Reflections on "What Happened at Bethlehem Baptist Church? Part 1"

Julie Roys posted a podcast: part 1 of an interview with Janette and Steve Takata about their experience at Bethlehem.  

Prior to sending our our letter, Hannah and I were only vaguely aware of the stuff that had happened with the Takatas.  Hannah was at the members meeting in January where they brought their motions.  She saw how Andy dramatically escalated the stakes with his threat to resign.  We also saw the emails sent out by Andy Naselli and the other elders following up, but we didn't really know any of what had happened behind the scenes.  As we wrote our letter, we didn't lean on the Takatas as a primary source, though Daniel was more familiar with their story and filled in a little bit of backstory, so glimpses of how they were treated showed up in our letter.  

Only since writing the letter have we had the chance to hear more of just how bad things actually were for the Takatas.  It is really stunning how Andy, an elder at Bethlehem, would so unfairly criticize a fellow believer and a member of his church to fellow elders.  In my mind, his criticism was not only unfair, but way out of bounds for any believer, let alone an elder of the church.  It gave us a new understanding and sympathy for why so many people were so deeply concerned, both by the actions at the QSM (which we were), but also by what followed afterwards (which we were totally unaware of).  

I was particularly saddened by the letter Andy sent to the elders was (it's included at the bottom of the page with the podcast).  In it, not only does Andy bad-mouth the Takatas along with a number of other people at Bethlehem and criticizes them for (according to Andy) pushing the church to adopt a "progressive worldly agenda," but he does so without a single conversation with the Takatas.  Instead, he reads into their motives ("I sensed where it was going" - ie to progressive worldliness), claims to know the attitudes ("too easily hurt"), says she's "disrespectful to the elders," and claims she's made "recurring divisive statements."  All of this in the context of a motion asking BBC to clarify ("separate") that Joe Rigney (and Doug Wilson) don't speak for BBC.  Vote up or vote down, progressive or liberal, none of his characterizations are anywhere close to what was happening with the motion.  

What is particularly shocking to me is that the elders have this email in their inboxes.  Yet, when they received grievances from members about Andy Naselli's actions and words (both in the January QSM and in conversations following), and they decided to dismiss them all as either not true or not substantial, claiming that his words, while possibly poorly put, didn't rise to the point of disqualifying.  Yet, here is another massive data point, very much in line with what the grievances were alleging - conduct unbecoming an elder.  Is this type of language and character assassination just in the category of "normative sin" and just a verbal misstep as some elders have described it?  Andy isn't being vague, evasive, or misspeaking.  He said similar thoughts in the BCS meeting and in his interview with World Magazine ("highly reactive people who are virtually unappeasable").  

As we're discovering, there's far more to the story at Bethlehem than most know.  Sadly enough, the elders know about all of it.  So many people have spoken up, thinking, "oh if A and B were aware, then they'd help fix all of this."  Many tears have been shed when the exact opposite has happened and they've discovered "A and B are actually aware and choosing to do nothing."  Yikes.