having the complete story.

Have you ever considered how you would defend yourself or your ministry from a charge of child molestation? Of course, you could simply tell the truth and deny it. But who would believe you? People do have axes to grind and pastors are falsely accused. What plans and procedures do you have for handling a child sexual abuse case—either false or true? Do you have policies and a manual proscribing procedures to prevent charges of sexual abuse against your church workers? How do you handle yourself to forestall false charges? Do you have a prevention program in place? Perhaps you should hire me as a consultant to set up such a program in your ministry. I do this, you know? (My consulting fee is a reasonable $750 per day plus expenses including food, lodging and travel. I can do it in three days including plan, staff training and manuals.)

Here you are cussing DTS for their malfeasance, negligence, lack of foresight or just plain blundering and I would wager that you have no preventative program or plan in your own ministry. Would you know what to do? Let’s get our own houses in order first. Fact is that you and the others don’t know what they would have done in DTS’s situation. Somehow, I fail to perceive a sinister motivation on their part. Personally, I think they found themselves in a hot situation that they didn’t know how to handle. It could happen to you or any one. And you really don’t know what you would do until you’re there. I’ve seen savvy guys do really dumb things in the pressure cooker.


Paul, please be patient and understanding in my singling out your post. You are by no means the worst or most vehement critic. It is just that you and I have clashed sabers before and I feel as if I know you somewhat. So, I figured you were strong enough and sensible enough to take the thrust and let me make my point to the whole bunch. Thanks, buddy. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Paid,

I agree with everything you just said in the above post.

 

[Broadus]

Paid,
I tried to respond to your PM, but BB tells me your mailbox is full. Must be like the top of my desk.
Bill

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Broadus:
The gospel ministry is the highest of callings, with that I'm sure we all agree. The highest of callings requires the highest of standards, as Paul delineates in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. That an elder is to be "blameless" or "above reproach" indicates that standards are required which are not required for other church members. Consequently, the incident with restoring the repentant man in 2 Corinthians is not applicable. A repentant sinner is to be restored to the fellowship but not necessarily to the ministry.

Being "blameless" or "above reproach" does not, of course, require sinlessness. Who would qualify? Hiebert, in his commentary on Titus in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, explains: "'An elder must be blameless' marks the basic qualification, demanding an irreproachable reputation in the community. The original, 'if anyone is blameless,' does not imply doubt but rather assumes that the fact is established."

If it was established that the DTS student did commit child molestation, at the very least a school established for the training of ministers should have never readmitted the expelled student. If one argues that DTS should have readmitted the student after repentance and counseling on the basis of forgiveness and restoration, would one go on to argue that after the now-admitted molestor serves his sentence he could be restored again to the ministry?

Again, I'm not getting into allegations of cover-up or whatever. I am responding to what I perceive a minimizing of the requirements for the ministry.

Off topic---Paid, aren't you in (or around) Greenville? If you come buzzing down I-385 and I-26 and have a little extra time, why don't you stop by for a visit?

Blessings,
Bill

No disagreement here--I agree heartily.

The burning questions are how much DTS knew and when. In an organization the size of DTS, there are bad decisions because one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. Who made the original termination decision? In most schools, it would have the Dean of Men or a senior administrator. Now, did the person making the re-admission decision have the full knowledge of the termination and surrounding circumstances? Furthermore, some data is so sensitive that one office does not pass it to another department. Organizational decision-making is much different from an individual making decisions. We must tak this into account when judging the decision. It is entirely possible that this just slipped by the administration. It happens.

Will we learn corporately from this sad situation? Here are the issues:
(1) Higher standards and expectations for ministers and Christian workers in training
(2) Preventive policies and practices to preclude child sexual abuse from happening and to forestall false accusations
(3) More consistent, candid and honest communication between ministries regarding recommendations and background checks
(4) An attitude of zero tolerance for heinous sins in the lives of Christian workers
(5) Organizational policies of dealing decisively with known sin and wrongdoing

What do you think?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
No crime?

The victim chose to not press criminal charges. That makes it a he said/she said issue, not a crime. Stupid, yes, but true.

No coverup? Then why the lawsuit and ensuing settlement?

Lawsuit settlements are typically done because the cost of litigation in attorneys fees and court costs is likely to exceed the cost of settlement. The lawsuit was civil in nature, not criminal, btw. I can find nowhere in the settlement that discusses an admission of wrongdoing of the school. You'd think that if the plaintiff felt so strongly about the issue, they'd at least demand an admission of wrongdoing from the defendant as part of the settlement agreement.

Pray tell, John, what exactly did this pervert not do that the seminary knew about and didn't tell the churches he went and worked for?

That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is: Why should it be a school's responsibility to notify a graduate's employer of a student's actions? Should it not be the employer's responsibility to inquire about criminal or questionable behavior of an applicant? And how exactly are schools supposed to know where their graduates are currently employed?

 

[Humblesmith]

Somehow the idea of obligating a school to tell every church about the sins of every graduate, and do it forever, is a bit disturbing to me. I'm just not sure how that would work. Especially with a school that graduates, ........what is it, 800 students a year?

 

[Martin]

I am getting out of this discussion. Why? Because I am sickened and shocked that some people here are defending the actions of DTS. It should go beyond question that the seminary made a very bad, dangerous, and sinful choice. The fact that some here can't see that is shocking, but most of all it is sad. Sin is sin and all sin can be forgiven but that does not mean we should be careless and put children in danger.

I am sorry I raised this issue on this board.

Martin.

 

[Paul33]

I agree with Martin.

 

[Johnv]

I don't disagree that DTS wasn't firing on all thrusters by readmitting the student, but that's where I think their error ends.

I'm still curious. Why should it be a school's responsibility to notify a graduate's employer of a student's actions? Should it not be the employer's responsibility to inquire about criminal or questionable behavior of an applicant? And how exactly are schools supposed to know where their graduates are currently employed?

 

[Humblesmith]

I'm just not sure about the logistics of how a school could do such a thing. If DTS has graduated, say 18,000 people in the last 30 years, and another 7,000 that attended but didn't graduate, and 1% of them have known, serious moral flaws, how are they supposed to track these people? Schools don't always give institutional endorsements. Often they're personal, coming from individuals.

Further, all this is hearsay and gossip. We don't really know who knew what, who told what to whom, or anything.

 

[El_Guero]

Brothers,

What DTS did was wrong (IMHO). Sin is sin.

We can thank the Lord that this was not a Baptist institution commiting such a sin. And if they should commit such a sin, they should be held accountable here upon earth (and later before the Lord).

In Christ

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Brothers,

What DTS did was wrong (IMHO). Sin is sin.

We can thank the Lord that this was not a Baptist institution commiting such a sin. And if they should commit such a sin, they should be held accountable here upon earth (and later before the Lord).

In Christ

What did they do that was wrong? Did they willfully re-admit a student living in known sin? How do you know?

There are a number of things that have never been established or answered, yet you pass final judgment.
1. Did they know?
2. What did they know?
3. Who knew?
4. Who made the decision?
5. Was it a lack of communication between departments?
6. Was there a decision to cover-up?
7. How do you know? What do you know?

 

[Paul33]

They readmitted a student who was not above reproach and the rest is history.

 

[paidagogos]

Background
· I am no fan of DTS and I do not recommend it.
· A student who molests a child should never be readmitted to seminary or allowed back into the ministry!
· Schools and ministries should be accountable for their actions or lack of action. We cannot tolerate or cover up wrongdoing regardless of how embarrassing.
· We must give accurate, candid and forthright recommendations with full disclosure as appropriate. (You don’t need to know if a guy got a speeding ticket but you do need to know about DUI.)
· Ministries are obligated to seek recommendations and to do background checks for the people they hire.

Personal scenario (many years ago)
· Holding vague and unspecified reservations, I hired an employee with seemingly good references after being encouraged to do so by my board. (He was the best qualified of the limited applicants.)
· Questionable behavior raising the possibility of a moral issue soon developed. In some circles, this behavior would have been perfectly acceptable but it was not in our organization and it could possibly have led to more serious issues.
· I addressed the issue firmly and appropriately with a warning of termination.
· The problem shortly reoccurred and I terminated the individual.
· Subsequently, I found information that was withheld from me in the reference process and background checks. I would never have hired this person if I had possessed full disclosure.
· I was not blamed for the situation and my board apologized for asking me to go against my judgment, although it was purely intuitive.
· This scenario dramatically changed my management style in hiring:
1. I don’t hire if I am not fully persuaded that all is well with this person. Of course, there is much prayer and seeking God’s guidance.
2. I do references and background checking. I do talk with people not on the reference list.
3. My reference questionnaire specifically asks about accusations or convictions for child molestation.
4. I try to give the applicant a fair shake and filter out anyone with a vendetta against him.
5. I ask the hard questions during the interview.

Too often, hiring is done in Christian ministries on the good ole boy system. This is despicable. We are shirking out duty.

On the other hand:
· Too many opinions on this thread have been offered with little real evidence or first-hand information. We have judged presumptuously.
· Much of this has degenerated into a blame game. Some have pounded DTS with obvious glee. Rather, we ought to be saddened and broken that this has soiled the testimony of Christianity and the One Whose name we claim. This thread has the spirit of a witch-hunt or a lynch mob.
· We are criticizing without offering any real solutions for remediation or policies to prevent this from happening again elsewhere.
· We are blaming an entire organization for actions of individuals. Who made the bad decisions? When we tar DTS, we tar the faculty, staff, students and administrators with the same brush. Yet, most of them were oblivious to what was happening until it became public.
· This type of hysteria bodes ill for the rest of us. Scandal can happen anywhere—in any ministry. With the type of mentality exhibited here, some innocent bystanders will be swept up into this maelstrom. With this hype, innocent parties will not be able to establish their innocence. It can come home to haunt us. It’s the witch-hunt and lynch mob mentality that drives good rational men to irrationality.

 

[Paul33]

Paid,

Good points.

Question: Doesn't it seem like DTS put more stock into "psychology" than the Bible's requirements for an elder?

This wave of psychology that is flooding our seminaries seems to be pushing aside clear statements from Scripture.

What say you?

 

[El_Guero]

paidagogos

During a conversation about what I would immediately terminate any and/or all ministers (paid or volunteer) for. I was amazed when a "friend of mine" said that I was not inculisive nor forgiving enough.

I have a very hugh standard for sexual immorality. In this day and age, if the Church does not protect children, then who will?

In Him

Wayne

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Paid,

Good points.

Question: Doesn't it seem like DTS put more stock into "psychology" than the Bible's requirements for an elder?

This wave of psychology that is flooding our seminaries seems to be pushing aside clear statements from Scripture.

What say you?

Paul, I'm with you on this one but I suspect that you already know what I think about psychology (really more the psychotherapy end of it) and even so-called Christian psychology.

Forgiveness of sin does not mean that one is qualfied for an office or function. David, for example, was not allowed to build the temple and Moses was prevented from entering the Promised Land. Forgiveness and restoration are poorly understood in our tolerant society.

Let's stick with the Word of God.