The second half of the podcast by Julie Roys: "What Happened at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Part 2". Various reflections on not only the podcast itself, but also the primary source documents that are linked at the bottom.
The reconciliation meeting
1) Dr. Naselli* says that he regrets the impact of his actions, but doesn't think that he sinned because his intentions were right. Janette rightly points out that sins can be intentional or unintentional, so a lack of intent doesn't absolve him of guilt.
Everyone agrees that the seriousness of a person's sin is dependent upon whether or not that person intends the action, so Dr. Naselli's lack of intent to harm does mitigate his responsibility in small measure, but it doesn't absolve him of guilt entirely or responsibility to set things right. He uses an analogy of hitting the gas and reversing into someone's car on accident vs. ramming a car. Say we use that analogy, if he accidentally punches the gas and reverses into someone's car, he has an obligation to restore the car to its original condition and make things whole. His refusal to apologize and seek forgiveness (while expressing that he regrets) seems very much like a refusal to set things right. That's just so disorientating. One would expect an elder (shepherd/pastor/overseer) to want bend over backwards to try to restore, heal, care, support, etc.
2) If you pay attention to the stories being recounted (see Benjamin Lantzer, WORLD article), this isn't Dr. Naselli's first interaction where his words have an extremely negative impact while he claims he didn't intend to run them over. For an elder and a BCS professor who has faced this circumstance repeatedly and is in a position of authority in multiple ways, he has failed to actually learn how to behave/speak/act in a way that avoids misusing power and running over the people who are under his responsibility. His failure to grow in this way is something that he is very much culpable for and responsible for. He has not been acting unaware, but very much acting in the same way after having been told, and told repeatedly, that his actions have seriously harmed people. This is extremely problematic and inappropriate.
3) Dr. Naselli appeals to Jason DeRouchie in claiming that he's not guilty of sin, recounting an email exchange with Dr. DeRouchie where he explained the situation and Dr. DeRouchie wrote back that it could be sin, but isn't necessarily sin just because someone feels hurt. Dr. Naselli's appeal to Dr. DeRouchie feels very much like a power play, as if to say, "I've got these degrees, I'm a professor, I have access to other professors, he agrees with with me." In a meeting intended as a reconciliation meeting, coming in with quotes from another professor (and former BCS professor/BBC elder to boot) seems like an inappropriate step to silence through theological acumen rather than seeking to listen and come to understanding. Even if it was on the "right" side, I wouldn't want my name being used in this way if I were Dr. DeRouchie.
4) Janette says to Dr. Naselli that he told another church member (who later asked Janette about it) that Janette had posted about Man Rampant and uses Dr. Naselli's name sarcastically and she looked through her feed and didn't see anything about Joe Rigney and Man Rampant or Dr. Naselli, essentially asking "why did you lie to a congregant member about me?" Dr. Naselli's response is to categorically deny that he said anything like this, "I've never even thought what you just said." This type of behavior is really concerning. Why would the friend asking Janette about this make this up? Andy could mitigate things somewhat (it's still concerning) by acknowledging, "oh I misspoke, I conflated the emotions behind the motion with a post I saw by you on facebook that's my bad" or something like that. Instead he doubles down. I'm sad to say that I've felt the same experience with another elder at BBC, where I'm pointing out an area that is (compared to the circumstances), a minor concern and really just asking for an apology there. Instead of acknowledging that area of failure and owning his own side in the breakdown, he doubles down and says, "that's not what happened." Similarly, Pastor Kenny Stokes' "apology" to Julie Roys feels very much in a similar vein. Yuck.
17 page presentation to the elders
1) Dr. Naselli is asked repeatedly to resend/correct/recant his email sent to the QSM by various iterations of elders, including lead elder. He refuses every time. If he's not willing to own up to his own mistakes and failures, even when asked by so many other elders at Bethlehem, it is hard to conceive of how this is appropriate. Even if he doesn't think he sinned here, there has to be room to cooperate and work together for the good of the church.
2) At the 3/26 meeting with members who submitted grievances, the Takatas reported that "Elders stated that the Takatas needed to accept that their grievances were dismissed as 'the sovereign will of God.'" This is just downright spiritual abuse - using the Bible/God/spiritual authority to control or coerce. Very very ugly.
3) The whole presentation is stunning. It's wide in scope, detailed, and very specific. I've said this elsewhere, but 30 page letters about other concerns at Bethlehem could easily have been written on so many other topics, and the Takata's experience is just another episode in what appears to be a long running pattern at Bethlehem.
The elders contrasted with the Takatas
I'm thankful for the Takatas and their posture through all of this. They've apologized multiple times for the way that they've spoken or brought things up. They've forgiven Elder Sam Crabtree and Dr. Naselli in response to their apologies. They raised their concerns privately to individual elders, then to the elders as a body, and now to the global church, who should be invested because of the global impact that Bethlehem has through BCS, missionaries sent out, and the church planting network (TCT), as well as its association with John Piper and Desiring God, who continues to give his own tacit approval through his appearing to preach at Bethlehem. I'm sure the Takatas would be the first to admit they haven't done everything right.
I've said a lot about Dr. Naselli in the above, which makes sense because the primary event that started everything was between Dr. Naselli and the Takatas. But note who else is involved but rarely named: the body of elders. Where were they in all of this? They were in the room, a few of them hearing Dr. Naselli's words at the reconciliation meeting, and a good number of them at the presentation. But what have the elders done seeing these things and hearing these things come to light? They wrote that letter to the Takatas (oh man, so many other concerns about that letter too!) seeming to threaten church discipline for the Takata's actions while taking seeming no responsibility for their own.
Three pastors did resign, and I would imagine they did this due in part to how this whole situation was handled (I'm sure there was a lot of other things too). I'm thankful for their courage and willingness to walk away. That is a testimony to valuing Jesus and the truth more than their reputation and livelihoods. As for the rest, those elders saw these things, heard the reports, and saw Dr. Naselli's conduct. They, in large measure, stood by and did nothing, granting tacit approval: this is an acceptable way for an elder to act. They have the authority and are peers with Dr. Naselli to call him out and correct him for the things that he's done publicly and privately. They are communicating what is valued and what is not at Bethlehem.
*The first version of this post named Dr. Naselli as Andy throughout, because it seemed weird to be talking about Janette and Steve Takata with the plural last name or bare first name with no title, but upon reflection I decided to use Dr. Naselli. I've been told that's his preferred name in the classroom and I wanted to highlight the status difference between the Takatas and Dr. Naselli.
No comments:
Post a Comment