A PERFECT STORM OF TURBULENT GASES IN THE OMEGA/SWAN NEBULA (M17)
“The discipline of gratitude is the explicit effort to acknowledge that all I am and have is given to me as a gift of love, a gift to be celebrated with joy.” Henri Nouwen
Let’s go back to 2/3/20 when I posted John Ortberg Is Place on Leave After Allowing a Man With Sexual Feelings for Kids to Work With Kids. I Think Everyone Missed a Cry for Help.
Ortberg reportedly allowed an individual who allegedly self reported that they had sexual feelings to children. This person worked with children and even went on overnights with the children. The individual claimed that they had not initiated any criminal activity with the children so Ortberg allowed them to continue working with the kids. (I use the pronoun *they* since I do not know if this person is a he or she.)
Ortberg’s son, Daniel Lavery was aware of this situation and reported it to the church. Ortberg was placed on a leave of absence by the elders and was reportedly assigned to complete some sort of unidentified restoration program.
In the meantime, the person who had these feelings remained unidentified. Parents were to ask their children if *anything* had happened.There is a problem with this “talk to your kids* approach. Unless the parents were well versed in understanding the intricacies of grooming behavior, they might not know the questions to ask the children.
So the relief felt by the church that nothing happened is a bit premature. Has the church offered any in-depth training on what constitutes grooming behavior? In a former church, the molester was adept at being close friends with the parents of his victims. When he eventually went to jail, some parents were upset since they felt he could stay at the church and they would *help him.*
In my post, I concluded that the church was overlooking some potential problems.
Sadly, I believe that it is probable that this man/woman has acted upon his/her feelings. At the minimum, he/she was crying for help. There is a reason that this sort of problem must NEVER be treated secretly.
An announcement of the return of John Ortberg to the pulpit.
The following letter was sent on 2/27/20 to the congregation.
DEAR MENLO CHURCH COMMUNITY,
The Board of Elders met this week and we wanted to share an update based on our discussion.
We recognize these past few months have been challenging. Since our last update, John Ortberg has remained focused on his Restoration Plan and shown great progress. John has appropriately faced difficult discussions with congregants, volunteers, staff members, and elders. In each encounter, John has sought to understand the pain and concerns his actions have caused, apologized personally for his mistakes, offered to make amends where possible, and asked for help in restoring trust. We are pleased to hear the constructive and positive feedback John has received following his meetings. John has also reaffirmed his support for and compliance with Menlo Church’s key policies and beliefs as well as those of our denomination, ECO.
After thoroughly reviewing the input from all constituencies and considering the progressive nature of building trust, and after prayerfully seeking God’s guidance, the Board believes John is ready to move beyond his Restoration Plan and prepare for his return to the pulpit. The Board has full confidence in John as our spiritual leader and together we look forward to him preaching again starting the weekend of March 7 after being away from the pulpit since mid-November.
We will now also work together as a Board and at John’s request, to consider changes to responsibilities that will involve John focusing a greater portion of his time and gifts on teaching, discipleship, and mentorship while we discern alternative means to provide excellent day-to-day operational leadership for Menlo Church.
We are so proud of our dedicated staff and volunteers and the incredible care and diligence they bring to ensuring the safety and security of all who enter Menlo’s doors at every campus. We will continue to look for ways to further improve and maintain the highest standards in providing a safe, God-honoring environment. We will also continue to provide a community where those who face challenging issues can find a confidential way to receive spiritual support.
We are grateful for your trust and patience through this season. Your prayers and intercession for the church, the members of our congregation, our staff, our volunteers, our campus pastors, John and his family, and our surrounding communities have been, and continue to be deeply appreciated. We have seen God move in response to our prayers and are committed to being obedient to his call to reach the Bay Area for Christ. And now let’s look forward together to continuing our mission of helping people find and follow Jesus.
In Christ,
Beth Seabolt
Chair, Board of Elders
I have been told that there is a church meeting on Sunday. If I were a member of Menlo, here are the questions that I would ask.
- What is the name of the investigator? It should be revealed in order for the members to understand that the process was fair and thorough. The secrecy surrounding the name of this person should raise legitimate concerns about the overall process. I have been given told that investigator is reportedly a lawyer. What’s the big deal here?
- The families who had children under the care of this individual should be be given his/her identity. Why does this person with the *feelings* for kids get a pass while the many children and their families who had contact with this individual are kept in the dark? This leads me to believe that the individual with the feelings is considered far more important than the others.
- There is much secrecy surrounding the identity of the person in question. Why? It appears that Ortberg had extensive contact with this person and seems hellbent on covering up his/her identity. Is this a family member-extended or otherwise?
- What was the process of restoration? How was it administered? What was involved? Who was in charge of overseeing the process.
- Over the past decade or so, I’ve become aware that most members of elder boards are chosen for their willingness to go along with the flow when it involves the pastor. Why is that not true of this elder board?
- Does the individual at the heart of this story still attend this church? Does he/she attend another church? Was that church notified of their issues? Has there been concerted effort to be sure this person is never alone with children?
- Is that individual receiving intensive psychiatric care? He/she hadn’t when he/she told Ortberg.I am of the opinion that they were crying out for help by confessing this paraphilia to Ortberg. Also, I hope that the elders and the Ortbergs are not so naive that they believe this person, who has said he/she have not acted on their feelings, means they haven’t. Think about it. This person has long had these sexual feeling for children Has there been any involvement in child pornography? Has he/she just successfully fought this problem on their own? There is something a bit off about this pristine report of the person who has done this on their own.
- Was there a session investigation and a subsequent report? Will this be reported to the church members? Does everyone understand that a session report does not take the place of a independent, third party investigation?
I think it is quite difficult to live out transparency in leadership when a church has thousands of members. However, if one believes that openness and accountability in one’s life is a net good to be sought after by those in ministry, then one must take the harder road to live it out in front of thousands. One cannot hide behind their elders or leadership teams. When one is the senior pastor, one gets the accolades and the big bucks, the house, the invites, the hobnobbing with other celebrities. However, one must also be willing to take the hits in public. One must also put the needs and safety of the most vulnerable among us, our children, above our wish to protect someone who is important to us.
I admire John and Nancy Ortberg. I’ve followed their ministry for years. But years ago, I decided that I would not pull punches when it comes to abuse, even when it involves those whom I respect. I believe there is more to be said in this instance and I hope it will.
First?
Secunda.
Sola secunda.
From the post: “The families who had children under the care of this individual should be be given his/her identity.”
I’m no expert, but this seems key. Let’s say the person worked with middle schoolers. If parents of middle schoolers knew the name, they would immediately know if the person had visited them for dinner, spent the night, took their child to an amusement park, etc.
Clearly, a predator can also conceal opportunities for contact, but sometimes these assailants are highly visible, the “greatest” people in the church.
From the letter: “We will also continue to provide a community where those who face challenging issues can find a confidential way to receive spiritual support.” <– Looks like the new brand is pedophile-friendly, just convince us you've never done anything and we'll keep your secret. Looks like they will never do any kind of investigating that requires naming the volunteer
This situation does not pass the smell test. Were I a member, and especially a parent of a child who may have been exposed, I would demand the identity of this person be made known, and Ortberg never return to a ministering position.
The letter makes no logical sense. Ortberg’s contrition, however real, is not enough to re-qualify him for the ministry. Who was he covering for? Why did he not have the sense to investigate what the real risks were, if he truly didn’t know? Even if he was utterly ignorant of the fact that adults who are sexually attracted to children have no business being around children – and that’s pretty big ‘if’ – don’t tell me he doesn’t know enough to find out.
Ever heard of Google? Where do pastors turn to for advice when they don’t know something that is important for them to understand? Any leader who does not have the sense to protect innocent children from someone with sexual inclinations toward them has no business being a leader. Period.
It is pretty difficult to not see this as a cover-up of a larger problem. The fact that his estranged son knew such intimate details, suggests that this might involve a family member or close personal friend. Isn’t this the same problem we see over and over in churches, when pastors and elders cover for family and friends at the expense of the safety of the congregation?
Exactly.
The previous posting here indicated his leave started November 22. So now it’s three months to all good? Looks like the step away for a season wasn’t even the length of the baseball offseason.
Look at how short a time for all of the purported apologies etc. that they said went on, as well as reports back etc. If this is like most other large churches with large bureaucracies, it’s truly remarkable that all of this was so quick, especially with the Christmas activities and break that most churches go through: the “restoration” work, the “thoroughly reviewing the input from all constituencies” of it by the “Board” (perhaps aided by “considering the progressive nature of building trust” — which I invite anyone to contrast with 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 as far as overseers called to be above reproach), and so forth.
Given that “The Board has full confidence in John as our spiritual leader” and all that the latter term may imply, one wonders if he ever really stepped down from that position in the minds of the majority of those on the “Board”.
And speaking of stepping down, it is noteworthy that their “spiritual leader” has evidently asked and received plans to relieve him of day-to-day operational leadership, but keep quite a bit that figures to redound to the benefit of someone well-published in books and studies: “We will now also work together as a Board and at John’s request, to consider changes to responsibilities that will involve John focusing a greater portion of his time and gifts on teaching, discipleship, and mentorship while we discern alternative means to provide excellent day-to-day operational leadership for Menlo Church.” Less grunt work but still plenty of cash flow ops after a three month “restoration”, perhaps? I’d think many would see that as a net gain.
Once again, priorities appear evident, as things move like lightning as far as restoring position (and apparently income), but not so much on the abuse danger side, which again leans more on the kicking and screaming side of things as far as action, especially by comparison. That so many of these operations in the stories of abuse resemble nontransparent, accountability-starved autocracies is another galling aspect of evident characteristics which need to be challenged and deemed unacceptable rather than the norm.
They go into these things calling them a ‘restoration plan’. They know where they plan to go, regardless of the facts. They just wanted the guy to check the boxes and they’ll let him back into his position.
This leaves no room for ‘maybe this persons judgement is so bad it cannot be relied upon in the future’.
Wow! Ortberg had an accelerated “Restoration Plan” compared to Driscoll, MacDonald and others … he will be back in the pulpit after only 3 months of sackcloth and ashes! I can hear his flock now: “Yeah, we realize that he knowingly exposed our youth to a pervert, but man, he can sure preach!”
Ortberg will come across humble during his first sermon back, a changed shepherd who now has the best interests of his sheep in mind. He may even cry a few tears in a quivering preacher voice. American churchgoers have become so open-minded about these situations, that their spiritual brains have fallen out! Ortberg has a stage because he has an audience; it remains to be determined how gullible they are.
Exactly. Forgive him if he is truly repentant for endangering the flock? Certainly. Restore him to ministry, a place of trust in the Body of Christ? NO! And put the man back in the pulpit after only 3 months?! What are they thinking?!! As TS00 notes, this is “the same problem we see over and over in churches, when pastors and elders cover for family and friends at the expense of the safety of the congregation.”
The People of God at Menlo Church need to overrule their Board of Elders on this one. Or perhaps, do they know as their elders do, that there would be no Menlo without Ortberg. So who has really been on the throne at Menlo? Ortberg or Jesus?
Long winded letters, sugar coating, covering up. Short, to the point letters, on the attack.
The person not being named puts a lot of people under suspicion. Was it this person? Was it that person? Why doesn’t the person themselves come forward? He probably won’t be shamed; he’ll probably get a standing ovation.
Side question:
When a pastor teaches being a new creature in Christ, and the example used is a convicted pedophile, are they setting up the congregation for something further to come? I actually heard it on a radio ministry.
JDV,
And they wonder why those under 18 leave the church when they turn 18. And, wonder why victims refuse to set foot in a church again. Nothing gets fixed. All they did was find him another subordinate.
Not shaming is a good thing … but the standing ovation these characters have been getting is CRAZY! (e.g., Andy Savage, Bill Hybels). The American church has lost its spiritual mind!!
I prophesy that Ortberg will get one on his first Sunday back. The American church has slipped that far into chaos.
We’ll see what happens at the town hall tomorrow, but unfortunately I haven’t heard a whole lot of outrage among my connections at church.
Dee asks good questions. I would be asking the following question:
* Has John Ortberg apologized to Daniel Lavery for refusing to pay attention to any of the suggestions Lavery made regarding how to deal with the person with the self-acknowledge attraction to minors?
Ortberg did this because Lavery is transgender and in Ortberg’s mind, this disqualified Lavery from having any sort of legitimate opinion on sexual matters. And so Ortberg did nothing. Thankfully, the board paid attention when Lavery went to them. But suppose they thought the same way as Ortberg and blew him off?
For the record, this incident was the last nerve that got stomped on and I no longer think of myself as Christian. I’m tired of LGBTQIA people treated as pariahs and ignored because of “sin.”
And let me be the awful person who suggests that perhaps tithes and offerings are down because Ortberg is not preaching. It’d be horrible to suggest that returning him to the pulpit is a business decision, right?
As a parent, it burns me up that they are not sharing the identity of the potential predator. The same thing happened at Oakwood Baptist. They sent a letter to ~800 families that only said “a pastor of Oakwood Baptist Church experienced an issue involving a child which was resolved around 1999 prior to his coming to the church…. He was employed by Oakwood Baptist Church, but at times did have responsibilities at the Oakwood Baptist Dayschool.” They didn’t share his identity, Don Foose, or the fact that he had been convicted of indecent assault and corruption of minors and had served jail time! (btw, this pathetic letter was written by Oakwood’s attorney Marcus McKnight who was involved in the Chantry coverup http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/part-8-the-illegal-cover-up-of-tom-chantrys-crimes-by-marcus.html )
The fact that Foose’s identity was never shared with parents was one of the main reasons we took the case to the media. Even though it got national media attention, it didn’t run in any local papers, so many parents are probably still unaware. It’s just so very very wrong!!!
Crying On Cue.
Like the standing ovation in response to this sermon from Chernobyl?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG3PlcSiLA
And risk Eternal HELL?
Celebrity pastors seldom lose on these sort of things; they are worshiped by their elders/followers. It took years before Willow Creek did the right thing with Bill Hybels … years before the elders tossed Mark Driscoll out at Mars Hill … years before James MacDonald was shown the door at Harvest Bible Chapel, etc., etc. Celebrity Christians are darn near untouchable.
Ruth,
Let us know if Ortberg gets a standing ovation on his first Sunday back.
All of your points in this article hit the mark, Dee. I hope they are listening to reason.
This is the true test of integrity, isn’t it? In the secular world this is handled by recusing oneself when it is too difficult to be objective. Maybe there is a place for that in churches but everyone tends to be so loyal to the leader that it’s hard to find an objective person (with a backbone).
There does not appear to be an acknowledgment anywhere on Ortberg’s website about this. From the “About” page:
http://www.johnortberg.com/profile/
“John Ortberg is the senior pastor at Menlo Church.” There’s no indication that this was modified in November (when the blog portion stopped being updated) prior to the investigation / restoration path etc. Here’s a link to the last archived page from last year:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190821192031/http://www.johnortberg.com/profile/
The only apparent difference is the copyright year for each. If people outside of the church glided onto the site looking for content, books, studies, etc., it appears that at no time from the leave, church investigation, and “restoration” path would they have been advised that his pastoral status was anything but active and uninterrupted. That of course would continue to be the case to the present.
If predictable patterns continue to play out as they have in other aspects previously noted, we may be in store for a blog post akin to what already came out from the church “Board” with enough vagueness baked in, one that can slide down into the archives while the profile page gives no indication of the issue (and any pesky 1 Timothy 3 / Titus 1 pastoral implications) while business continues as usual.
I didn’t pick up on this until JDV mentioned it, but Mr. Ortberg is being freed of day-to-day operational responsibilities so he can focus on, among other things, discipleship and mentorship. Could it not be argued that failing to appropriately counsel a self-identified pedophile (is that an appropriate term for someone who has those leanings but may not have actually acted on them? Sorry, I just don’t know) and impose appropriate boundaries for both that individual’s sake AND the sake of all children in the church show a dangerous failure of judgment in these two areas specifically (mentorship and discipleship)?
Sorry, I’m probably stating what’s already obvious to everyone else.
It seems to me Mr. Ortberg has demonstrated that he is better fit for day-to-day operational duties than those of mentorship and discipleship.
Well, one thing is for sure … young pastor-wannabes should not look to his example of how to treat pedophiles in the congregation. Exposing the sheep to predators guarantees that a shepherd-in-training will get kicked out of the wool/mutton industry.
Already anticipated you, Max.
“That is what THE WORLD does.”
(Then invoke/quote John 17:16, 1 John 4:5, Romans 12:2 in a full-speed Gish Gallop.)
“THE VOICE OF A GOD, NOT OF A MAN!
THE VOICE OF A GOD, NOT OF A MAN!”
— Acts 12:22
That sounds like a very good reason to take it to the media. Even if the local papers skipped it, national media related could still be shared on social media and maybe that helped it circulate!
There is no need for secrecy here (particularly when someone has been convicted, and they can’t even play the ‘maybe it’s false’ game), and a great need for disclosure. Churches keep flipping it.
Yeah, this whole thing raises giant red flags for me. When a church starts keeping secret the processes, people and events surrounding its leaders, it’s almost always a sign of deeper problems and cover-up. Honest people and institutions don’t try to hide things.
Wild Honey,
“Mr. Ortberg is being freed of day-to-day operational responsibilities so he can focus on, among other things, discipleship and mentorship.”
++++++++++++
good grief… lightening his work load — his paycheck as well?
discipleship and mentorship… hanging out at the coffeeshop and talking with people about how to tie their shoelaces…
then going on retreats and ministry trips with staff development where they talk for hours about how vital their shoelaces are for the kingdom of God, how desperate people are for gospel shoelaces and to be taught how to tie them, how to serve people and influence them with your shoelaces, and oh the courage it takes…
can’t help but roll my eyes, here.
He probably convinced the elder board that he let his guard down because he was juggling too many hats … that he couldn’t protect the flock from perverts while also running the corporation (megachurch = big business) … and that he really needed to be focused on spiritual things like discipling and mentoring folks (although no one shouldn’t listen to his counsel about how to keep bad boys away from your children). A pretty good deal for the returning pastor after messing up … less workload, same pay. Let’s all give him a standing ovation for pulling that one off!
(If you haven’t sensed it by now, I’m getting sick and tired of these celebrity “pastors” taking the church for a ride because they have a touch of charisma, a gift of gab, and a team of yes-men elders)
“… John and his wife Nancy enjoy surfing the Pacific to help care for their souls …”
http://www.johnortberg.com/profile/
The last part is key, whether in the form of ‘elders’, board, executive committee, etc., especially with the proliferation of top-down autocracies that don’t always cotton to input outside of the select few (which often have the bonus of family members or close friends as the purported guardians over each other’s conduct).
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused.
— Eurythmics 1983 —
Oh my word.
They should just admit they LIKE TO SURF. Why is that so hard for Christians? Why does every new car and platter of shrimp have to show that Christians are super special to God?
Here’s the Q&A from the Town hall:
https://ruthhutchins.com/post/menlo-church-town-hall/
“Thanks John. You know we love you. (applause)”
“John: I have a PhD in clinical psychology but I never got licensed … I wasn’t good at therapy (laughter) … Anyway, I am not a licensed psychologist. (applause)”
Laughter and applause?! Mega-mania sure does strange things to folks.
Well, the weirdest thing. I think I just fixed a git merge conflict. I don’t really know how, though.
“Q: The local news was providing a different message than the elders’ message. It felt like the elders were hiding the truth by providing a vague email. A: It’s not our goal to hide truth. It is our goal to avoid causing unnecessary anxiety. So we took the time to conduct an investigation so we could give you the good news that there were no allegations of misconduct. Thanks for your patience and trust.”
Ah yes, no unnecessary anxiety as a priority, answered (sic) by “no allegations”. Reminds of the Feltner situation where an involved pastor spoke of wanting to protectt the church rep.
And has history taught us that abuse allegations usually occur in a super-quick span, or not so much?
Could this ever be a good thing to say?
“Q: At what grade level did the volunteer work, at which campus? We had two boys in the middle school program.
A: The volunteer worked with middle school and high school on the Menlo Park campus. We did a thorough investigation of all volunteer records, talked to all staff members who had been there, we hired a third party independent investigator, had full license to look into everything, no allegations of misconduct. Understand it’s concerning, I would be asking the same questions, if anything ever did come up we would contact law enforcement and keep you informed.”
Yes, because the one thing for sure that has gone on is keeping the congregation informed, right? Oh wait…
Also, trust us on the thoroughness of the investigation and on the independence of the unnamed third party (who had ‘full license to look into everything’ — though whether they did or not is a question born of lack of transparency, one would guess given the tenor of questions etc.
“Q: The initial email from elders was ambiguous about whether the volunteer continued 2018-2019 after disclosing to John. News claimed the volunteer did, sometimes alone. When did the person stop volunteering? Why didn’t the elders disclose the details of the timing of the starting/stopping?
A: Yes, we did confirm that they continued. No, not alone. They stopped volunteering when the Board became aware of the situation in November 2019. The volunteer volunteered off and on for years, and so the details of starting and stopping– I thought we did put it in the email…? No wait, we didn’t. We are sorry.”
Oops. Was the purported “investigation” as thorough as the email they thought they put things in but didn’t, while the news did? Oh well, oops, sorry.
“Q: The elder email was vague. Why not provide facts what was going on from the start?
A: Well, it was a two page, detailed email, so we apologize that we missed the fact that you wanted. We invited you to write to us, I have answered so many of your emails. Hopefully that is encouraging.”
Quite the apology there. Pertinent issue evidently dodged, answered with sorry we didn’t get to your specific question as there were so many. How was the play Mrs. Lincoln?
Get this:
“Q: Why haven’t you responded to Daniel Lavery?
A: We are not going to get into a media battle with Daniel Lavery. I had an estranged child who reconnected in the past week. It was almost two years. As people become young adults and need to break away, it’s harder now, we oldsters would call once very two weeks, now kids are so connected, we can speak far too much into their lives into young adulthood, sometimes they need to take a strong stand, sometimes an angry stand, to start their adult lives. What you see here is Danny lashing out. And Danny is breaking away, and Danny is starting Danny’s own life. And I’ve walked that walk, and I hope we can all give John and Nancy some grace because I know how painful that is.”
WOW. Here’s what Lavery reportedly did:
https://religionnews.com/2020/02/03/pastor-john-ortberg-allowed-volunteer-who-was-attracted-to-minors-to-work-with-children/
“Lavery, who writes the Dear Prudence advice column for Slate.com, said that he suggested that the church member seek treatment and immediately stop volunteering with church. He also said he wrote to Ortberg and urged him to report the situation to the church’s elders. When his father did not do that, Lavery said he and his wife reported their concerns to the church board.”
Yet ‘Board’ chair Beth Seabolt reportedly characterizes what occurs as “What you see here is Danny lashing out”?!?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?
And to boot, what is being cast as breaking away etc. is equated with a personal pain known to her and a reason to extend grace to John and Nancy. Bonus.
Not surprised that someone was able to launch something that could make the elders seem impartial by conveniently-vague charge of harsh treatment of “John” while casting “John” as victim but also providing launching pad to reply like a wounded lion extending grace:
Q: Elders get an A+ for looking at child safety. Elders get a C- for how they treated John. How can John and others be treated better? John’s harsh treatment could make it harder to recruit.
A: John, do you think you were treated harshly?
John: I’m very grateful for our church and our elders. They faced a situation that’s as complex and challenging and difficult nad messy as I’ve ever seen. They serve with no money, unless things get difficult, nobody notices or thanks them. They’ve sought to keep the best interests of our church at the core of their hearts. They’ve brought accountability. Some churches don’t do that, become about one person in leadership, there’s no accountability. Very grateful for the diligence and love and labor and hours and prayer our elders have given to our church. I think we all owe them a huge debt of gratitude. (applause)
A: Thanks John. You know we love you. (applause)
Brother Ortberg is using his psychology degree well.
Sounds like the speaker thinks his/her own relationship is identical to the relationship between Daniel Lavery and parents. Hmm, really? Because I know a lot of young adults with phones, and not all are estranged, angry, taking a stand, or discombobulated because Mom & Dad are “speaking into” their lives.
These three sentences are a master class in the passive aggressive.
The elders are psychologists, too?
“Q: What was the restoration plan?
“A: I thought we wrote that in the email, but so many people have asked me. We structured a time for John to meet with staff, elders, stakeholders, and some people from congregation to express to them how he believed his decisions had caused them pain and concern. Hour meetings back to back to back. So he wasn’t over at Kara’s Cupcakes. And so after John prepared for those meetings by thinking through, he asked them also, how else did my decision to allow this volunteer to continue serving impact you? And then he listened. And then he apologized. And then John asked, how can I make amends? And then he asked, can we work toward rebuilding trust?
“Lot of staff members had questions and concerns, particularly those who do student ministries and kids ministries. And this decision was really difficult for them. And yet, by the time the month was up, they agreed that John had deeply apologized, they believed him, they forgave him, they’re willing to move forward and rebuild trust. So we feel like we have taken the time to meet with everybody and to listen and to work through this.
“It’s the Christian way to work through reconciliation. There are some of you who say this is too short, and plenty of you who say this is too long. But we really wanted to take the time to work through, the way Jesus would work through, and bring John back. Thanks for putting your trust in us. Thanks for your patience. It wasn’t easy for John at all.”
Neat how she describes how he listened etc. in contrast to how she described Lavery’s actions. Also, this implies it was only a month of ‘reconciliation’, with the arguably strawman qualifier added to the shortness of duration with saying plenty said it was too long.
So how long is adequate per the ‘too long’ crowd for Ortberg to listen and make amends (which doesn’t seem to have been successfully extended to “everybody” given the tenor of questions) and be ‘restored? Two weeks? A weekend? An hour long sermon about forgiveness? A five-minute video tweet? Combining this with the pronouncement that this was in accord with “the Christian way to work through reconciliation” does Scripture give a time limit for overseer / pastoral restoration? Let’s see:
Titus 1:7b “As God’s steward, an overseer must be above reproach”
1 Tim. 3:2a “An overseer, then, must be above reproach”
1 Tim 3:7 “Furthermore, he must have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the snare of the devil.”
How does any of that comport with her assertion? How does it comport with no sufficient acknowledgement on his own website to date where he has so many items for sale?
“Q: OK, we got three questions about the investigator.
A: Wow, we were lucky to get this investigator. Very well-received investigator, nationally. Speciality is in workplace misconduct. No specialty in pedophilia. However, outstanding work. Worked in Washington. We were blessed to have someone so capable. We gave investigator free reign to go into every area of interest of his. He dove into everything. So we felt very, very confident when the investigation was done.”
Memories of the whole Sankey / Randall / Coffey investigation process chronicled here come to mind, complete with talking up credentials yet with lingering questions about process, impartiality, and depth of investigation. Here, there’s not even a name, but just trust them because they’ve operated flawlessly before handling issues of qualifying people to work with children. Oh wait…
Q: (Question for John) John has doctorate in clinical psychology, does he still have his license or did he lose it? If he still has it, what will he change?
A. John: I have a PhD in clinical psychology but I never got licensed. It’s a process of many hours of therapy, and I never did that, because I wanted to work at a church and I wasn’t good at therapy (laughter). Never been practicing, never been licensed.
A year and a half ago, a person came to me and disclosed to me confidentially unwanted thoughts. Knew could require reporting. I’m a pastor and a mandated reporter. Because of my background I’m very familiar. I asked this person a series of uncomfortable questions. If there’s a reasonable suspicion they might harm themselves, or others, or be a danger to children or elders. So I asked all the questions and all of the answers that came back made it clear there would be no grounds for mandatory reporting. But I contacted a psychology in SoCal who specializes in this area and a psychiatrist in the Bay Area and walked them thorugh what this person had said without identifying, both asked if I had seen this person at the church, anything suspicious, anybody alleged anything strange. No. In both cases the feedback was you do not report somebody for disclosing secret thoughts.
I’m so very sorry I did not handle it better. One question I did not ask was as the leader of this organization, now that I hold this information, what should I do, how do I relate to the board about this. I wish so much I would have asked, and been able to walk through that better. And that I did not exert my full influence as a pastor to make sure that person would never be volunteering at a Menlo event with minors, I wish I had done that, not because I think there was a reasonable risk of suspicion, because I believe there are very good grounds that that was not the case, but because this subject is a very sensitive one and would create for the congregation deep concern.
Anyway, I am not a licensed psychologist. (applause)”
First, here’s another instance where the claim is in question that everybody was reached out to that needed to be, or I doubt they would have asked what they did.
Next, he talks about being a pastor and a mandated reporter and appears amplifies his familiarity in this area “because of my background”. He then verbalizes the critical question if the person is a danger to children etc. and determined that there were no grounds for mandatory reporting”
Uh, I hope I’m not the only one that sees that as a bit of a strawman, as HE WAS WORKING IN THE CHILDREN’S AREA WHILE HAVING ‘UNWANTED THOUGHTS’ ABOUT THEM!
I don’t have a doctorate in clinical psychology either, but I know I’m not alone in erring on the side of not allowing him to secure “unsupervised volunteer positions as a method of treating this obsession” including traveling “overnight with children”, as Ortberg’s son put it. But not mandated reporter / Pastor John Ortberg. Not only was there nary a word to the congregation at large, but he didn’t act to have him removed from those activities!
The next step speaks to the wide discretion of the autocrat to disclose as much or as little as he chooses while choosing his own method of dealing with things no matter how it may affect others. He supposedly calls two people in the psychology field and add junior detective to Ortberg’s credentials, as he supposedly looked for “anything suspicious” — because someone working with kids and having those fantasies wasn’t suspicious enough, let alone how some predators operate (some might think they’ve been caught and may use tactics to create an explanation etc.).
Then, he had to be confronted by his son and Lavery’s wife, evidently double down, and leave them no choice but to disclose to the church. Even Ortberg’s wish related to stopping the guy from volunteering with kids seemed grudging and problematic, as he focused on his personal belief that there wasn’t a reasonable risk of suspicion of an issue even though his son told him the guy connected working with kids as a self-treatment method.
He deigned to consider that this could’ve been of great concern to the congregation, this after he reportedly couldn’t say straight up that the guy was no longer traveling on overnight trips with minors. Oh, and after he spoke, there was apparently applause.
How can this guy be in any position of teaching or mentoring as a pastor or leader with this train wreck of a perspective before and after the supposed ‘restoration’? Common sense isn’t remotely on display, but self-preservation, especially professionally, certainly seems to be as far as priorities compared with the safety of children.
“Q: (Inquiring roundabout the identity of the volunteer)
No, we’re not going to tell you the identity of the volunteer. We’re going to keep that private and confidential. Interesting thing about unwanted thoughts. I had several people write in about OCD. Doesn’t every one of us have unwanted thoughts? Thought about Joyce Meyers, Battlefield of the Mind. No crime in coming in to ask for help with unwanted thoughts. So we are going to protect the privacy, confidentiality of the volunteer.”
It’s unclear if this reply was from Ortberg or the ‘Board’ chair. Whoever it is is not someone I would like to be anywhere near decision making involving me or my family. The congregation — and anyone who had youths involved in an activity, as sometimes youth events involve minors from other churches or the community at large — has a right to be able to sufficiently investigate whether their children ever crossed paths with this ‘volunteer’. It might be high time that other outside parties need to be involved.
Again, Lavery said that this person disclosed that “for most of their life, they had obsessive sexual feelings about young children”. That’s not some flashing thought about snagging an item from a store or setting. There have been enough strawmen in this to fill a barn, but the “doesn’t everyone have unwanted thoughts?” spin in this context is reprehensible, as is the spin on OCD when they greenlighted what they did.
That begs the question: why are there reportedly unsupervised children’s activities? That’s not just on Ortberg, but the entire ‘Board’ and the paid staff as well! Kinda hard even for junior detectives like Ortberg to find “anything suspicious” if this volunteer and others can be unsupervised with children, no? This entire thing has gone from bad to worse.
More false comparisons, with the implication that just anybody in the room could be swept up in this same turmoil.
A trained psychologist, or a compassionate leader who is introducing these terms, should know the crucial distinctions and offer context to an anxious audience. Instead, this speaker uses a tactic that protects the Powers That Be and threatens all who might be tempted to challenge the authorities of the church.
What information was offered to the two city folks allegedly contacted? What are their names, and how would they react to this version of their responses?
And, of course, here’s another threat, soooooo often lobbed at churchgoers: If your brain thinks a thought, you too could be in the hot seat! Oh, and remember, we know all of your family secrets.
It doesn’t sound like they asked the actual kids any questions…theywould be the ones who would know.
They act like Danny’s a child, not a grown adult man with a real concern for children and the incredibly bad judgement of his parent. Yikes. What disgusting minimizing language in reference to his legitimate concerns.
What????
This seems like the exact wrong person to choose to find out if children were harmed. Why are churches so insistent on being stupid.
JDV,
My mouth was hanging open at the utter CLUELESSNESS of talking about ‘unwanted thoughts’ in comparison to OCD as no big deal and not a threat.
the very fact that this person was making an effort to be around children while having these thoughts about harming them proves they were NOT doing everything they could to keep those thoughts from becoming actions.
Pingback: Linkathon! - Phoenix Preacher
JUST LIKE SCIENTOLOGY AUTIDING RECORDS!
AKA “The Fix Is In”?
Pingback: Wednesday Connect | Thinking Out Loud
JDV,
Wow… the shift of blame there was amazing. “The email was vague”… it was detailed, sorry you didn’t read what you wanted…. no acknowledgement that it should have been clearer or that the person was right to want details.
It’s called “Over-Spiritualizing”.
A side effect of Platonic Gnosticism’s “Spiritual Good, Physical BAAAAAAAAAAAD!”
Remember the original Christian afterlife was Resurrection of the Body in a New Repaired Cosmos, NOT floating around forever as a Soul in Fluffy Cloud Heaven. That sounds more like a Shade in Hades than anything else.
And remember the Incarnation? If God could “go physical” in the real world, why can’t we?
Are we better than Him?
Do we know What’s REALLY Going On regarding God and He didn’t?
The Spin of The Anointed is In.
“I said it,
YOU Believe It,
THAT SETTLES IT!”