The church's founding pastor, Bill Hybels, resigned last month, six months earlier than originally planned, in the wake of Chicago Tribune and Christianity Today investigative articles that reported a series of allegations, made by women affiliated with the faith community, of inappropriate interactions initiated by Hybels.
Several news outlets in the Chicago area are reporting this evening that the leadership team at Willow Creek, which previously had stated that it was not able to substantiate the multiple allegations against Hybels, is now apologizing to the women who have come forward. From the Tribune, which has been on this story since it first broke it:
Pam Orr, the outgoing chair of the church’s elder board, said it has been the elders’ “top priority” to reach out to women who have come forward with allegations of inappropriate behavior.
“We have talked to several of them and are deeply saddened by the experiences they are sharing with us,” Orr told the congregation during a midweek worship service. “We do believe that we owe these women some apologies. The tone of our first response had too much emphasis on defending Bill and cast some of the women in an unfair and negative light. We are sorry.”
In a reversal, Orr also apologized for initial statements that called the allegations lies and castigated former senior leaders of the church who called for a more robust investigation.
“We do not believe that the stories were all lies,” she said.The local ABC affiliate and the Daily Herald newspaper both are reporting that Willow Creek leadership has placed a statement on its website, but at the time I'm writing this post (about 11:45 PM CDT), the website seems to be down; I've linked to the URL but haven't been able to read the statement yet. I'll update the post if there is anything worth noting on it.
Update 5/10/2018: I've been able to access the Board of Elders' statement on the church website. Some of the content seems to strike the right tone:
Initially, it was stated that the stories were all lies and the individuals involved were colluding against Bill. We apologize for those sweeping statements. We do not believe the stories were all lies or that all the people were colluding against him. It takes courage for a woman to step forward and share her story, and we are doing everything we can to listen respectfully. Based on the conversations we have had to date, we believe at least some of Bill’s choices were inappropriate.
... and some of it, in my opinion, lands outside the bulls-eye:
We are grieved that this situation is difficult for so many people. On behalf of the Elders, both past and present, we now see that while we have many policies in place, they did not prevent the situation we are now in. We regret that, and we are looking into what additional safeguards could be implemented in the future. We still have work to do and we are committed to keeping you updated.
What is wrong with this latter snippet? I concede that it's not easy to lay a finger on exactly why it doesn't convey what I'd wish, but let me offer three observations:
1. Having been reading for many years now of the abuse of children in the Catholic church and the official statements of reaction from church officials, this is not my first encounter with expressions of grief and regret coming from church leadership in the wake of unwelcome revelations. There is nothing wrong with grief and regret in these situations, but I have to think that grief and regret don't begin to cover what members of the faith community must be feeling. Is there any room here for difficult but honest words like "betrayal" and "anger"?
2. There is a certain defensiveness in "while we have many policies in place". These are the words of a leadership team which is sensing that its credibility has been brought into question. "While we have many policies in place" is as much as to say, "Hey, we haven't been completely asleep on the job: we had policies. But he got around them. In reality, we're victims, too; we were hoodwinked by this guy." The difficult item here for the leaders is that leaders are not supposed to be hoodwinked; one of their main reasons for existence is to prevent hoodwinkers from operating in the organization. It's entirely plausible to me that a determined hoodwinker can defeat policies; but if policies were not effective, it seems legitimate to wonder why that was the case.
3. A further implicit plea to continue to trust the board may be detected in "we are looking into what additional safeguards could be implemented in the future". I could wish for something stronger and more specific than a commitment to "look into" unnamed future safeguards. But in fairness to the board, it seems to be early days yet in this latest round of investigating. Let's hope that they're vigorously pursuing stronger measures.
It seems possible to me that what we are witnessing here is the evolution of a board of leaders' collective attitude toward a revered founder. The scales are falling from their eyes, not all at once, but by degrees. When Hybels announced his early resignation, he informed the faith community that he'd continue to be a member of Willow Creek, that it would always be his home. When I read that, a red flag went up my mental flagpole. If these accusations are deemed to be credible (and based on this latest communication, it seems that some of them are), the community's leadership needs to ask whether Hybels can continue to be a presence in the community at all. I assume that most or all of the board of elders were recruited or called to leadership by Hybels and that they worked closely with him as subordinates. Once that superior-subordinate interpersonal relationship has been established, it is not easy to change it. And Willow Creek's many thousands of members are accustomed to looking at Hybels as a faith leader. In practical terms, I am extremely skeptical that the leadership, and the community as a whole, will be able to look at Hybels as just another member of the church, or that Hybels, having once enjoyed the run of the place, will be content to simply sit back and let things evolve without his input - especially if the evolution includes such changes as taking down portraits of the founder from the wall or renaming rooms or buildings named in his honor. At the risk of being florid, Hybels has been called out as a wolf. It's difficult to see how a wolf, even a repentant wolf, can be allowed to run free in the midst of the flock.
What they seem to be apologizing for is being judgmental. It is very difficult to be listening and also judgmental, unless you are judging that everything you are hearing is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn situations of he said, she said it is always going to be very difficult to come to conclusions of what is going on unless there are third parties that were present when it happened. What usually has to happen is finding other similar situations by other parties, or accusations made to someone (friends, members, etc.) that were near contemporaneous with the event.
[Perhaps women should take a lesson from Comey and others, to record their observations in close proximity to the event, and discuss them with other people even if they are not going to make a formal complaint.]
Institutions and their office holders need to recognize that they cannot make quick judgments on either side. However they do have to be open to all the possibilities while encouraging women to voice their concerns.
Jack - I would say that the listeners in this case, the board of elders, had a pretty clear conflict of interest when this process first began, because Hybels was one of them and in fact was still considered in some ways their spiritual leader. Also, as I noted in the update to the post, Hybels most likely was personally responsible for bringing most or all of them into leadership.
DeleteThese conflicts of interest should not seem wholly strange to folks who have looked at the Catholic church's many failed attempts to deal effectively with sexual abuse accusations against members of the clergy.
Complicating, and possibly mitigating, this conflict was the fact that some of Hybels' accusers also were leaders from the church. So, in a sense, this situation is leaders accusing another leader, with still other leaders trying to adjudicate the competing claims.
If the Catholic church has learned any wisdom from its own (arguably much worse) scandals, it is that the investigating should be done by an independent party. An independent party can take the objective stance that you describe. One of the critiques of the Catholic church's attempts at independence is that the judge of the findings by the independent investigator was the bishop of the diocese, who may have some of the same conflicts of interest that the board of elders does in this case.
I presume the board of elders is the board of trustees that has legal responsibility for the church, to hire and fire the its leader, and approve the budget.
DeleteUnfortunately most boards of trustees of non-profits assume their primary responsibility is to support the CEO and the staff, defer to them on policy issues, and view firing and hiring a new CEO as a rare event.
Boards of trustee are an interface to the public to evaluate what the public thinks of their institution, how new policies and goals might make it function better to benefit the public, and to assure the public that the institution is trust worthy.
When the board of trustees decides its primary purpose is to support the staff rather than evaluate their operation in light of their responsibility to society they fail their duties, those who are too involved with the operation should resign, and they should be replaced by others who are likely to be trusted by the various publics which the institution serves.
If I'm not mistaken, one of the articles I had linked to in my first post on this topic had noted that Hybels had appointed the members of the board of elders. If, pursuant to the failure in duty that you describe, any should feel compelled to resign, it's not clear how they would be replaced, now that Hybels seemingly is out of the loop on leadership matters. No doubt it is a solvable problem, but the leadership of the institution will now need to operate and renew itself in a post-Hybels leadership world. It strikes me as a time of risk for the whole community.
DeleteIt is considerations like these that cause the Catholic church to rotate pastors in and out, and perhaps to move bishops around from one diocese to another. Leaders come and go, but the faith community is meant to continue on.
Jim, I presume the board of elders functions as the board of a non-profit which has responsibility for hiring and firing the CEO, by-laws, policies, and budget approval.
DeleteMost boards of trustees of non-profits falsely assume their primary responsibility is to help and support the staff, defer to them on policies as well as operations, and view replacing a CEO as an unusual event.
The purpose of boards of trustees is to assure an excellent relationship of the institution to the public. They need to bring the public’s view to the decision making table, they need to advocate for changes that will enable their institution to better serve the public, and most of all they need be sure the institution will not jeopardize its trustworthiness in the eyes of the public, especially with its most important stakeholders.
When a board of trustees becomes inward focused upon operations and staff support rather than outward focused upon serving the public it fails its responsibility to the public. Those board members who have become too involved in internal operations and staff support should resign and be replaced by new board members who will restored credibility to the institution.
The board of elders is part of the problem. No outside organization will be able to give them credibility unless a portion of them are replaced.
Statement is up there now. As a piece of crisis communication, they got it right--apologize and focus on what will be done going forward, take a contrite tone.
ReplyDeleteThey seem to be sincere. But they're also closing ranks around "Bill." I presume all the elders are men, and there is no indication that women will be invited into the process of discernment and policy change.
Maybe that washes with evangelical women.
I would have a tendency to gloat here over the hypocrisy inherent in fundiegelical Christian patriarchy. But, woops, I'm living in a patriarchal sect that has often been blind to its own misogynistic elements.
Jean, that is an interesting take, on several fronts. As it happens, the church does have women elders - the quote I provided in the post is from their lead pastor, who is a woman (although her term is up and her successor is a man). The church apparently has a reputation as a ground-breaker in evangelical circles for women occupying leadership positions. Ironically, some of those women leaders are now among Hybels' accusers.
DeleteRe: closing ranks: as this process originally played out, I think any of us can be forgiven for thinking they closed ranks with Hybels, inasmuch as they came out strongly for Hybels. The subject of this post, in my view, represents a break, perhaps a major break, from that approach. But whether there would be any additional implications for Hybels, who no longer formally is part of church leadership, is yet to be seen.
Wow, women elders? My comment is completely off base, then.
DeleteThat is fascinating (women elders, I mean). I know women who are sometimes invited to preach in a local evangelical church, but only at the pastor's invitation.
Anyhow, I guess I wouldn't call the statement a break from the closing ranks. They clearly are trying to control their version in their bi-monthly updates. It also sounds like they made the new statement after the whole thing blew up in Christianity Today. They may be hoping to ward off further articles. Or they may be trying to float an alternate version for the folks in the pew.
What Hybels allegedly did doesn't sound criminal in the legal sense. He's just a masher. He resigned. Other pastors are now on notice. I suppose a period of navel gazing has to ensue to indicate the right degree of concern and pastoral care, but this is probably case closed, wouldn't you say?
I agree that it doesn't sound as though Hybels broke any laws. And I agree that it's hard to see where that part of the story has anywhere else to go from here.
DeleteHow the community reacts and adapts to all this will still play out, but that would be over a longer time horizon.
I'm not sure one horndog clergyman is a big deal. It's when the organizational church protects any type of wrong-doer to the point where they flourish and go unchallenged that it becomes a larger problem.
DeleteWe have two priests in the diocese accused of embezzlement, one convicted and the other one still working through the courts. There were grumbling about one of our former priests along these lines--enough so that church secretary quit for fear of colluding. The diocesan policy has been to do audits only when a new priest comes in, even when parishioners complain.
In my view, this is a systemic problem that the bishop needs to address. Right now, in addition to his diocesan appeal, he is tasking parishes with additional contributions for an endowment.
Some in the parish have refused to support the endowment because the bishop doesn't seem like a really reliable financial steward just now.
Raber and I have had some heated arguments over contributions to this. He's all in. I continue to send my portion to CRS.
There have been some embezzlement problems in our area in the past with pastors and church employees. Funny how often when it blows up and gets investigated, a gambling addiction is exposed. Transparent accounting practices need to be adopted by all dioceses, especially if they are asking people for money for special projects.
DeleteNo gambling addictions here. One guy was simply taking expensive vacations and building a retirement home in another state. The other one seems to have had a construction biz on the side and moved church money into his business that he claims he was going to pay back. I never heard of a priest who was also running company in the side, but, but the bishop knew about itit, so maybe not that weird.
Delete