Discussions of clergy sex abuse in SBC churches and entities are, sadly, common these days. Several current examples, deplorable each one, are found in articles here within the past days. This used not to be the case. When clergy misconduct occurred it would be whispered not published. Pastors, denominational workers, and leaders would find out through back channels and the Baptist grapevine. Very seldom would Baptist Press or any of the state Baptist newspapers would touch these stories.
Things have changed. Communication is easier. Victims have means to make public their cases. They also have advocates, some of whom have very prominent platforms to call abusers to account and to bulldog cases. Social media may put a decades-old incident on the front page before all.
When abuse cases that involve SBC churches or entities are discussed here and elsewhere, one can count on the matter of autonomy being raised by critics:
Stop making autonomy an excuse for doing nothing about clergy sex abuse…
The SBC needs to deal with the issue and not hide behind autonomy…
Autonomy is a bogus excuse, a smoke screen…
Almost always, this isn’t a subject that commenters bring up in order to discuss or examine it in the context of what can be done. It’s a throwaway line. There’s no clean way to parry such an indignant accusation, often dripping with contempt, the SBC is “hiding behind” autonomy or using it as an excuse to “do nothing.”
When this type of comment is made, what’s the answer?
My answer is that autonomy is not an excuse for anything but rather a reality. SBC local churches, associations, state conventions, and SBC entities can and should act individually to address the matters. Sometimes each of these fails. The responsibility for the failure rests with the church or entity. If there are additional measures that may be taken in a corporate or cooperative way, I’m open to considering them.
Let’s hear the proposals.
I agree. Why can’t the SBC, state convention, or association have a database of ministers convicted of abuse, dismissed because of abused, or defrocked by their local church? If the local church decided to submit the name of such minister to the associational or convention database then local church autonomy is respected (and protected) not violated.
A church gets crossways with a minister and someone reports him to the database as an act of vengeance. Think it wouldn’t happen? Look at all the lies told publicly by “respected” Baptist leaders about the current president of the SBC during the last election. People get caught up in causes. Someone reports Billy Bob McGillicutty to the list and he can’t get a job and he finds out why and suddenly the EC or whoever maintains the list is looking at a 7 or 8 figure lawsuit. If churches report and if committees do background checks and check SECONDARY… Read more »
The SBC, states, and associations may autonomously decide to create a database of ministers convicted of such but there is already such a database linked by some SBC entities. One of these could create a database of clergy who were ordained and then “defrocked” or had their ordination revoked by that SBC church. Not sure how one would even begin to compile such a list but I have no objection to that. It would be foolhardy to attempt it because there’s no good way to go about it. You could create the online database yourself and ask churches to submit… Read more »
In the SBC Constitution there seems to be two articles that run counter to each other and thus the rub of autonomy as spoken of by Mr. Thorton. Article II. Purpose: It is the purpose of the Convention to provide a general organization for Baptists in the United States and its territories for the promotion of Christian missions at home and abroad and any other objects such as Christian education, benevolent enterprises, and social services which it may deem proper and advisable for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God. Article IV. Authority: While independent and sovereign in its own… Read more »
I appreciate your thought. There’s nothing that the SBC constitution can do to impinge on local church autonomy. And, trust me, SBC entities do plenty of promotion of all kinds. If someone wanted to create a connected, hierarchical structure for churches, they could do so and churches could relinquish their autonomy to that organization.
…but, I’m open to listening to any ideas that might help; however, without Article IV there is no Southern Baptist Convention.
Autonomy rightly understood is not an excuse but a reality. The problem is that autonomy is often (intentionally?) misunderstood and used as an excuse. Nothing about our autonomy would have prevented someone from IMB who knew about the Aderholt situation from making a phone call and letting his employers know. Autonomy would, however, keep IMB or Nashville from actually preventing his hiring elsewhere. Autonomy prevents one entity from forcing another entity or a church from doing anything. It does not prevent an entity or church from providing the information necessary for an entity or church to make their own informed… Read more »
There are laws that prevent some confidential employment data from being shared publicly. You’ve stated, I believe, that protecting against lawsuits is not a worthy reason to comply with those laws, but most entities are going to be reticent to engage that risk.
Entities need not engage in a public smear campaign to make a simple phone call to alert the proper people of the situation. I am not advocating the public release of employment files. Regarding the Aderholt situation, someone with IMB should have said, “Anne, the only way for us to ensure that Aderholt is never hired again by another church or Christian ministry is for us to report this to the police. We understand the hesitancy you may feel about that, but it is important that we make sure he is not given the opportunity to do something like this… Read more »
Some of the facts are in dispute and I’m not for thrashing out the matter here based on partial information. IMB has a policy that was featured on SBCV a short while back. There are a lot of wrinkles to this case. It is deplorable. I don’t think anyone has asserted that the behavior in 1995 has been repeated.
We all agree on reporting, probably not on previous employer references.
I wish this would have been communicated to me.
Anne, it sounds like there was a LOT of truth that was not well communicated to you. I think what I am saying is that the failure is not with the system of autonomy but the operation of those who managed it badly.
From what I’ve read, please understand I believe you and we here are on your side. We are batting around the theoretical issues here of how to solve this stuff – not debating whether you did right or were treated wrong. That seems to be settled.
There’s an old adage that crises make bad policy. I agree with you about the Aderholt situation. Someone at the IMB could have told someone at the hiring entities (church/SCBC) what had happened. If they’d reported it to authorities, that might have popped on a background check – still the solution.
but I’m not thinking of the Aderholt case as a broader policy. What do we do in general?
And whatever we do has to respect autonomy because that isn’t a dodge for us. Autonomy is a conviction.
Right. That’s what I said: “SBC local churches, associations, state conventions, and SBC entities can and should act individually to address the matters. “
William, I did not mean my comment to be a correction to your post, only an expansion of my own thoughts on the matter.
Yeah, I do think you have a valid point, Adam Blosser, in stating that “The problem is that autonomy is often (intentionally?) misunderstood and used as an excuse.” That has happened a lot through the years.
With that being stated, I do think that both Dave Miller and William are right about this issue also. To navigate through these issues is a hard thing because there are so many variables. Nonetheless, I believe a church should always report to law enforcement immediately when these situations arise.
Yes, CB, you and I have both seen autonomy misused in other circumstances that had nothing to do with sexual abuse. I believe autonomy to be a good and biblical doctrine. Thus, we must be careful to define it rightly in an effort to prevent its misuse.
You are talking about something very different Cornelius.
The Mod/Lib groups often used autonomy and soul competence to mean that anyone could believe as they pleased and we could not set doctrinal parameters. This was actually a violation of autonomy. The individual has his convictions but an entity has the autonomous right to set its parameters if fellowship.
Dave Miller, Actually I am in reference to sexual abuse. I must not have made that clear thus Adam’s reference to “other circumstances.” The truth is that churches have used autonomy as a shield to argue as to why they did not report sexual offenders. This has happened many times. My agreement with Adam is in the fact that many times autonomy has been intentionally misused by church leaders to protect the offender from being arrested and prosecuted. In other words, the church leaders knew better, but used autonomy to protect the offender anyway. I contend that it is always… Read more »
Adam, always factor in that I am an irascible curmudgeon when commenting or eating, or sleeping, or breathing.
Me too!
That is very true, William.
I’ve recently been introduced with laws passed in several states in regard to the educational system. So, each school/district is autonomous and as such, abusers often got passed around like in the SBC. Texas has passed a law to prevent this. It is a direct rebuttal to the IMB’s “we can’t and nobody else does” reason for not sharing. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/texas-news/abbott-signs-passing-the-trash-bill-cracking-down-on-predator-teachers/443034840
That’s an interesting law. Clergy are mandated reporters of child sex abuse in my state. There is no SBC pension which can be seized either. Teachers must have state licenses or certification which no SBC clergy need have and no one can require. I’m not sure how this relates to any employer sharing information on current or former employers.
We are not mandatory reporters here in Iowa. Our bylaws and policies of the church make reporting mandatory though.
Here in Arkansas, clergy are mandatory reporters, but let’s take the mobility of society into account: in Arkansas, I’m a mandatory reporter. In Iowa, Dave is not (per law, but his church has the right policy). What happens if someone is abused in Arkansas and reports it to another church in Iowa that doesn’t mandate the report? I’d love to see us as the SBC (or maybe we can crowdsource it right here?) put together a guidebook of what each state’s report contact points are. For example, we always say on the web “Call police” but in Arkansas the law… Read more »
There are two or three keys here. 1. Extensive background checks of pastoral or other employment candidates. 2. Checking secondary and tertiary references. When my dad chaired the personnel side of the Foreign Mission Board back in the 80s, he told me they essentially ignored anything the hand-chosen references told them about the candidate. They simply asked, can you name some people who know the candidate well? Then they asked the secondary references about the candidate and asked THEM if they knew others they could contact. 3. Of course, churches and entities have to report to authorities and the coverups… Read more »
Agreed, Dave. Our autonomy is only a problem in preventing abuse if we allow it to be.
I’m still not seeing how autonomy is being allowed to be a problem. Could you explain that?
I guess I mean that some may make the leap from “that local church is autonomous and can do as they please regardless of what I say” to “I won’t say anything to that local church because they are autonomous and can do as they please.” It’s a misunderstanding and/or misuse of autonomy. Example: Church A has a pastor resign due to adultery. Church B plans to hire the pastor 6 months later without ever contacting church A for a reference. I would argue that it is not a violation of church autonomy for Church A to pick up the… Read more »
Adam: I agree with you that autonomy, in and of itself, is not a rationale for not reporting. However, as a lawyer, I might very well tell the state convention or church A to leave it alone, depending on state law regarding such matters. If former minster was willing to engage in adultery (or other grossly sinful behavior) then he’s very likely willing to sue despite 1 Cor. 6. I’ve seen too many lawsuits result in favorable verdicts for less than laudable litigants not to think it could cost the entity or church (or their insurer) a large sum. This… Read more »
Gus, there’s no doubt that churches and church leaders will need to count the costs in our litigious society.
Autonomy in these discussions, and I’ve had them for a decade or so, generally involves the complaint that the EC or state convention do not assert themselves in some organized fashion involving local church hiring or firing, i.e., the database suggestion or a list of banned clergy, etc. That’s what I had in mind for this article. There are a lot of permutations in all this. I don’t recall the discussion around Barber’s motion of a couple of years ago but I have no problem with a resolution on the matter of references, or background checks, or the like.
Does anyone have an example of a pastor who sexually abused church members or children ever suing any church for saying so? Are we worrying about a real problem or a possible problem?
With that being said, terminating the staff member for cause and reporting to the authorities if there is the
possibility of a crime as a matter of policy will make all the downstream decisions clearer and less risky legally.
I know it’s off the topic of autonomy but it goes to the way in which we create both consider and create risk for our churches.