I will never forget an email I received one Sunday morning. I sat down at my desk after our first service and read a note from one of our members. It was one of those! The sin she’d uncovered and was reporting was bad – really bad (did not take place at church). It took my breath away, but I knew how to proceed. We had written a set of policies that told me exactly what I was supposed to do and I worked the plan. Those policies had been written with expert input from insurance companies and other sources that have done extensive work to advise us on how to react.
If I’d gotten that email in my first pastorate (well, telephone call – we didn’t have email back then), I’d have had no such gameplan. What was I supposed to do? How should I react? I hope I would have behaved with honor, with decency, and with godly compassion. I don’t know because it never happened. But if it had happened back then I’d have had to fly by the seat of my pants and figure things out on the go. It is possible that I’d be one of those pastors who is under fire today for how badly issues of sexual predation in the church were handled back then.
I write today with great trepidation, diving into shark-infested waters knowing that the possibility of misunderstanding and misapplication exist. But with heart pounding and knees knocking I attempt to say what I believe needs to be said.
It is unfair to judge the pastors of my generation and earlier by the standards we have come to understand and accept today.
Permit me to make some clear statements before I dig into my theme.
- I am in complete agreement with Bart’s resolution on Sexual Predation, posted here yesterday. I hope it passes unanimously. In the future, I hope the churches and structures of the SBC will handle this matter properly.
- I know all too well what the victims of sexual abuse, and even sexual abuse in churches, experience. How I know that is no one’s business and I’m not saying, but my words here are not academic or theoretical.
- On the other hand, I have no skeletons in my closet as a minister. As I look back on my 35 years of ministry I see a couple of situations which I might approach slightly differently if I were handling it today, but I am not writing this to keep some dark episode of my past buried.
- Pastoral abuse is among the most despicable things I can imagine. Too long we looked at it as sexual sin. It is an abuse of power, of trust, and of our sacred duty to God. People come to us to be discipled, to be instructed in the ways of God, to receive counsel – not to be used to satiate our base urges. To use those we are called to serve is worse than debauchery.
I would contrast two responses to evil that we witnessed in the twentieth century, both of which were, at the time, wholly appropriate. At the end of the Second World War, Nazi war criminals were brought to Nuremberg to be questioned and tried, and to receive justice. Many received the ultimate justice. Jewish Nazi hunters continued to seek out those who perpetrated the Holocaust for decades thereafter. When they captured 80-year-old prison guards they brought them to Israel, tried them and imprisoned them.
The Holocaust was a crime against humanity that cried out for such a response. If you’ve ever walked through Yad Vashem you understand why they cannot just “let it go.” It’s not a matter of forgiveness, but justice. The blood of innocents cries out.
There was another tribunal, though, many years later that I learned about through the vivid story telling of a dear friend who used to work for the Law Offices of Wolf & Pravato. The way this tribunal took place, it likely prevented a holocaust on a smaller scale. After South Africa did away with apartheid in the 90s, there were great fears that the black population which had been so oppressed and even cruelly repressed by the white minority would strike back. Instead, Bishop Desmond Tutu led the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” which gave apartheid’s victims a chance to air their grievances and gave those who committed transgressions a chance to confess. But they granted amnesty for all but the worst of offenses. The offenders had to admit and confess their offenses, which had to be political in nature. Other violent crimes were dealt with through normal channels.
The goal was to prevent “victor’s justice” which would have resulted in a bloodbath.
It need hardly be argued that Southern Baptist pastors and churches have sinned against women and children by engaging in clergy abuse or covering up other forms of abuse. I sat with a woman recently who walked away from the Lord, became an atheist, and fell into deep sin, all because of how she was treated by a Baptist church when her husband fell into immorality and pornography addiction (caveat: I’ve only heard her side). We’ve done wrong. We hurt innocents and the consequences are manifold and evident.
The question we cannot answer is how widespread the problem has been and is today. Some would have us believe that we have an issue as systemic as the Catholic clergy abuse scandals. As far as I know, no scientific and impartial study of the issue has been done. Advocacy groups have stated their case with an understandable tendency to be prosecutorial and some in the denominational structure have reacted with an equally defensive position. Agendas overwhelm facts
What are the facts?
- Every single instance of clergy sexual abuse is awful.
- It is a something that we hear about too often.
- None of us knows exactly how widespread the problem is.
I can tell you that in my experience, in 35 years of ministry in 4 churches, in 3 states, I’ve known of several instances of pastors having “affairs” with people in the church (it’s not an affair, pastor, it’s an abuse of pastoral authority!), and I’ve not known of a single instance of pastors or staff abusing children. I’ve heard stories but not in the churches I’ve been part of, in the churches in my associations, or any that I knew of – maybe it happened and was kept silent, I do not know. In my experience, the problem of sexual abuse of authority is all too common while child sexual abuse is common in churches but rare among pastors. My experience is not a scientific sampling.
We must stop using sexual predation as a weapon in our internecine political battles. For instance, in the Calvinism wars, it has been a common practice. Instances of pastoral abuse (authority, sexual abuse, pedophilia, pastoral malpractice) are brought out in our soteriological battles. The problem is that neither side is pristine and so it becomes an exercise in mutually-assured destruction. The church is degraded and no one benefits. This must stop. The pain is too real and the topic is too painful to use this way.
Now, To Make My Point
Times have changed. Sometimes I agree with C.S. Lewis who said in one of the Narnia books that he’d seen progress in an egg – it was called “going bad.” A lot of what we call progress I call decay. But on this issue, we’ve made tremendous progress in the last 10 years or so, and its good progress.
- Churches today understand that they need to have written policies about issues of sexual predation and clergy abuse.
- We understand that we must side with the victim, not the abuser.
- We understand that the way we did things in the past was wrong!
I don’t know of a single pastor or denominational leader arguing for a return to the “good old days” when we swept things under the rug and blamed the victim for their abuse. The fact is that Bart’s resolution will likely pass unanimously and that might not have been the case a few years back. Things have changed.
But some seem to want to reopen Nuremberg and hold trials for all the pastors who handled things wrongly in the past. That is unfair and unproductive. Again, I’m not protecting myself – by the grace of God I didn’t face one of these tragic situations until after we had written policies (it was outside the church and even then there was a minefield of tough choices).
Here is my conclusion.
To prosecute leaders for actions in the past based on the mindset of today is unfair.
There may have been men who acted with ill-will and malice, but the fact is that we didn’t know what to do. We thought it was in everyone’s best interest to keep it quiet. Such things were not made public and were not discussed in polite company.
I had a friend in ministry who left his two young daughters with a family in the church while he and his wife went off for the weekend. When he returned, he found out that this man and his son had done unspeakable things to the girls. He took a gun and went to their home, but no one was there. He told me if they’d been there, he’d be in prison. Instead, he went to the authorities and reported the men. The church was furious when they found out! No, not at the men who molested two precious little girls. They were furious at the pastor who reported his 3 and 5-year-old daughters’ rapists to the police. That’s how things were in the late 70s and early 80s. They were angry that he “embarrassed the church.” The prevailing mindset was “turn down the volume.”
Times have changed (maybe I should say they are changing) and that is good. This is an area where progress is true progress.
There was a different mindset back then and thank God it is changing. But it was real and pastors had to live with it. It was believed that everyone was better off if a giant cone of silence was dropped over a situation and nobody talked about nothing never nohow. Going to the authorities? That wasn’t something the church did.
Good men did things back then that when we look at them with our modern lenses look inexplicably, even evil. but they had no playbook, no policies, and they were just doing what everyone thought was right and good.
Permit me some clarifications.
1. The perpetrators of sexual offenses or pastoral abuse should not be excused.
What I am talking about is those pastors and church leaders who mishandled reports of abuse, not the abusive pastors or leaders themselves. If a pastor hurt a child, whether it was a year ago, ten years ago, or 50 years ago, that should come into the light and he should be brought to account for his sin. If a pastor or church leaders create an atmosphere of unrestrained authoritarianism in which abuse can occur without consequence, these leaders ought to be held to account and disqualified. The abusers must be exposed. There is no statute of limitations on moral sin. I am not calling for turning a blind eye to sin.
The blood of innocents cries out for justice.
2. Pastors who mishandled such offenses should be repentant but not disqualified.
Time travel makes for good movies but it is only fiction. Taking modern sensibilities back to 1976 or 1986 or even 1996 (2006?) is not fair. The world has changed and our mindset has changed. The way things were done was unhealthy and wrong, but it was a general cultural consensus. You young whippersnappers may not realize how different things were or how fast things have changed on this issue.
I would guess that there were fewer than 5% of churches that had any kind of policy on dealing with sexual predation even 15 years ago, even 10 years ago – probably much less than 1%. (If you don’t have one now, get one by June 1!) There was no playbook back then. We did not know what to do and often what we did we did badly. Many pastors put “protecting the church” ahead of helping the victim. We damaged people. It was wrong.
I’m not making excuses, just appealing for grace.
I grew up in a pastor’s home and around pastors. They were not evil men wanting to hurt women and children. But often when they did what everything thought was best, women and children suffered (I wish I could share stories, but I can’t and I won’t). That was the world, the culture, the way. But they were not cartoon villains; they were good men doing what they thought was right (for the most part). Going back now and humiliating such men, seeking to disqualify them, besmirch their memories, or nullify their ministries because 25 years ago they didn’t follow the 2016 playbook – it’s just not fair.
Please hear me. I’m not arguing that the old ways were better. They weren’t. I’m simply saying that the pastors who handled things wrongly in the past were often good men with a bad battle plan. You are without excuse – you’ve got resources that weren’t available back then.
Don’t judge yesterday’s servants by today’s policy documents. The word of God doesn’t change but cultural ethos does.
3. Amnesty presupposes change.
The only reason the Truth and Reconciliation Commission worked is because it was clear that things had changed in South Africa. Apartheid was gone and a new day had come. I am arguing for a general amnesty – an application of biblical grace – to pastors who in the past didn’t know how to handle some of these issues. But the key to this is making sure that things have truly changed. That’s why Bart’s resolution is so important.
Women who have been mistreated in churches – I am sorry. I truly am. When I hear stories it infuriates me and I pray you find grace and healing. But there is nothing we can do to change the past. I commit to you that I will advocate with those who seek an SBC in which sexual predation of any kind is unacceptable and is dealt with appropriately. We will not be silent when pastors abuse their authority to prey sexually on their members. We will not recommend them to other churches to get them out of our hair. We will call the authorities when the authorities need to be called. And, as I stated to my church when we were working through our policies, we are going to be on the side of the victim, not the victimizer. We will protect the child and the abused woman, not the person who inflicted the abuse.
I am asking that we show grace to men who wandered in confusion because they did not know what to do. We’ve changed now – thank God. But good men made dumb mistakes based on faulty battle plans and as we are going forward let us not punish them, but reach out a hand to them and say join us in doing better in the future.
4. God’s grace and forgiveness cannot be ignored.
I’ve had conversations concerning sexual abuse that left me scratching my head.
- Victims have told me that God’s demand that we love our enemies and forgive those who have sinned against us does not include this sin – as if God granted a waiver of exemption for this particular issue.
- Others have reacted harshly to the idea that certain types of sexual sinners can ever receive forgiveness and be brought back into the church. Are we really to tell certain people that their sins are beyond the reach of God’s grace and restoration?
We cannot receive a grace we are unwilling to extend. To ask for forgiveness while refusing to forgive is pointless – Jesus made this clear over and over, and he granted no exceptions. But perhaps the unwillingness to forgive has been partially motivated by the sense that the sins have been covered over, that repentance has not been genuine.
The greatest weapon against abuse is grace – God’s grace, marvelous grace, matchless grace, amazing grace! This is something we often forget when evil hits our lives.
My pastor friend whose daughters were abused? He developed a genuine (and understandable) hatred for the people he was pastoring (by the way, not SBC). Sunday after Sunday he would preach to a people who had betrayed him in his greatest hour of need and he was angry. He struggled, knowing that his angry spirit was not of God’s Spirit, but finding no freedom.
One Sunday, as he preached, God answered his prayers. He said it came on him suddenly – his anger left him and God gave him a spirit of love and forgiveness for the people who had betrayed him. He stood in the pulpit knowing that a miracle had taken place. The man I knew was a gentle spirit, with no trace of bitterness.
Here’s the part you may or may not believe. On the way home, his daughter asked him a question. “Daddy, why did the man in white clothes come and stand by you in the pulpit?” My friend was confused. “No one stood by me.” She described how a man clothed in white had appeared and stood by him in the pulpit. He realized as they talked that it was at the moment when the forgiveness came.
Do with that as you will – he didn’t know what was going on either. He never wrote a book about it. But the fact is that God freed him from anger and hate that day. And his daughters had gone on to healthy lives because they were not mired in vituperation and bitterness. They broke free in God’s grace.
Some criticized Tutu and his commission believing that the path of vengeance was the only way. But Tutu stuck to his guns and South Africa healed. Light must shine in the darkness and pastors or church leaders who abused their authority, who hurt children, who wreaked havoc on the Body of Christ – they must be called to account. Pastors and church leaders who fostered an environment of abusive authority that allowed sin to thrive and go unchecked must account for their unbiblical view of authority and their sins against their people. But pastors faced with explosive situations they weren’t trained for, were surprised by, and who botched them badly, their failures should be met with grace.
As we attack the problem it is more important that we expose the darkness, change the mindset and establish a new template for dealing with sexual predation than it is that we go back and settle scores with pastors who mishandled tough situations in the past.
Even as we deal with heinous sin, let us be about grace.
No matter what I’ve done
No matter where I’ve been
No matter how I fall
You pick me up again
You have removed my shame
You take me as I am
You call me justified
Now I am covered by your grace
Covered…..covered….covered by your grace
Good words Dave.
No, great, heartfelt and wise words.
Advice: I mentioned this in the piece, but let me reiterate.
If your church does not have a policy on dealing with issues of sexual predation, make it a high priority to get one adopted.
What happens if you hear of abuse of a child?
How do you handle accusations against a pastor (or elder)? Deacon? Other church leader or volunteer?
What do you report to authorities?
Do you investigate allegations? Let the police do it? Hire someone from the outside?
Your insurance company has sample policies.
I’m guessing Guidestone does.
There are samples available online.
Write them, then get a lawyer to look them over. We had the advantage that the chair of our committee was a lawyer who worked in these kinds of law – this was his specialty. So, we wrote policies and he looked them over. Each state is a little different.
Spend a couple hundred bucks to make sure the policy is legal. It’s a good investment!
Do not…do not…DO NOT get that call without having a process spelled out and approved by the church and a set of policies in place.
Just say YES to policies.
Do you have any recommended links for samples online?
My state convention has a couple dozen links on the subjects. Many of these are specific to the laws in my state and would be different elsewhere:
http://gabaptist.org/sexual-abuse-summit-resources/
Thanks, William. Anyone else?
Oh, and I’m particularly interested in examples that cite biblical principles and not just the law and advisable policy. (Not saying yours don’t, William; I just haven’t had time to peruse them.)
What exactly are you asking Robert Vaughn? I guess it seems you don’t believe something here but I can’t put my finger on it.
Scripture concerning what Robert?
It’s not about what I don’t believe but I am asking about policies that are actually in use, or sample policies that can be looked at. I am interested in how the policies cite biblical principles as well as the law (in the sense that it is not only following the law, but first and foremost the Christian thing to do).
Here’s three policies (two actual and one sample) that I happened on just by Google searching. Any thoughts on them, if you have time, will be appreciated.
http://www.trinity-baptist.org/churchdocs/Sexual%20Abuse%20Policy.pdf
http://www.davidsonstreetbaptist.org/clientimages/44021/policies.pdf
http://storage.cloversites.com/generalbaptistministries/documents/SexualMisconductSamplePolicy.pdf
Thanks.
I have ours that I am glad to share.
Your church insurance company likely has something.
Yes, that would be great. Are you meaning share by e-mail? If so, mine is rl_vaughn -AT- yahoo.com. Thanks!
There is a case in the Baptist (CBF) church near me, one who names the governor as a member, where a decades old child sex abuse case recently became public. The abuser of several boys was not clergy but church and Scout leader. The matter was brought to the church long ago and, according to some reports, the church followed the wishes of the victims’ families and kept the matter secret. The abuser resigned as scout leader but stayed in the church and was a respected member and deacon and has not been known to commit further child abuse.
Here’s a portion of the statement of the church’s current pastor whom, I judge, did as good of a job handling this as could be done.
“Apparently, secrecy was the chosen way of handling such matters thirtyfive years ago. Today, this would be handled not only by removing the scout leader and preventing him from ever working again with youth, but also by reporting him to law enforcement.”
The pastor at the time was contacted about the abuse cases and said to a reporter, “You couldn’t get that out of me with a pair of pliers,”. That pastor is named in the lawsuit.
The abuser resigned his church leadership positions. The church is named in the lawsuit.
In a way, I’d rather find out about a current case of abuse because the way forward is clear: call the cops, immediately remove the staff or volunteer, and other steps. A call about a 30 year old case is less clear.
I think that there are cases where past leaders should be held accountable and you may have covered this in your 3100 word article. It may be unfair of me to say it, and I do so with a lot of respect for you, but I’m guessing that not a few people take your title and think that the gist of your article is that we should just let this stuff go. I understand you cover the caveats but I’d rather cover them while giving the impression that past sins that ruined the lives of children must be properly addressed if not legally then ecclesiastically. I think that the two most prominent cases of SBC clergy abuse have some differences with the case I gave and I’m not sure you fully addressed those issues.
Well – The governor of Georgia being a member of a cooperative Baptist Fellowship Church sure does explain a lot regarding his recent Veto.
>”I am asking that we show grace to men who wandered in confusion because they did not know what to do.”
Here is my question. Have these men changed now? Have they actually asked forgiveness of the people they wronged, the congregation, etc? Have they truly confessed their wrongs, ala AA? If not, why should they still be in ministry?
And, I do not believe some actions fall under ‘did not know what to do’.
People who were legitimately trying to protect people can be forgiven their ignorance. People who were trying to protect themselves, the church, etc? That wasn’t ignorance. That was evil.
Yes, of course – that is the problem with this issue. It deals with the intents of the heart. Two people do exactly the same thing – one out of confusion and the other out of ill-will.
Here’s my question – how does any of us know which is which?
The tendency is for the victim to assume (often) that ill-will was the intent. The friends of the pastor assume the best. I’ve done enough counseling to know that there are not just two sides to a story, but usually two stories – sometimes from different universes.
My question to you is this: how are we to judge what a man’s motives were?
Is that not better left to the Holy Spirit?
The leader could express some level of regret, sorrow, and contrition over past actions that allowed a child abusers to slink away and victimize others.
Call me sexist but women look at this differently than men, often healthier and with a clearer eye. I appreciate the contribution that a few women make here when this subject arises.
“The leader could express some level of regret, sorrow, and contrition over past actions that allowed a child abusers to slink away and victimize others.”
This is sort of the bare minimum and many cant even manage that! I would at least start there. And then see if their actions had changed.
I don’t buy that they needed a plan to display basic human compassion and decency. I have heard too many stories where none of that seems to be present.
I think we also look at how the victim was treated when the abuse came forward. It’s one thing to say you’re sorry you kept something quiet when you should have reported it, but if the victim was further victimized by those in power, I’m not convinced we should write it off as “the way things were back then”. If the victims were advised to return to their abuser or somehow ridiculed, told to keep quiet, or shunned, then I think these leaders have forfeited their position. That is not excusable in any era.
In my experience with a reported spousal abuse crisis, there was a tipping point where the “deer in the headlights – what do w do?” response slipped into incompetence and irresponsibility.
The lead pastor and wife had serious marriage issues that may or may not have escalated to physical abuse. She sent an apocryphal text to a member of the church saying husband had shoved her around. The three bi-vo staff pastors were notified. First response: Deer in head lights for a full hour. Second response (WRONG RESPONSE!): Call in lead pastor to explain versus check on the safety of wife. Now in our defense, the second step was accelerated because lead pastor saw us huddling like deer in headlights at Hardees when he drove by and called and asked what was up…
If we would have had a policy in place (and had been trained!) we would have taken our wives to the home of the lead pastor and wife, verified that she was okay, had our spouses separate her and ask her if she needed to leave for a short time, etc. AS SOON AS THE CHARGE WAS MADE. Instead we went to Hardees to figure out what we should do. We could have held off talking about what comes next for at least a couple of days.
The next week was among the worst days of my life. The wife recanted and we had to deal with a combative lead pastor who got it in his mind we were after his job. Long story short: A 3 month sabbatical ended up being the route they took, but it was a band-aid. Within a month of return, one bi-vo staff was run off, one left a year later, and I hung on a full two years (stupid, stupid, stupid!) after the incident. A year later the church closed its doors. To be honest, this non-denom church was doomed from the first even though it lasted a decade. Spiritual and emotional instability gets exposed pretty fast in the crucible of ministry.
I am no longer active in pastoral ministry, but if I were, I would make sure I have a game plan for EVERY crisis contingency ready to go. That first couple of hours are the ones that you can’t get back.
“I am no longer active in pastoral ministry, but if I were, I would make sure I have a game plan for EVERY crisis contingency ready to go. That first couple of hours are the ones that you can’t get back.”
What Mike said.
A few thoughts:
1. My resolution deals with the actions of churches, not the actions of people. People are not members of the SBC. The SBC cannot take action against individuals unless it employs them or has invested them with some office. I think a lot of what you all are going to wind up discussing in this thread will be about what individuals have done without church consent and without informing the church, not with informed actions of any congregation.
2. I’m disposed against anyone, past or present, who (whether because of fear, kinship, greed, or collusion) took the side of an offender against victims.
3. Thankfully, the reasons for victims to want to keep an offense quiet are on the wane, I think. Reach back far enough in the past and you’ll find a time when a victim could be considered “damaged goods” and the public disclosure of a sexual offense could decrease a victims prospects of marriage and actually lengthen the reach of the offender’s violation of the victim’s personal life. If in the past a church leader kept something quiet because the victims genuinely pled with him to do that, I’m prepared to recognize that (a) WE KNOW BETTER NOW and must not give any approval to that approach, but (b) I can see how that is a different case than the pastor who is or was actively working a coverup.
Your resolution deals with churches, but the discussion tends to devolve towards individuals.
Sure. Of course. And that’s no problem. I’m just pointing out that there’s a difference between the two.
I guess I’m saying that I’m comfortable when the resolution leads to the discussion of individuals. I’m less comfortable when the discussion of individuals leads to the discussion of the resolution. 🙂
Yep
Bart: What is the difference between church and people? Church is people. Individuals. The building certainly didn’t do anything.
Well, Debbie, here’s the difference:
Individual = 1 person
Church = More than 1 person
So, if 3 people in the conference room of a building somewhere do something nefarious (in this context, let’s say that they intimidate a sexual misconduct victim into not reporting an offense), but they keep 803 people in the dark about what they are doing, that church of 806 people is not responsible for what happened. 803 people are innocent in the matter (unless they were negligent in some way that contributed, perhaps). Maybe they fire 1 of the scumbags and run off the 2 others. Ought the SBC to disfellowship those 803 people because they didn’t correct a wrong they didn’t know about?
Bart: The truth of the matter is that in most cases the congregation knows and does nothing or participates in the ostracizing of the victim.
Look at the news reports when a minister or youth pastor is arrested for sexual abuse of a child. The congregation has not stood with the victim but with the perp. Sorry but I disagree 100%. There are not many innocents in this area unfortunately. And it is not isolated either.
BTW I read the article by Bob Allen and what you have written in this post and think you have a good perception of what has been going on for many, many years in the church. It’s not a recent thing. But I do think Southern Baptists and the Convention owe Christa an apology and to say she and SNAP were right. And they were right to bring it to our attention as they have.
The SBC has waited far too long to even bring a resolution like you have written(although I too believe it should be a motion).
I’ll add one other thing in connection with the resolution. Do we agree that it would help if the churches of the SBC were to develop a consistent way of handling these situations well? If so, please consider my opinion that if we cannot work on developing such an approach without being compelled to deal with all of the misdeeds of the past, I think the political viability of our efforts become far less positive.
I happened across this article from it being linked on Yahoo’s home page. It is written about dealing with the past by a woman who was abused as a child. You will notice her different reaction to the abuser and some of the people who didn’t respond properly — and also her statement of the need for people to have training and assistance. Though not written from a directly religious perspective, I hope you might find it is apropos to the topic at hand.
“I never blamed my parents for the abuse, only my brother. But I did blame them for the way they responded to it. I see now they acted with pure intentions but shoddy, ineffectual methods. I’m no longer mad at them.”
Just curious–how are the seminaries addressing this issue? I realize those who comment here represent a variety of ages, generations, and institutions. Does anyone recall training in this area? If so, how much? One class period, a passing reference, a significant emphasis in a required course? And what about training in how to deal with church dynamics–such as when the predator is the biggest giver or chairman of the deacons or member of a very influential family in the community? Are seminary students trained in how to cultivate an environment in their churches where members know they will be taken seriously if they say something if they have seen or heard something or suspect something?
Bart, I wish you much success in moving this resolution forward. It’s obvious you have put much thought and work into it.
“Does anyone recall training in this area? I attended a small Bible College over 30 years ago. I do not recall any such training. I don’t think many people (around here at least) would have even suspected such things were going on in Baptist churches — more of a Catholic problem, it seemed. I suspect the same was true in most places/institutions that long ago and earlier, though some of the larger seminaries may have taken up the subject. We did have a “Ministerial Ethics” class. Sad to say, much of that focused on how to protect your ministry more than on just doing what was right. I don’t think that was intentionally so, but it had that effect. I think it could have led some to think covering up was better than shining light.
I remember thinking some of the advice was nonsensical, like not stopping to help a woman with car trouble on the side of the road. That didn’t compute with the way I was raised.
Robert Vaughn,
I had training in this matter many years ago at Clear Creek Baptist Bible College by Dr. Dudley Thomas Pomeroy. He had served as an Army Chaplain during WWII to General Patton.
He taught Church Administration at Clear Creek for years. I know many Clear Creek grads who were taught how to handle these issues in the local church and sadly, had to do so. They handled the tragedies well and properly which is a credit to their professor, Dr. Pomeroy.
Dr. Ken Coley has taught on this subject at SEBTS in his Church Administration classes since he started his tenure there in 1996. He is excellent in his presentation of how to handle this serious matter in the local church.
Tarheel, your comment: “Well – The governor of Georgia being a member of a cooperative Baptist Fellowship Church sure does explain a lot regarding his recent Veto.”
You comment appears to cast aspersion on a sister fellowship. Perhaps I have mistaken your intent. Do you wish to explain, or am I to assume that you meant to deliberately denigrate CBF churches outside the bounds of the topic at hand?
Guilty. It was a jab – relating specifically to Governor deal as the news media – and a couple of voices contributors and commoners have reported that Nathan deal is a Southern Baptist who sold out religious liberty – and I contend that is half true – while he did sell out religious liberty – he’s not Southern Baptist.
Also a jab more generally as Some are suggesting that Sovereign Grace churches should not be part of the Southern Baptist convention because they stand in opposition to the Baptist Faith and message (regarding autonomy) – I will go ahead and suggest that those churches who willfully align with the CBF should not be part of the SBC as there are numerous parts of the Baptist Faith and message that the CBF willfully ignores.
*Governor Deal
*commenters (not commoners)
*CBF Willfully ignores – in fact the group was actually created to intentionally stand against the SBC.
You will have to define terms on this. Many churches have a few people that contribute to cbf causes through their SBC church.
Both of the narratives on the Georgia religious liberty law, vetoed by the baptist governor, are false. The law wasn’t totally about religious liberty nor totally about discrimination. It was a puzzling hybrid that had clergy and churches on both sides of it. Better to start over.
The GBMB lobbyist even invoked Hitler along the way, not helpful. Our state convention is very weak politically these days.
Hey Dave,
Been a long time since I have commented here. I did want to ask for an area of clarification. How should we handle a church leader who did cause harm in hiding these cases due to the older cultural.acceptance, but is still unwilling to confess the damage of their role I’m it? My personal limited experience finds more church leaders in that came as opposed to the encouraging majority of others that you have mentioned in this post.
Well, Fletcher, without knowing the specifics of a case, I hesitate to wade in – far too often we pop off without hearing all the information.
But, theoretically, if someone actively hid a transgression and refuses to deal with it, it is a matter for church leadership to handle.
But honestly, without more details, it’s dangerous to generalize.
Fair answer. Thank you for responding. I wasn’t trying to trip you up or anything. I just wanted to make sure I understood some your points a little better.
I have long thought that Baptists need something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and so I like that analogy in your posting. However, while Archbishop Desmond Tutu had an amazing capacity for grace and reconciliation, he also knew that you had to travel the hard road of truth before you could get to the reconciliation part. Truth comes first, and it cannot be easily skipped over to get to the “grace” of reconciliation. Without the truth part, what follows is a cheap grace. So, if the Southern Baptist Convention is to have anything akin to a “truth and reconciliation” process, it must include a denominational mechanism for institutionally hearing the voices of those who seek to bring to light the truth about clergy sex abuse and cover-ups. That piece is missing, and it is essential.
You know, Christa, as I was writing my piece, I thought about that. I don’t know how it would be accomplished, or how practical it would be in a convention of autonomous churches, but its an idea worth discussing, at least.
I almost included a section on that in the post, but I thought it was extraneous to my point and might divert the discussion. But such a commission is not without merit.
I can’t speak for other states, but in North Carolina, circa 1988-1991, the law as that any sexual abuse of a child at the time had to be reported to the police and child welfare authorities. I handled several cases during my years a school counselor. I even think cases that happened long ago should be reported, because of the damage done to the children involved. It is obvious to the observer that the individual is affected in adulthood, being hindered in working, etc,.
When two consenting adults engage in inappropriate sexual behaviors, it is a sin. Child sexual abuse is not only a sin, but also a crime.
Those who cover child sex abuse up and keep it hush hush aid and abet the criminal and the criminal act. Aiding and abetting is a crime, too.
Are you under the opinion that anyone here disagrees with that?
I’m working on developing written policies for these important maters for The church I’m now serving in – which is in North Carolina – I previously had written some guidelines for a church in Virginia – and I’ll be recycling much of it – but the laws are quite different and specific in NC – while they are vague in VA.
anyway I ran across this while doing some research and I thought I would share it – it’s pretty helpful in helping understand reporting laws state by state.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf
I certainly agree with you that there are many pastors out there “who handled things wrongly in the past.” However, even if back in the “old days,” these many pastors just “didn’t know what to do” with information about a criminal offense, and if it’s true, as you say, that things have changed and that those pastors now have a better understanding, then why aren’t they speaking up now? The things that you talk about as having been “swept under the rug” in the “old days” are still there under the rug — and they’re still dangerous. A lot of those abusive ministers that others knew about in the “old days” are still in ministry and still in positions of high trust with access to kids. So why aren’t the pastors who knew such things about their colleagues in the “old days” speaking out in the here and now so that kids can be made safer in the here and now? Because contrary to what you suggest, this isn’t about people who want to “go back and settle scores with pastors who mishandled tough situations in the past.” I haven’t encountered a single clergy abuse survivor with that kind of mindset. Rather, what people invariably want is to prevent the awfulness of the past from metastasizing into the present and the future. They want to try to assure that the person who hurt them in the past isn’t still in a position of trust where he can easily hurt other children in the present. So, given that we seem to agree that there are indeed pastors out there “who handled things wrongly in the past,” what would it take to facilitate the bringing forth of their information so that kids in the present may be better protected? Given that most clergy sex abuse cases cannot be criminally prosecuted — often at least in part because churches’ keep-it-quiet responses in the past allowed limitations to run — there needs to be an additional system for getting such critical information into the light so that kids in the present can be protected. So, based on what you say in your posting (and on some of the conversations that I myself have had with church officials who couldn’t figure out anywhere else to go and wound up contacting me), it occurs to me that perhaps one of the things that is needed is… Read more »
Christa: Again yes, yes and yes.
I would also add that none of this can be done without an expert in the field of child abuse aiding in the developing of a game plan. The leadership of churches are not equipped with the knowledge to make these policies. I think consulting with someone who has the background and education in the area of sexual child abuse needs to be consulted otherwise it is going to be a how to protect my ministry approach and not how best to serve the victims and all of this is just window dressing.