One of the chief complaints about Southern Baptists and clergy sex abuse is that clergy against whom there are accusations of abuse are able to relocate without consequence where they may repeat the abuse in a different church.
Clearly, this is a problem. Is there a solution?
The Greenville (SC) News has a very helpful story on the prominent case in that state which involved a top South Carolina Baptist Convention leader:
How to track sex allegations in churches? A survivor says schools have the answer. Oddly, the article’s online headline leaves out the word “may” (“A survivor says schools may have the answer”) which is part of the web link. Regardless, the piece does a good job of summarizing the case.
The key point, the one about tracking clergy abusers, is suggested by the victim in the case who suggests that churches with systems of governance that are independent rather than hierarchical, and this includes every Southern Baptist church, could design systems similar to schools. Here’s how some schools handle accusations of abuse:
- An investigations is conducted and the results are made a part of a teacher’s record.
- That record is shared when other systems seek to hire the teacher.
- The records of the teacher go across district and state lines through the teacher certification system.
In regard to replicating this system for SBC churches, one would have to note the following.
- The responsibility for examining suspicions rests with the church or denominational entity. There is no central SBC body that can, would, or should do this work. This presumes that reports of criminal abuse are referred to law enforcement. It is not clear to me what allegation of abuse would remain with the church to be investigated.
- There is no system of credentialing for SBC clergy. There is no clearinghouse or registry for ordained SBC ministers. In fact, there are no “SBC” clergy, only clergy that are ordained or licensed by an autonomous church affiliated with one or more levels of SBC life. Someone could create this but participation would be voluntary.
- It is inescapable that the burden of recommending or not recommending a minister falls on a local church (or entity) where that minister served. The IMB has indicated that if asked, they will share their employee’s personnel file with a prospective employer but that they will not aggressively follow a former employee with the information.
I credit the journalist for going to the SBC Executive Committee for comment where Sing Oldham one of the VPs there said,
He said, in a statement, that the responsibility of investigating accusations falls on local churches. They are urged in the strongest terms possible to report any accusations to law enforcement. The convention recommends background checks and offers assistance if something is found in the background check.
“The SBC routinely reminds churches that abuse is not only a sin; it is a crime,” Oldham said.
While the suggestion that the SBC follow the protocols of some school systems as a way to more effectively track abusers or accused abusers, the facts on the ground make that impossible.
Our new SBC President, J. D. Greear, has announced that he will appoint a “Sexual Abuse Presidential Study Group” in partnership with the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. I assume he’s working on it, since no list of names has been put out.
Perhaps some measures I haven’t considered may be possible. I look forward to seeing what the group says.
The difficulty is that once someone has left a church the church that was left behind, most often, is not willing to share and negative information. The reason for this is two fold, most of the time. 1.) People do not want to get engulfed in the drama of sharing negative news about someone else. It is easier to just let them go and move on. 2.) Churches do not want to get sued due to an accusation of slander or stopping someone from being able to obtain employment elsewhere. We do not usually share info on people who have done other things not related to sexual issues. If we have people in our churches that have a history of causing problems and they get mad and finally leave most churches will just send a letter for them as a member in good standing. It’s a lie, but we do not want to get engulfed in the drama of it all. Until this mentality changes it will never get any better.
“It is a lie.” Does not the Bible clearly teach that God HATES lying? And is not “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (or lie) one of the Ten commandments? And yet, you say that churches routinely LIE to avoid drama?
Seriously, this is flat out a blasphemy and a corporate “mentality” of sinfulness. One can only ask God’s Spirit to convict hearts of this sin and PURGE the church of the lack of faithfulness to Christ and this fear of man!
People who really want a centralized database have a sincere belief that will help. They are sincerely wrong for a myriad of reasons that I and others have pointed out numerous times. The reasons are really never discussed or dealt with. The reasons are ignored because of emotions. Kind of like the faults of others when you are in love.
But if anyone really thought that a centralized system would improve things, they only need to see whether churches that have centralized credentialing, oversight, boards, databases and such are actually doing a good job.
And if they don’t already know, neither I nor anyone, can tell them.
Let’s just pray that Pastor Greear and the ERLC don’t succumb to societal pressure to “do something” that will be a fig leaf, or worse yet, a cure that is worse than the disease. Respectfully, I don’t have much optimism in task forces and committees, even ones comprised of fine people.
I think the last one we had recommended “Great Commission Churches” or something as the alternative name to the SBC. It was not a good solution, as shown by the fact that no one uses it.
The stakes here are even greater.
Some years ago the SBC adopted a statement to the effect that even allegations of abuse were to be reported the authorities .. that the responsibility of investigation was to be left to the police and the prosecutorial profession. I know that is the law in Alabama .. and I suspect many other states .. that even suspicions of abuse are to be reported. I believe if churches would conform with that, much of the problem might go away.
Good point. It was (and still is) unclear if, for example, IMB had a legal obligation to report the abuse that they investigated and found to be “more likely than not.” Their personnel decisions in regard to references and employment history were changed as a result. It sounds simple but there are complexities.
Erwin Lutzer tried to warn a church – ended up with a quarter million dollar finding against him.
http://www.dgllc.net/pastor-liable-for-invasion-of-privacy/
Thanks for the link. A jury found that Lutzer violated privacy rights of the accused. Lutzer shared info with a minister’s church leaders about him some of which was false and/or uncomfirmed to the victim’s employer.
“Before he was pastor of the Hope Church, Duncan was an assistant pastor at the Moody Church. In fact, the Moody Church had licensed and ordained Duncan as a minister. The letters Lutzer sent to the Hope Church explained the Moody Church’s decision to rescind Duncan’s lisencing and ordination as a result his alleged behavior. Therefore, Lutzer argued to the Court that his action (sending the letters) was protected by the ecclesiastical abstension doctrine, which provides that civil courts may not determine the correctness of interpretations of religious text or decisions relating to the governance of a religious organization. The Appellate Court found the ecclesiastical abstension doctrine did not apply. The Court explained that by sending the letters to persons outside the Moody Church, Lutzer’s action was not related to the governance of the Moody Church (despite the fact that the letters related to the Moody Church’s decision to rescind Duncan’s licenscing and ordination). The Appellate Court also found that sending the letters did not relate to the interpretation of religious text (despite the fact that the statements in the letters regarding Duncan’s behavior were followed by references to supporting text from the Bible. For example, one of the letters stated: “Your misuse of alcohol violates the Biblical admonition that an elder be ‘temperate, self-controlled.’”) The Appellate Court pointed out that the letters contained at least one false statement – that Duncan had filed for a divorce, when in fact his wife had filed to divorce him. The Court also pointed out that some of the statements in the letters were made “without any investigation”, such as whether Duncan had misused alcohol and personal funds. Therefore, even if Lutzer had no knowledge that any of the statements in the letters were false, the Court ruled that the jury could have properly found Lutzer made the statements with reckless disregard for their falseness. Therefore, the Court affirmed the jury’s verdict against Lutzer. It is critical for the leader of any organization to know when it is legal to disseminate private information. Even a well-intentioned letter may subject the sender to liability for invasion of privacy.” One (minor in this case) incorrect or unverified statement placed them at risk. I am not saying that the risk should never be taken… surely we must do what is right – but one false or unprovable move and we are in big trouble. I am… Read more »
It’s been stated numerous times the churches are not investigators and we should “farm” that out to people who are qualified to it… Namely the police … But this case seems to show us that we must be investigators if we are going to pass along negative information.
It also seems to demonstrate that courts (2 courts in this case) are not willing to grant protections to pastors/churches who disseminate negative information outside of their own church.
The central problem in a database and perhaps the overall has been the organizations who allow a perpetrator of abuse to resign quietly and move along. Leadership wants to minimize the disruption and sideways energy that comes from exposing the truth. Of course the decision to move along quietly is self serving too.This makes telling a later employer about the abuse difficult. The former employee might indeed have a cause of action against his former employer for reporting rumors when the facts show that he resigned from his position.
If on the other hand, the employer bucked up and told the truth, terminating abusers for cause and dealing with the fall out t would be straight forward to tell subsequent employers that so and so was terminated for an inappropriate relationship with a member or an abusive integration with a minor. The state is the sword of the Lord to punish evildoers and crimes are the purview of the criminal justice system.
However, the church and it’s entities need to do a better job of living in the light even when doing so is inconvenient and disruptive. We have allowed matters of abuse to linger in the shadows because it was easier.
There’s also the matter of state law. I am required to report any suspicions of child abuse in any form by state law, and I also periodically remind the volunteers who work with the youth about that law.
I doubt that there has ever been a single moment in the entire history of the SBC that any officer or employee of the SBC actually even knew the NAMES of all of the pastors of all of the SBC-affiliated churches, much less their criminal backgrounds. Nor do I know of any possible means of obtaining that information accurately.
By “knew” I don’t mean “had memorized”; I mean “had the information at his or her disposal.”
Even in my denomination which has a centralized governing body and the proposed database in place, there are still issues. I’ve thought about this issue a lot lately since I recently agreed to help lead my church’s youth group in a part-time capacity. I think the best solutions are found by the local church implementing intentional policies such as:
1. Background checks on everyone who works with the youth – including the parents. This year, my wife was in charge of the VBS for an entire Army base, and absolutely everyone who was going to volunteer had to pass a background check. Most parents volunteering passed the background check, but a few had things come up during their check that were surprising.
2. Mandatory Safety Policies to include but not limited to minimum numbers of chaperones for events, requiring more than one adult to be present with youth, and requiring everyone working with youth to be a mandatory reporter with a church policy of referring all serious allegations to the police.
Both are required because the predators who have not been caught or allowed to slide through the system are not going to have negative information show up on their background check while there are others who have perhaps been caught in the past but are skilled at charming their way into positions of power.
During my ministry, I’ve encountered or known of incidents of both.
Churches who are quite clear that they will terminate abusers for cause and then tell the truth about the reason for the termination will find that abusers will go in search of softer targets. Abusers migrate to churches because they are target rich environments and the leadership is highly reluctant to bring abuse into the open. OF COURSE mandatory reporters as defined by law must report but many cases won’t rise to the legal triggers. But churches have to stop “protecting” themselves by not bringing these situations into the open as they occur.