I have submitted the following resolution, On Repudiating Predatory Behavior, to the SBC Committee on Resolutions for their consideration. I am hopeful that this will be reported out by the committee to the messengers gathered at this year’s annual meeting in Dallas as it is, or in hybrid form combining any other similar resolutions on this subject.
I believe the significance of this resolution lies in the full scope of its application. Predatory behavior includes domestic violence (sexual, physical, and psychological), child abuse (sexual, physical, and psychological), sexual predation, and power abuse (including financial threats, as well as the utilization of position to groom victims for other types of abuse). Such predatory behavior is well defined in this excellent article posted at the Gospel Coalition: Leaders, Talk About Power to Protect the Vulnerable, by my friend Chris Davis.
The resolution:
ON REPUDIATING PREDATORY BEHAVIOR
WHEREAS, we have for too long lived in an environment within our nation which has allowed predatory behavior to fester and grow, impacting the workplace, communities, political arena, churches, and our homes; and
WHEREAS, we agree on the understanding that predatory abusers utilize sex, money, and power to subjugate their victims in any of the previously mentioned contexts; and
WHEREAS, the Bible condemns predatory behavior, clearly describing it as sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Colossians 3:5-6); and
WHEREAS, current trends in cultural awareness, including the #MeToo movement and others, have opened the door for victims to courageously voice their plight and seek justice; and
WHEREAS, the people of God are called upon to defend the hurt and oppressed (Psalm 82:4; Proverbs 24:11), and to stand for justice (Psalm 82:3; Proverbs 31:8-9); and
WHEREAS, we, the Southern Baptist Convention, have historically failed through our convention voice in resolutions to stand up for these victims, only passing two resolutions on related issues in our entire history; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 12-13, 2018, repudiate with singular voice all predatory behavior as unquestionably sinful and under the just condemnation of a Holy God; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we repent for having been silent, not utilizing our voice as messengers from our churches, to clearly speak against this sin; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we advocate for all legal and spiritual consequences to be brought upon such abusers while also calling those predators to repentance in the hope of Christ-honoring reconciliation; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that the messengers of this convention encourage our leaders in our churches and entities to be faithful examples, through their words and actions, of those who speak prophetically against the sin of predatory abuse also acting to ensure that our churches and entities provide safe, reassuring opportunities to minister to victims of this kind of behavior through mandatory reporting of such abuse and providing pastoral care.
Thank you Scott. This is well worded and a good resolution in my opinion.
Thank you, Debbie.
Thanks, Scott. Sadly, something like this is sorely needed.
Yep
Thanks, Adam. Totally agree. We live in a sad day.
A worthy resolution and one that I will gladly support.
Thanks.
Good work Scott. This is needed and I think the committee will appreciate your thoughtfulness here. I’d be surprised if we don’t see this material (along with maybe a few other similar ones combined) reported out by the committee.
Thanks.
This is a good, positive step in addressing this issue. I’d like to offer a suggestion for beefing up the second paragraph. The resolution may pack a little more punch if you are more specific about what predatory abusers utilize to subjugate their victims. You actually do some of this in the blog post intro when you describe the scope of predatory behavior and could almost copy and paste from it. I think it would be great to include that in the resolution as it shows a more thorough understanding of the situation.
Example:
We agree on the understanding that predatory abusers utilize domestic violence (sexual, physical, and psychological), child abuse (sexual, physical, and psychological), sexual predation, and power abuse (including financial threats, as well as the utilization of position to groom victims for other types of abuse) to subjugate their victims in any of the previously mentioned contexts; and
Blake, that’s a great edit. I would certainly be glad for the committee to add that or to introduce that amendment from the floor.
Good resolution. I agree with it.
I would leave the part out about the SBC failing to do this before. I know people have good intentions when they insert language like this, but I think that we need to move away from indicting ourselves. It does not earn us any credibility, really. It looks self serving. And it’s not necessary.
But I know the strong pull of Christians to want to do this. It’s so strong some may see that part of the resolution as the best part.
I see the best part as making clear where we stand and what we are going to do about it.
Louis, I understand where you are coming from. I also think it is helpful to acknowledge our past short falling and then definitely move forward proactively.
Scott,
I will gladly vote yes on this. This is desperately needed.
Thanks.
Excellent job Scott!
Thanks.
I would like to see something specifically included about “cyber” predatory behavior although I realize in light of the widespread pro-Trump sentiment in the SBC that it might kill the resolution.
I agree in principle with this resolution.
This language concerns me:
“WHEREAS, current trends in cultural awareness, including the #MeToo movement and others, have opened the door for victims to courageously voice their plight and seek justice;”
This “trend in cultural awareness” is, by and large, a godless movement with no moral foundation whatsoever upon which to stand. We as a convention and as individuals need to hold this cultural trend at a healthy arm’s length and simply speak truth into culture.
The timing of this resolution naturally gives the impression that the cultural tail is wagging moral dog of the SBC. There is no need to validate this appearance with such language in our resolutions.
Other than that, I think the resolution is solid, and I thank Scott for his work.
Scott,
The resolution reads great but hollow. Just search sbcvoices previous posts. There were multiple resolutions suggestion here that span across 10 years. They all sound the same – “SBC are deeply sorry. We did not taken action. Abuse is sin. We should repent. We strongly denounce such sinful behavior.”
Is there a SBC abuse hotline? Is there an abuse safe house? Is there an official 3rd party to investigate allegations that any SBC church can freely uses as their resources?
What I am asking is, is there ONE turn-around action(biblical repentance) for the benefit of victims besides offering the words “We are deeply sorry. We sinned” – any action that requires sacrifice on the part of SBC to right the wrongs or to put in guards to prevent future wrongs?
To me it is like a priest walk pass a victim on the side of the road and tell the victim I will say a prayer for your sorry state. Then went on his way to his business. Leaving the victim lying on the side of the road.
How will SBC revive if we are just saying and feeling sorry?
Good points and questions Ray.
Thank you, Ray. Your words are apt, your questions are wise, and your call for action is much-needed. Change in this realm may still be far in the future for the SBC, but in your reality-based comment I see hope … someday.
This is a discussion where dealing with all the realities is sure to get one criticized. But, is there an “SBC church”? No. There are only churches in friendly cooperation with various SBC associations and conventions. There are Safe houses sponsored and funded, wholly or in part by SBC affiliated churches and entities. I don’t know of an “SBC hotline” but know of no reason why churches, conventions, or entities couldn’t sponsor one.
I don’t know why the many third party organizations already available to churches along with law enforcement authorities aren’t sufficient. An “official” third party funded by an SBC state convention or the SBC Executive Committee would merely be available for use by independent churches but could not be involved except by being retained by the church. I’m not sure how this differs from what Is available presently but I’m open to being shown why such would be better.
I don’t disagree that a resolution is just words which have limited value but I’d guess that we will have more discussions of what concrete actions might be taken in the days ahead.
William,
We voluntarily associate to do missions. To do disaster relief. To educate future ministers. Why not give churches in the SBC the opportunity to participate in a database. Then list the churches involved. That way people looking for a church would know whether the church they were considering reported abuse or not? Did background checks or not? Had a history of abuse?
I don’t think this is as hard as people are making it out to be. This seems like a no brainer
What good is a voluntary database? And, who should be in it? On what basis do you think any church would load people in a database of perps, or alleged perps?
They many times do not tell the other church why they let minister H go, and so why would they put his name on a database?
And this leads me to some observations/opinions that are by no means exhaustive.
The SBC is great for giving small to medium sized churches a way to impact missions. I hope that doesn’t get changed.
The SBC is by, it’s nature, at odds with itself. There is on the one hand, 47000+ autonomous congregations, some with women pastors, some preaching heresy, and some who knows what. These congregations do as they please, and they answer to the Lord, and it seems that is right.
But on the other hand, we have entities, with seemingly no ties to those 47000 congregations except for the money they receive.
The point is that there is no accountability in place for anyone. False teachers are allowed to pastor our churches and bad leaders are allowed to direct our entities.
And of course we have no ability to be proactive, and we move only when a crisis hits. We are reactive. But our reaction is usually to pass a resolution. But because of our built in dichotomy, there is usually little we can actually do to change things. So we is another resolution saying the same things a year or two or three later.
As individuals indwelt with the Spirit, we can actually change, but as a corporate body, divided by design, change is hard and slow.
Well … friends don’t call me a “hopeless optimist” for nothin’ I guess. So, with respect to Ray’s question about “ONE turn-around action,” I’m gonna toss this in here. The single most important change the SBC needs is to cooperatively empower one or more organizations or entities, independent of the local churches, to receive and assess reports about sexual abuse committed by clergy, deacons, and other church and denominational officials. Here’s how such an independent body would dramatically improve the handling of sexual abuse reports within the SBC:
1. It would provide a much needed “protected space” where those abused by clergy could make a report with a reasonable expectation of being objectively and compassionately heard, and would spare abuse survivors the enormous re-traumatization of trying to go to the church of the alleged perpetrator, where typically, the reception is akin to a bloody sheep going into the den of the “wolf” who savaged it.
2. For survivors whose claims are not subject to criminal prosecution – which is most – it would offer clarity about the first step for reporting institutionally and would lift the burden of trying to track church-hopping preachers on their own.
3. It would furnish local churches (most of which have less than 100 people in the pews) with the ready resource of an outside organization with an established process for assessing abuse allegations responsibly, fairly and consistently, and for making recommendations to churches about an accused pastor’s continuing fitness for office. Outsiders are essential to any system of accountability.
4. It would afford the broader faith group a solid basis for imposing consequences on churches that harbor pastors who are unfit for ministerial office. Consequences are needed in order to bring about change. And nothing about “local church autonomy” would preclude denominational bodies from ousting such churches from affiliation so as to at least preclude them from carrying the imprimatur of the “brand.”
5. It would equip the faith community as a whole with a centralized resource for recordkeeping and information sharing. This would allow churches to readily ascertain whether a pastor may have accrued multiple accusations and to make better hiring decisions. I see this as empowering churches, not as intruding on their autonomy.
Christa and I have discussed this for, oh, a decade or so and I’m not on board. But, as a survivor of horrible abuse in an SBC church, she has more rights than others to state her case for greater protection of victims and safer churches for all. I’ve read her book, and reviewed it online. I welcome her contribution to any discussion here and, maybe there are some thoughts I haven’t had on it all.
It might be more profitable to start a new topic on the database/independent body. It’s certainly an opportune time, even though clergy abuse of children has been a part of all this. Maybe next week one day after the holiday weekend.
I’d like to discuss this too. In theory it’s a fantastic idea – I’m just unsure how it’s work in actual practice. Certainly I desire to expel those disqualified for ministry from it (lay and paid ministry)… And I would certainly support a way to make that information more readily available for unsuspecting churches and such…..if we can find a way to do it… But…
Some questions that come to mind…
– Are we talking about listing only those who’ve been accused and adjudicated by some form of due process or is an accusation enough?
– let’s define adjucation and due process.
– who adds names to database?
– who maintains (updates and hosts the site)?
– what are the practical and legal perils?
– what offfenses qualify for registry and will there be uniform reporting? (Ie – might one church report a deacon/Pastor adult small group/SS teacher who has a consensual affair with another adult as predatory while another church might consider this same action as immoral but not predatory?
– once on always on?
– last question for now and it’s connected to my most recent one – what role does repentance demonstrated by time and accountability play with regard to certain offenses? What are the “forgivable” offenses and which cause someone to be perpetually on the list and who might be removed – and who determines such?
Thank you Christina for your deep insight and practical suggestion.
William,
Someone as green as I am in SBC life, deeply understand that SBC is always about providing resources for local church. Resources that local church usually cannot afford to gathered by themselves(education curriculum, pastoral training, dicipleship training, sending a someone to missions, etc.). Whether a local church want to use the help and resources is ALWAYS up to them.
The “church autonomy” excuse for SBC NOT to provide local churches any resources for handling abuses (as you said the TALK has been over a decade long) is worst than the unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8. The victims have been banging on the door more than a decade. What would you do judge?
Ray, I’ve asked a couple of times here who would be included in a database? And other questions. It’s easy to say it’s time to do this. Would you like to make your case?
William,
Quote: The “church autonomy” excuse for SBC NOT to provide local churches any resources for handling abuses…
Did you understand the question?
William,
If you can answer me how many cases of abuse will it take to take action, I will make my case and tell you who should be in the database.
I did some homework searching SBC resolutions on SBC.net, here is a resolution back in 1979.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1078/resolution-on-domestic-violence
Here is another one in 2002 aboout clergy abuse
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1117/on-the-sexual-integrity-of-ministers
Any one can do their reasearch. All the resolutions read very similar to this one.
Resolutions are words. You called for something concrete, a database. I’m not baiting you but am interested in who you think ought to be in the database.
Why can’t we treat those churches who knowingly do not report sexual crimes by staff to the police and hide it, then allow the person to go to another church as we do those who teach homosexuality is ok. Disassociate with them. William, autonomy now is just an excuse don’t you think?
Debbie,
The problem is that those churches hide it so as not to let it be known. While those churches that oenly endorse r teach homesexuality are doing it, well, openly. Thus it only becomes known after an incident happens at the second church, IF that incident is not covered up.
Each church doesnt want a ‘bad’ rep for having hired a predator, so they hush it up, and hide it. Thus they will nt voluteer the information to a database.
They are more worried about what people think than what God thinks.
You are not asking me William, but when has that ever stopped me. 🙂 Those that should be in the data base are those who have more than one person telling that this staff person did sexually abuse them. The data base should also include those convicted of the crime by a court of law and now in the community looking for a church to work at. I think Christa Brown has covered the rest of my thinking on the subject which agrees with hers.
I also think it is about time to listen to Christa seriously and that the SBC should use her as a consult. No one knows how we should go about this better than Christa.
I always welcome your responses. Failure to report is a crime. I know of one church that was excluded for having a convicted sex offender on staff. People in the legal system are already in databases that SBC entities link.
I’ve always taken C. Brown seriously.
Churches MUST report all abuse or suspected abuse of minors to law enforcement. Churches MUST run background checks on all staff and all volunteers who work with minors. Churches MUST contact references and former employers when hiring staff members. When contacted for a reference, churches MUST tell the truth.
If these things are done, I’m not sure what a database can add. If these things are not done, any database we could set up will also be unused and/or ineffective.
Adam: These things are not being done, which is why we are in the current mess that we are in is in denomination. It’s also why we need a database.
Debbie, you missed my point. That’s probably my fault. I agree that these things are not being done on any kind of consistent basis. That’s the problem. But it is my opinion that these things taken together are far superior to a database. If these things aren’t done, a database won’t fix the problem. If they are done, a database will be unnecessary.
Adam: I think I understood what your point was the first time as what you have commented on here is what I thought you meant, but I still disagree. If these things are done, a database will be unnecessary or if they aren’t done etc. isn’t reality which is where we need to be. Some churches were and are doing the right thing, and reporting to the proper authorities, but many weren’t. Many more will do the right thing I think having “seen the light” so to speak, but there is still need for a database to protect any other child, woman from being raped by church staff and then the church hiding it, and to keep those who would not do the right thing from getting away with it happening and them hiding it, and many many more reasons I don’t have room for here.
Adam: In a perfect world, maybe what you say would be true, but this is not a perfect world. Not even in SB churches or seminaries.
Again…..
In theory it’s a fantastic idea – I’m just unsure how it’s work in actual practice. Certainly I desire to expel those disqualified for ministry from it (lay and paid ministry)… And I would certainly support a way to make that information more readily available for unsuspecting churches and such…..if we can find a way to do it… But…
Some questions that come to mind…
– Are we talking about listing only those who’ve been accused and adjudicated by some form of due process or is an accusation enough?
– let’s define adjucation and due process.
– who adds names to database?
– who maintains (updates and hosts the site)?
– what are the practical and legal perils?
– what offfenses qualify for registry and will there be uniform reporting? (Ie – might one church report a deacon/Pastor adult small group/SS teacher who has a consensual affair with another adult as predatory while another church might consider this same action as immoral but not predatory?
– once on always on?
– last question for now and it’s connected to my most recent one – what role does repentance demonstrated by time and accountability play with regard to certain offenses? What are the “forgivable” offenses and which cause someone to be perpetually on the list and who might be removed – and who determines such?
Dave C: Those are good questions that I don’t entirely have the answer to and think that either Boz Tchvidjian or Christa Brown should be consultants on how this would be done.
Debbie,
I think Adam is saying the same thing I am saying.
There should be reporting to the authorities but there isnt.
And if those who should be reporting are not and will not, why woud they offer to put names into the database?
Certainly, if there was a database, those who do report to the secular authorities will also gladly contribute names to that database. But those names would also be in the background checks done by the hiring entity, thus making the database redundant and unneeded.
Meanwhile those who should report to the secular authorities, but who dont, also will not report to the database. Those names that should be there also should be found out on background checks but because of the non-reporting, wont be found in either place.
The reality is that if every church reported to the police, there would be no need for a database. But since some do not report, the database will also miss what the background checks will miss.
Maybe i am not seeing what you are seeing. If so, please correct me.
Mike White: It is not the church who would submit to having names put in the data base. And if the church would have to submit the name and refuses, disfellowshipping from the Convention should occur as soon as this refusal is discovered and believe me it will be Mike. Just look at the past 13 years of discoveries.
Debbie,
If it is a criminal case, the church does nt have to submit the name, it is in the criminal database.
If it isnt criminl [or no legal acusations made or charges filed] who submits the names? [if not the church?]
That’s right, Adam.
I worded the listening to Christa wrong. I should have written we(as in all SBs) should listen to Christa etc. Sorry William, I wasn’t directing that comment just to you.
Thank you for the kind word William.
Bravo, Scott. Bravo, indeed.
There are complexities. Those convicted of crimes are already in databases. A background check finds them. It’s all the others going into some database that is complicated. CB and others advocate for a third party, independent group to receive and examine reports. So, in some proposals you would have a third party group receiving voluntary reports of clergy misbehavior. If there were crimes then law enforcement would be the independent third party. Who decides who goes into the searchable database? The independent group, supposedly so that they can be fair and impartial. In the past it has been argued that if the abuse panel receives just “credible reports” of misbehavior then they can flag the name for those who ask.
The best place to punish churches who tolerate clergy misbehavior and abuse is the organization that ordained, hired, supervised, paid, and has the ability to fire him. Next to that the association need have no conviction of a crime to expel a church. Let them expel the church that harbors or tolerates or passes along an adulterer or abuser.
With our polity, I don’t see a solution at any level other than the local church. The problems can be ameliorated somewhat by associations, state conventions, and the SBC exec comm. I only know of one group with our congregational polity that has an independent review board but my info may be dated.
Who sets the standards for the third party regarding the listing non criminal abusers? The EC? The messengers? An appointed committt? Or do they set thier own?
Is the third party made up of believers or are we setting ourselves for judgment by those “outside”?
Do the ones listed have recourse for objection/appeal/removal from list?
I agree William – the solution is found within the local church. “Let judgment begin in the house of the Lord.”
Churches report – churches investigate – churches revoke ordinations and liscences. (This question about revocations can be added to ACP right after “ministers ordained during the year”) then hiring churches can contact firing churches for reasons – should the desire.
As mentioned criminals already can be screened through background checks using a national database that already exists. .
Guys: These are all good questions and thoughts, and this is why we need a consultant that knows about this area. There are several to choose from, but the best in my opinion, would be Christa if she is willing or Boz, both are very prolific in this area. What we are doing now is not working, no matter what excuses are given, but your concerns are important concerns that have a remedy with the right people at the helm assisting us for a good solid data base.