Prestonwood Chester

[L8 APEX]

Local minister got arrested in Austin for trying to meet a 13yr old for sex.
What I thought was funny was he was busted with Magnum XL condoms, web cam and headsets, lol!

[mxracerzero]

His church is in Plano I believe. it is only a few miles from my house. That place is huge too, like 26,000 members. It is scary to think that someone in that position would do such a thing.

[nacklas]

People like that should be put away forever! I guess he"ll want lube not condoms in the big house!:evil

[toddwarren]

Yes, unfortunately there was a pervert on the staff.
There are 40 such ministers, this was not the pastor of Prestonwood,
I am sure 39 solid christian ministers, but 1 goof ball makes the whole place look bad.
Prestonwood church does a lot of good in the community, but ole satan can always find someone who is weak and use them to make people of faith look bad.

[Silver_2000]

Yes, unfortunately there was a pervert on the staff.
There are 40 such ministers, this was not the pastor of Prestonwood,
I am sure 39 solid christian ministers, but 1 goof ball makes the whole place look bad.
Prestonwood church does a lot of good in the community, but ole satan can always find someone who is weak and use them to make people of faith look bad.One bad apple does tend to spoil the whole bunch BUT
The way avoid looking bad is to respond strongly to the problem.

A problem with organized religion lately is that they tend to hide these deviants by ignoring the problem or by moving them around. Reports say that his last few posts have all been 8-9 months which suggests or might suggest that he has been shuffled around for some reason

At this point many people think that the religious infrastructure is actively knowingly hiding these predators. Its time to stop that.

In my opinion its time for "the church" ( all denominations ) to take decisive action to protect the youngest in society from their leadership.

[dboat]

One bad apple does tend to spoil the whole bunch BUT
The way avoid looking bad is to respond strongly to the problem.

A problem with organized religion lately is that they tend to hide these deviants by ignoring the problem or by moving them around. Reports say that his last few posts have all been 8-9 months which suggests or might suggest that he has been shuffled around for some reason

At this point many people think that the religious infrastructure is actively knowingly hiding these predators. Its time to stop that.

In my opinion its time for "the church" ( all denominations ) to take decisive action to protect the youngest in society from their leadership.

+1

[98Cobra]

One bad apple does tend to spoil the whole bunch BUT
The way avoid looking bad is to respond strongly to the problem.

A problem with organized religion lately is that they tend to hide these deviants by ignoring the problem or by moving them around. Reports say that his last few posts have all been 8-9 months which suggests or might suggest that he has been shuffled around for some reason

At this point many people think that the religious infrastructure is actively knowingly hiding these predators. Its time to stop that.

In my opinion its time for "the church" ( all denominations ) to take decisive action to protect the youngest in society from their leadership.

I couldnt agree more, Doug.

Reading the story about it on WFAA.com, the part that bothered me most was:

"We've taken a hit from the enemy this week, but we will rise above and respond to the challenge ... ," he said, as church members applauded. "We are confident and certain that in the days ahead that God is preparing us for something magnificent and wonderful in the ministry of this church. ...We want to put this in our rearview mirror."

I think a lot of churches want to put it in their rearview mirror. That's part of the problem.

[WA 2 FST]

Ok, first of all... this is not just a "church" problem. The church calls it "sin", and everyone else calls it "wrong".

But since everyone also holds "the church" (using it in a broad sense) to a higher standard ... fine by me, except its funny that when the church says something that is convicting, everyone flies off the handle, doesn't want the church to speak out, doesn't want to listen, calls them "religious bigots", etc... it takes a beating much moreso than if this guy was just a sexual predator who had some other occupation.

I haven't read the entire story, and I do not claim to know all the details.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of you who feel that the punishment/discipline should be there. And if this type of thing happened to a corporate executive, he'd be fired, and would have a hard time finding aother job. At the very least, this guy should no longer be allowed to minister elsewhere.

I don't know if other Baptist churches are not doing their research on this guy or what. Maybe he's not being honest when he interviews for another positions elsewhere? Maybe there is another church that is so desperate for a minister that they are not checking deep enough.

What do you want the church to say? I think they have admitted the mistake, and certainly want to move forward. He didn't say they were "sweeping it under the rug" or something like that. They aren't ignoring it. Putting it behind them is ok. Once the issue came to their attention, didn't they act swiftly? I understand if he was caught by public officials. But just b/c the church didn't recognize the problem first, is it completely their fault?

"...protect the youngest in society from their leadership." ??? What? We should protect them from ourselves (speaking as one who is in church leadership)? Sinful, corrupt leadership... certainly. And I would say that is a responsibility of the church AND society as a whole. Certainly within the church it is completely and utterly shameful when these types of issues arise. It's disgusting.

I've seen folks removed from a local church body b/c they were having an affair with another inside the church. What happens? These people are free to go to another church. If that other church doesn't do any checking on these people, then they worship, serve and minister to others in their "new" congregation like nothing ever happened. So, in this type of scenario (which is extremely common), who is at fault? Church #1 for calling a spade a spade and booting them out, or church #2 for not digging for some info on their new members?

Even churches within the same denomination are a bit fragmented when it comes to organizational structure. It is not as easy to track folks as you might think. Now... as far as paid staff goes... you would think a church as large as Prestonwood (and with the immense funds they have available) that they would be able to screen their ministers a little better.

But I haven't heard them NOT admit to a mistake here. The guy is gone, isn't he?

Sorry for the ramble.

[WA 2 FST]

This is also an excerpt from the Senior Pastor's address regarding the situation

"You need to know that we are appalled and we are disgraced by this terrible action, an unacceptable action by a minister on our staff," Dr. Graham said. "I'm so sorry for the injury that this kind of behavior has brought to many people in our church and outside of our church."

They also said this guy was working with married, middle aged adults. He was not a children's or youth minister.

I'm not excusing the former minister's actions. They are deplorable. And the church is supporting the authorities in the investigation. This took the leadership completely by surprise. It doesn't make it any less wrong (but the church itself isn't wrong, unless someone on staff _intentionally_ overlooked documented behavioral or other issues with this guy, in an effort to get him hired in the first place).

[Silver_2000]

Wes

I was speaking in general terms about past actions by many churches

Never been to that church, only know what has been reported.

In my opinion yes churches and their staff absolutely should be held to a higher standard. And yes you are right its a society problem - BUT it seems to be concentrated in many cases amongst the clergy and there is a clearly documented record of the religious infrastructure either NOT taking action or actively hiding the issues ...

Its a HUGE problem - Churches want to be open and accepting of everyone yet in doing that they seem to be attracting a higher concentration of deviants. If its not truly a higher concentration they are certainly getting a high level of attention for each issue.

To repeat - Im not attempting to blast any particular denomination - I was raised RC so I feel guilty by association from many years ago

[dboat]

Wes,
I believe Doug's comment was in general vs the specific situation you refer to. However, having a father that was a Baptist minister, I understand your comments. I dont know if Prestonwood or any other specific church runs a background check on employees, of any kind, or on those appointed to positions of authority within the church. As a church member, you would want to think the best about anyone that attends church and the church wants all the help it can get. However, given the activity level of those that are not Christians and will prey on those that are not as devious as they, it would be a very good idea to do so.
In regard to whether a church would screen potential attendees, well, since the church makes it a point to accept all sinners so that they can repent, I doubt that having a screening program would be good for membership.
These issues have a way of working themselves out, but we do hold churches to a higher standard. How they respond to these situations is a reflection of how strong in the Lord that a church really is.

Dana

[WA 2 FST]

Its a HUGE problem - Churches want to be open and accepting of everyone yet in doing that they seem to be attracting a higher concentration of deviants. If its not truly a higher concentration they are certainly getting a high level of attention for each issue.

To repeat - Im not attempting to blast any particular denomination - I was raised RC so I feel guilty by association from many years ago

I am not putting my head in the sand and saying its not a problem. Fortunately it hasn't been a problem at the church where I serve/attend.

I also think that churches do get a higher level of attention for this type of issue, compared to a corporation who has an executive who gets caught doing the same type of thing.

It is nothing short of appalling that these people get "second chances" to serve in ministry. In fact, the Bible (although nowdays there are too many churches who don't take it literally, seriously, or just take the bits and pieces that fit their needs) is very clear about the character of those who should be serving in leadership positions. Obviously this doesn't mean that church leaders will never have issues, but it doesn't offer a lot of grace for second chances. It doesn't mean a person who doesn't measure up to the standard can't be a part of the church... but just not in leadership. 1 Tim 3, Titus 1-2.

[WA 2 FST]

Dana,

I agree with you. Attendance and acceptance by a church body should not require a lot, but to serve in leadership should require a TON (again, I refer to what Scripture points to very clearly about the character of those who should be given leadership positions).

Our church does background checks (both criminal, personal, and occupational). We do not allow new attendees to serve in any type of capacity (paid staff or lay positions) without leadership/ministry heads knowing something about these folks.

This still doesn't mean that we are 100% free from the potential of something really ugly rearing its head. But church administrations should be doing something to protect their attendees (and the community they serve!!) from allowing folks to ascend to leadership positions without really knowing them. Again, to me this is all about using the Biblical standard and NOT deviating from it, no matter what. It doesn't always make it the most popular thing b/c at times you end up turning away some potential leaders who, at least from all intents and purposes look to be very promising b/c of the high standard the Bible sets.

What we have is a watered down standard in order to appease people and make them feel good. Of course this very sentence encapsulates a lot of the problems in our current society here in the US... in and outside of church walls.

[dboat]

Dana,

I agree with you. Attendance and acceptance by a church body should not require a lot, but to serve in leadership should require a TON (again, I refer to what Scripture points to very clearly about the character of those who should be given leadership positions).

Our church does background checks (both criminal, personal, and occupational). We do not allow new attendees to serve in any type of capacity (paid staff or lay positions) without leadership/ministry heads knowing something about these folks.

This still doesn't mean that we are 100% free from the potential of something really ugly rearing its head. But church administrations should be doing something to protect their attendees (and the community they serve!!) from allowing folks to ascend to leadership positions without really knowing them. Again, to me this is all about using the Biblical standard and NOT deviating from it, no matter what. It doesn't always make it the most popular thing b/c at times you end up turning away some potential leaders who, at least from all intents and purposes look to be very promising b/c of the high standard the Bible sets.

What we have is a watered down standard in order to appease people and make them feel good. Of course this very sentence encapsulates a lot of the problems in our current society here in the US... in and outside of church walls.

+1.. to sum it up.. it aint easy.. and that is why they call it work.. problem is for smaller churches, they dont have the resources to do all the background checks that Prestonwood is doing. Here is the next question, now that this has happened, will the church look to see where it failed to see this potentially happen and institute steps and actions to make sure it wont happen again. That is the real hard part.

Dana

[Silver_2000]

+1.. to sum it up.. it aint easy.. and that is why they call it work.. problem is for smaller churches, they dont have the resources to do all the background checks that Prestonwood is doing. Here is the next question, now that this has happened, will the church look to see where it failed to see this potentially happen and institute steps and actions to make sure it wont happen again. That is the real hard part.

Dana

Exactly .. +100

[WA 2 FST]

Knowing some of the long history of the church in question, I am confident that they will thoroughly investigate where things failed in their decision to hire this person.

I actually think in some ways it could be harder for the larger churches. Smaller churches like where I attend (350-400) don't have large staffs. They will typically be extremely particular about who they hire, including a drawn-out interview process which would often include a lot of time spent getting to know the current leadership and others within the congregation. Given they don't have as many staffing needs, means they are just less likely to get burned.

The larger church can more easily pay for (and have the resources to administer) background checks, etc. But they may not be able to spend as much time interacting with a particular candidate before pulling the trigger on the hire.

[98Cobra]

I think the reason that it seems like churches are held to a higher standard is because they are, and should be. Clergy are recognized by society sort of like public servants - having unique positions in people's lives, just like teachers, police officers, etc. If a police officer or a teacher is caught doing this sort of thing, the news coverage is just as big, and it should be.

I do think that it should be a one shot and you are out of ministering sort of thing. Its just too dangerous to innocent kids otherwise!

[WA 2 FST]

Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be held to a higher standard, but what this guy did is a crime no matter his occupation.

What I think is hypocritical is those who make the brush strokes too broad. Lumping all the denominations and/or religions together is incorrect, but I understand how people would do that... just like others of us might look at all institutions of politics and say they are all corrupt.

I can tell you this... its quite the irony, but President Clinton wasn't held to a higher standard. We don't need to debate that, b/c frankly there is no debate on the issue. And we're talking about the highest ranking official in the US (and probably the world, at least at the time).

As far as how various churches consider people for areas of ministry, I'm in agreement with you, but this is based upon my understanding of what the Bible says...and that's what my church holds to. It doesn't exclude people from being a part of the church based upon their past, but it would exclude them from areas of authority/high-ranking responsibility where they could have bad influence over _anyone_, much more so younger folks.

I'm not sure what is up with all these continuous charges against priests/bishops in some denominations. Like you guys are saying, I can't see why/how they are allowed to continue, and just kind of move from one church to another.

[dboat]

I think most would agree with your last paragraph.. I wont get into Clinton either, except he placed shame on the office. But that is where Doug was going, if and once it happens, you have to eradicate it permanently from being able to do it again. When certain churches just moved the person around, I imagine they were thinking it was the "Christian" thing to do. When indeed, it was really just the opposite. IMHO

Dana

[Silver_2000]

I think most would agree with your last paragraph.. I wont get into Clinton either, except he placed shame on the office. But that is where Doug was going, if and once it happens, you have to eradicate it permanently from being able to do it again. When certain churches just moved the person around, I imagine they were thinking it was the "Christian" thing to do. When indeed, it was really just the opposite. IMHO

Dana
what he said

[98Cobra]

I dont think the "lumping" of religions together is a slight - we should and can expect more out of people selected for clergy or equivalent duty no matter the denomination. I dont think that was Doug's intention to call them all the same thing - it was really just easier to say it that way.

And while we certainly shouldnt detour this discussion with Clinton, I will say that comparing what Clinton did to what this guy did is apples and oranges. And this coming from a guy that not only 100% agrees with you that Clinton was not held to the higher standard that he should have been, but also does not understand why he wasnt charged with perjury for lieing on the witness stand.

[toddwarren]

How come Terry always starts these controversial threads and then hides

out :icon_question::icon_question::icon_question::D

[tiffo60]

How come Terry always starts these controversial threads and then hides

out :icon_question::icon_question::icon_question::D

he just like's stirring it up and then kick back to watch it all come to a head:icon_mrgreen:

[L8 APEX]

I don't think people would benefit from my views of reason and common sense. There is no place for that in a thread about religion and politics:D

I agree with the views posted. Clergy and public servants should be punished severely for betraying the publics trust. Clinton got head from a grown consenting adult employee. That is nothing like this chester traveling 200 miles with web cam and Magnum rubbers to diggle a 13yr old child.
I think the churches do have a large percentage of chesters. Maybe it is the vows of celibacy some take. They satisfy their needs in "other ways". Maybe it is where the rejected find welcome and power/trust. There are a lot of weirdos there that abuse their privilege among emotionally vulnerable people of all ages.
Happy Todd:tu:

[WA 2 FST]

You guys misunderstood my point about Clinton. Obviously this minister committed a crime, so certainly there is a difference. I equated them only from the aspect of people who are held in high regard being held to a higher standard. Clinton was not held to a higher standard of ethics, period.

[dboat]

You guys misunderstood my point about Clinton. Obviously this minister committed a crime, so certainly there is a difference. I equated them only from the aspect of people who are held in high regard being held to a higher standard. Clinton was not held to a higher standard of ethics, period.
Thats because the process became politicized. Sure, the Republicans held him to a higher standard but his fellow Democrats felt they had to stand behind him rather than step up and tell him to step down since he shamed the office..
at least that how I saw it.

Dana

[Silver_2000]

You guys misunderstood my point about Clinton. Obviously this minister committed a crime, so certainly there is a difference. I equated them only from the aspect of people who are held in high regard being held to a higher standard. Clinton was not held to a higher standard of ethics, period.

We can hope that his problems with fidelity, will help keep his wife from office :evil:evil:gatling:

[toddwarren]

It appears all agree that people in the public trust like ministers should be,
and are held to a higher standard. "celabicy" is for catholic priests, Baptists like this guy can marry, and he was married with kids I believe, can you imagine the embarrasment his family feels right now.
I know some members at Prestonwood and this particular guy was thought to be as normal as any of us.:icon_eek:
I have been told he had no known background of sexual misconduct.
That is where a background check does not help if the pervert has never been caught before there is no record to check.
Good thoughts from all on a sad but serious subject, good thread start Terry.:twitch:

[98Cobra]

Update - big surprise, that wasnt the first kid he talked to...

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080604_ac_barron.5f3d4803.html

[dboat]

http://www.dallasnews.com/video/?z=y&nvid=246392

This church has it right... Pastor Jack Graham deserves accolades for doing the right thing..

Dana