JOIN US MAY 20-21 FOR RESTORE CONFERENCE

Mary
DeMuth

Scot
McKnight

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 1.50.18 PM

Naghmeh
Panahi

Reporting the Truth.
Restoring the Church.

Opinion: Bethlehem Baptist, Apologies and “Unintentional Sin”

By Julie Roys
Andy Naselli Bethlehem Baptist Church College Seminary
Andy Naselli, an elder at Bethlehem Baptist Church and professor at Bethlehem College and Seminary, is at the center of controversy at the church and school. (Source: AndyNaselli.com)

If you hurt someone unintentionally, do you need to ask that person for forgiveness?

This issue recently surfaced on a podcast The Roys Report published on What Happened at Bethlehem Baptist Church?  When addressing alleged defamatory and hurtful statements he made about two church members, Bethlehem elder and Professor at Bethlehem College and Seminary, Andy Naselli, argued that you don’t.

In audio of a meeting with the two members, Steve and Janette Takata, Naselli explained:

We’ve got four kids, and we distinguish between when to say, ‘I’m sorry,’ and when to say, ‘I’m sorry, please forgive me.’ So, if one of the kids chucks a block across the room and hits her sister in the head—if it was an accident, it’s an ‘I’m sorry.’ But you don’t say, ‘Please forgive me.’ But if she took aim and whacked her, that’s a ‘I’m sorry, please forgive me.’ Intent matters.

Naselli adds that it would be relieving to ask the Takatas for forgiveness for some of the hurtful things he’s said and done. (As the Takatas and I discussed in an earlier podcast, these included comparing a motion the Takatas brought to the church to a “grenade” being launched; falsely alleging that the Takatas had disobeyed elders when they brought the motion, something Naselli later admitted; and painting Janette Takata as a liberal attacking longtime, beloved Bethlehem pastor, John Piper and others.)

Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Even If He Doesn’t: What We Believe about God When Life Doesn’t Make Sense” by Kristen LaValley. To donate, click here.

Yet Naselli says that if he asked for forgiveness from the Takatas, he “would be lying to make peace” because “I have zero ill intent against you in what I’ve done. Zero.”

Naselli Bethlehem College and Seminary
Current Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Andy Naselli

Certainly, lying is never a solution to a relational conflict. But assuming Naselli’s actions were unintentional, would it be wrong for him to seek forgiveness?

The answer to that question became a major sticking point in what developed into a major debacle at Bethlehem. As I’ve reported, three pastors and hundreds of members left Bethlehem last year. And one of the main reasons cited for their departure is Naselli’s behavior and the elders’ response to it.

Shortly after recording the podcast, I discovered an incredibly helpful resource—a book by Columbia Biblical Seminary Dean David Croteau, called Urban Legends of the Old Testament. Interestingly, one of the “myths” Croteau addresses is the notion that “unintentional sin is inconsequential.”

Croteau is quick to note that the Bible distinguishes between intentional and unintentional sin.

In Leviticus 5, for example, Scripture cites touching something that’s unclean without realizing it as an unintentional sin. The next chapter gives an example of intentional sin: deceiving and defrauding a neighbor.

Croteau writes that both these sins are forgivable. (The only unforgivable sin, he says, is “defiantly intentional sin.”) But both intentional and unintentional sins are also sins requiring sacrifice, though the punishment for intentional sins are more severe.

David Croteau unintentional sin
Professor David Croteau

As Croteau notes, Leviticus 5 states that someone who commits an unintentional sin “will bear his iniquity.” The passage adds that only after a sacrifice is made will the sin be forgiven.

“All three categories of sin (unintentional, intentional, and defiantly intentional sin) were viewed as very serious offenses against a holy God, causing a rupture in relationship,” Croteau writes. “It is valid to recognize the differences between these categories of sin, but nothing in the text validates viewing any category as dismissible.”

Yet, some may argue that these Old Testament categories are outdated.

Croteau readily admits that the New Testament doesn’t talk much about intentional and unintentional sin. But he notes one place where it does is in Acts 3 when Peter preaches to the crowd after healing a crippled man.

Peter confronts the crowd for handing Jesus over to Pilate to be killed and asking Pilate to release Barabbas, a murderer, rather than Christ. Then Peter says, “I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your leaders did.” In other words, the people sinned unintentionally.

Yet, Peter doesn’t say God overlooks this unintentional sin. Instead, he urges the crowd to “repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out.”

Croteau concludes his chapter on unintentional sin by addressing a situation very much like the situation between Naselli and the Takatas.

“If someone sins unintentionally against you, forgiving the offender is much easier,” Croteau writes. “All you should need to hear is that the person is sorry and asks for forgiveness.”

Yet he also notes, “(I)f a sin was unintentional and you point out the sin to the offender, you will likely get an immediate contrite response. If someone is not immediately contrite, the offense probably was not unintentional.”

Only God knows the heart. But Naselli’s stubborn refusal to own his sin, and the elders’ willingness to overlook it, has been one of the most concerning parts of what’s occurred at Bethlehem. Eventually, Naselli apologized to the Takatas for his false and harmful speech. But it took him more than two months to do so. And when he apologized, it was merely for not being “slow to speak, quick to hear.”

The Takatas argued before Bethlehem’s elders that Naselli’s behavior toward them disqualified him for service as an elder. And given that it wasn’t an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern of alleged spiritual abuse, I tend to agree.

The church, however, decided otherwise. In fact, on the audio of the meeting between Naselli and the Takatas, one elder suggests that the church should offer better teaching on apologies, based on Naselli’s arguments!

This is incredibly sad. Second to our relationship with God is our relationship with each other. But if we don’t know how to properly own and apologize for our sin, these relationships quickly deteriorate.

Because I believe viewing sin correctly is such an important issue, we’re offering Croteau’s book, Urban Legends of the Old Testament, as our premium for donations in the month of February. It’s my prayer that this outstanding resource will help equip believers to think biblically about this issue and many others.

It’s also my hope that in the future, Bethlehem elders will respond to conflict by being quick to apologize and own their errors—both intentional and unintentional.

SHARE THIS:

GET EMAIL UPDATES!

Keep in touch with Julie and get updates in your inbox!

Don’t worry we won’t spam you.

More to explore
discussion

13 Responses

  1. Maybe the bright side of all this is that we can forgive even if people don’t ask for forgiveness, it is not up to the offender for the offended to have peace and be healed (although of course that can help and it’s God’s desire for relationships to be restored, but the Lord is powerful enough to heal us even without that). On the other hand, one thing we are also sure of, because it is God’s law: whoever conceals their sins does not prosper. That’s God’s decree and it will come to pass.

  2. My experience has been, “When in doubt, apologize!” This includes settings outside the church such as the secular workplace. Every person I’ve apologized to has responded graciously. Making a doctrine out of this is a waste of time. Instead, work on offending less, intentional or not, and try to do better next time with God’s help.

  3. Julie, thanks for a thought-provoking opinion piece and helpful context from Mr. Croteau.

    Applying the example of children at play to conflict within a church strikes me as disingenuous. Agreed, we don’t discipline youngsters for spilling milk. Adults, however, are held to different standards. Even if a believer harbors no malice while gossiping, he/she should know that such speech is likely to harm others. It’s not uncommon for an unfaithful spouse to declare, after the affair is discovered, “I never meant to hurt my husband/wife.” And plausible that the wayward person, while sinning, was truly unconscious of any contempt toward his/her spouse [though deceived as to sin’s predictable consequences]. But lack of intent is no excuse because any married adult can reasonably expect that adultery will gravely harm numerous relationships.

    Disclaimers: I’m not associated with Bethlehem church, nor am I a Bible scholar. Comments about this topic from other readers are welcomed.

    1. Cec Metz, thank you for your well reasoned and rational comments. I don’t think you need to apologize for not being a Bible scholar. It is the Bible scholar who is letting himself off the hook through scriptural manipulations and deception of self and others. Whether Naselli sees or acknowledges his sinful behavior, does not make it less sinful for an elder to give false witness and defame/slander another member of his church. What comes out of his mouth, first was in his heart. He may be blind to it, but that is from whence it came.

  4. Thank you so much for this, Julie. The topics of forgiveness and apology are misunderstood and wrongly taught, I fear. The wrong people are made to bear the burden of sin. Please keep researching and reporting!

  5. “… falsely alleging that the Takatas had disobeyed elders when they brought the motion, something Naselli later admitted; …”

    This sounds exactly like “bearing false witness against your neighbor.” If Mr. Naselli thinks this is a sin only if you intended to hurt the person being lied about, does he think the same thing about adultery, theft, coveting, etc.?

    “I would by lying to God if I asked my wife to forgive me for cheating, because I didn’t do it with the intention of hurting her. I did it because I really wanted to have sex with Jane.”

  6. Unless someone can show me otherwise, I refuse to believe Naselli’s defense has ever been considered an acceptable teaching in orthodox Christianity.

  7. After listening to Andy Nascelli’s apology, which was only given grudgingly months later, I wish I hadn’t. He verbosely parced every word as to why he really didn’t do anything wrong – except speak too quickly.
    It reminded me of when Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness…“ Mt 23:23
    When an elder cannot apologize for hurting another person, intentionally or not, something is very wrong with their heart.
    And like mentioned in the podcast, this man trains others to become pastors! Lord have mercy!!

  8. This is not even close to the very heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that Jesus told his disciples who would become leaders to not lord their authority over anyone. He also said plainly “if you love me then keep my commandments.” The chief of these is to love one another. Paul goes on to further expand this by saying “but if I do not have love, then I am nothing!” And John went on in his epistle to say that it is impossible to love God with loving one another. Where leaders like this demonic snake lord their authority over others and are selfish and abusive, this is not Christian in any Christ sense. This is a church of Satan. Leaders who do not love are carnal and as bad as our common lying politicians. Love is really just that simple…

  9. Certainly the Bible distinguishes between intentional sin and unintentional sin. That is probably why even human laws, of which many find their basis in Scripture, distinguish between the mental state in crimes (intent, knowledge, recklessness).

    But whether a sin is committed intentionally or not, it is still a sin and requires forgiveness from God; and the only way to receive forgiveness is through repentance. Whether I intend to hurt someone or not does not determine whether not that person was hurt by what I did. I have often used the following example to illustrate this. Suppose I get drunk and while driving hurt or even kill someone. The fact that I did not intend to hurt or kill someone in no way lessens the fact that I DID hurt or kill someone. I still need forgiveness either way.

    If your brother has something against you, you are responsible for fixing it, whether you intended to hurt him or not (Matthew 5:23-24), and if your brother sins, whether he knows about it or intended to do it, you still need to help him recognize it so he can repent (Matthew 18:15).

    1. Exodus 21:28-9 deals with intent and neglecting known risks. If your ox gores someone, you are not personally guilty. But if you knew your ox was prone to goring people, and it gores someone, you are guilty of murder.

      Naselli had been confronted before about his reckless and hurtful patterns.

  10. The thing I find so nauseating is how the theological and apologetic style that is typically reserved for hashing out questions on the bible is being used to escape personal responsibility for the harm done to another. Splitting hairs over the meaning of apologies is like religious castor oil. I have read this tribes writings for years and it seems they perpetually build thier ivory tower ever higher and look farther down thier noses on others who don’t share thier theological veiws, dispensing edicts of “damnable heresy” and doctrinal concern all the while teaching in the most complicated of ways that only part of humanity is even loved by God.
    Is it any wonder this kind of insipid self justification would be the eventual result?

  11. There is more to say… but honestly a story like shows the need for sound doctrine. We need distinction between media and the City on a Hill. Authority within the flock not above the flock. As well as respect for the authority. The Takatas need to move on. Some of their desires in the podcast are not biblical and divisive. Naselli should have handled things better realizing that sheep need patient care. But there are problems on both sides of this spiritual coin.

Leave a Reply

The Roys Report seeks to foster thoughtful and respectful dialogue. Toward that end, the site requires that people register before they begin commenting. This means no anonymous comments will be allowed. Also, any comments with profanity, name-calling, and/or a nasty tone will be deleted.
 
MOST RECENT Articles
MOST popular articles
en_USEnglish

Donate

Hi. We see this is the third article this month you’ve found worth reading. Great! Would you consider making a tax-deductible donation to help our journalists continue to report the truth and restore the church?

Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “The Atlas Factor: Shifting Leadership Onto the Shoulders of Jesus” by Lance Ford.