BaptistLife.Com Forums.

https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/fa ... isconduct/

I'm beginning to wonder if it is possible to avoid being accused of something. You can only take so many precautions without simply changing circumstances so much that you can't even carry on a conversation. Avoiding a bad situation has become a full time occupation for ministers, and for anyone who works with people, I guess.

Or because they will claim men did that, and bankrupt us.

It's not about women in positions of executive leadership in the workplace. That's blaming women because they were in the same place and proximity as a male, so its their fault they got harassed. Sorry, that's not the point.

The point is that the culture has accepted the fact that "boys will be boys" and that you can't expect a man in a one on one situation with a woman not to say or do something aggressive or assertive. The whole attitude for years has been that a guy ought to be able to get away with it because he's a guy. So now there's a reactionary approach whenever someone says anything. So a pastor has to stop, think about the situation he is in and what he is about to do, and how it will look before he decideds to minister to a female parishioner.

There is one interesting thing not present in the news articles. There is no mention of the gender of the accusers. We are assuming they are female. The articles do not indicate gender at all.

This kind of things is why two out of the three denominations I've served in have boundaries training for clergy to help avoid putting yourself in a situation where you are either tempted to misconduct or something looks inappropriate even if nothing happened.

The ABC/USA regions I was in required it for new ordinands. The UMC in Iowa requires it every three years for all clergy.

Here's the story in the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

And from the Sun-Times
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/willo ... legations/

There's a little contrast in the way the secular papers handled this compared to the Wartburg Watch. He denies, and the elders hired a law firm to conduct an investigation, which apparently turned up nothing. On the other hand, the accusations are similar, and from credible individuals. It boils down to their word against his, really. That being the case, he steps down from everything. Either way, the church becomes the loser, because there will be people who don't trust the elder's investigation, and those who are upset that there was even an investigation.

I think back on how things have changed. But I can't ever recall a time when it would have been appropriate to have someone of the opposite gender in your hotel room for any reason, or to ride together to a meeting, or to be alone together in an office or in the church building.

Reading the accounts of a couple of those who made accusations, it doesn't seem there's a motivation to deliberately lie. They were part of the church's ministry staff. Does being the founding pastor of a multi-campus megachurch create a sense of invincibility? The situations created discomfort, and were awkward. Apparently, from the perspective of the church's elders, they didn't warrant any further action. But keeping in mind that this is a megachurch founded by the pastor, and the elders are most likely hand picked and decidedly loyal, would they be inclined to be tougher?