Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Rasmusen's avatar

Good article. A couple of thoughts:

(1) The problem this essay lays out starts because the Church does not investigate itself. It's not that the Church doesn't have the expertise--common sense and basic morality are enough-- but it doesn't have the will. In a presbyterian system like 10th's,the Presbytery is supposed to do it, and there was something done there, but it wasn't complete. Why didn't 10th pay the Presbytery to investigate thoroughly? But in an independent megachurch, there's no presbytery, no bishop to call in.

(2) Sometimes the Presbytery is corrupt too. Or the church is independent. The Church, capital C, can still help. 10th coul have asked some other local church to investigate, and could even have paid them.

(3) The essay properly notes that the "scope" of investigations is controlled by the church being investigated. They can say "Investigate Pastor Smith", but prevent the investigator from investing Smith's successor, Pastor Brown, when the investigator finds that Brown is even worse.

(4) Even if the consulting firm doing the investigation is truly independent, there is a problem. y "truly independent" I mean they can ask any questions, see any documents, and publish their report unedited by the church. Even then, however, the consultants are paid by the church being investigated. That's fine for the particular investigation--- the money is paid before the report is done. But think about future investigations. What church is going to hire a consultant who got the entire staff of another church fired for malfeasance? The consulting firm will be very tempted to go easy, and to limit damage, in order to get future business.

Thus, if a consulting firm *is* to be used for expertise or something, it should not be paid for or selected by the church being investigated; it should be paid by the presbytery or bishop or church called in as a helper.

Expand full comment

No posts