Absent a catastrophic convention, which seems likely, the SBC will have the Ministry Check database of abusers sometime soon.
The SBC in annual session voted overwhelmingly to do this last year. It seems likely that our Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force will have it in place prior to June and no further votes are needed, best I can see. The Executive Committee has to execute a contract with the administrator, Faith-Based Solutions, a division of the familiar (and detested by some) Guidepost Solutions, LLC.
Those who don’t like the Ministry Check database, or don’t want it, or think it is a travesty or a disaster may make a motion and undo the whole thing. If the assembled brethren and sistren messengers agree with them the thing is deep-sixed. If there’s a valid contract with FBS and the convention votes to cancel the database, then what?
Readers can avoid being confused or misled by reading the Sex Abuse Implementation Task Force update of February 27th:
An SBC Executive Committee level abuser database has been a goal of abuse victims, their advocates, and others since the beginnings of the abuse discussions in an SBC context.
So, here it is. An independently administered database that churches can use as a resource to check current and potential clergy and staff members, volunteers, pulpit and conference speakers, and the like.
Maybe it will reduce abuse in the churches. Maybe it will not. No one knows and no one has enough information to know. It will be costly. I suspect it will generate lawsuits from several angles, and there will always be critics.
A few thoughts from this non-lawyer, retired pastor.
No sexual abuser should serve in any capacity in any SBC church. There is no segment of the SBC that supports otherwise, although there are some who believe sexual abusers of some varieties can repent, be reformed, and again serve as pastors or staff members.
The ARITF defines sexual abuse as,
…any sexual act that could result in a criminal conviction or civil liability in the jurisdiction where it occurred.
I don’t know what other objective standard the MC administrators could use but this means that sexual abuse in some places will get a perps on the database but the same sexual abuse will necessarily, by definition, be ignored by administrators in other places. Maybe I’m wrong on this, please inform me if you think so. A pastor who has a sexual relationship with a parishioner is defined as abuse in some places, not in others.
Every church I’ve pastored has had in its past a pastor or staff member who got sexually involved with a member. Deplorable. Sinful. Disqualifying. I don’t know if the behavior would be defined as a crime. This is an unavoidable complication.
Many SBC pastors have always been self-focused on this subject. Perhaps it is a natural inclination for self-preservation to be concerned about losing one’s position or ministry. A small percentage of sexual abuse accusations are false and, inevitably, people will point out to me that they know one of these cases. At the least, pastors should express concern for victims first, while discussing the safeguards or lack thereof that might lead to false accusations.
Yep. A new division of Guidepost Solutions, Faith-Based Solutions, is the choice for database administrator. The Task Force has gone to great lengths to explain why they were the choice.
“Credible accusations” has been and always be a source of difficulty for many Southern Baptists. The FAQ on it,
An allegation is deemed “credible” if it meets any of the following criteria:
1. The individual was convicted of a crime of sexual abuse.
2. Civil judgment has been entered against the abuser for the sexual abuse.
3. The individual confessed to sexual abuse in a non-privileged setting.
4. A qualified, independent third-party, commissioned by the appropriate local church or SBC entity, determines according to civil court standards1 that the person is credibly accused, following a properly-conducted independent inquiry.
Filing a lawsuit, criminal charges without conviction, or an allegation not properly investigated by a qualified third party, will not meet this standard.
Number 4 above is the issue. It’s the way the SBC will operate going forward, unless the whole database thing is discarded. I would ask the strident critics exactly how they would handle some of these abuse cases that arise where none of the first three criteria are met and the fourth is what determines the outcome?
Here are some observations I have:
- The entire process leads only to a church being excluded from the national SBC if they hire a person on the list. It’s all the EC can do, actually.
- A minister on the list is not disqualified from serving any church. If found out, the church may be excluded, but that’s the extent of the penalty. The whole process has nothing to do with revocation of ordination papers, with qualifications, with anything else. It’s end is church exclusion, only. Naturally, the credibly accused minister’s reputation will, and should be, ruined. But if he’s clever enough or a celebrity, he may overcome this and carry on as usual.
- Pastor A may be put on the list. Pastor B may exhibit the same deplorable, sinful, disqualifying behavior and not even be investigated. This because of differences in what laws in various locales. (perhaps the AIRTF intends that Pastor B, because he may have civil liability, should get the same treatment as Pastor A whose act is both criminal and incurs civil liability. Someone can explain or correct me on this.)
- I am assured that the EC has adequate liability protections in all this. I don’t know how this can be guaranteed.
- The EC, through the independent administrator which they fund, is committed to investigating every allegation of abuse in the churches which has not already resulted in a criminal or civil conviction or judgment, or which has a confession on record. I’m not sure why a church would rely on Faith-Based Solutions to investigate their case. FBS doesn’t have to be invited, as I understand the model, they can act independent of the church. This looks like uncharted territory to me. Again, I’m open to my reading of this being enlightened.
- Once the independent administrator determines an individual is credibly accused, they go on the list. No appeal to the EC or SBC?
- It’s almost inevitable that grand SBC task forces are oriented toward large churches. On this one, what will 25,000 churches with only a few dozen in attendance do, hire the local ham and egg lawyer?
- Money is an issue. Churches don’t have to give to the Cooperative Program which will fund this going forward. While IMB and NAMB have vast reserves and put up millions (from Send Relief) to defray the EC’s initial costs, I don’t see how Southern Baptists would approve of that as the normal practice.
We started down this road two years ago in an atmosphere of heavy distrust of the Executive Committee. All of the votes on this have been near unanimous. In a few months we will have tangible evidence of the SBC’s response to sexual abuse in churches. Now the EC has been reconstituted in a sense. Strident critics from a few years ago run the trustee board. Are they up to the task? Time will tell. So far, I’ve been underwhelmed.
Will it help? I’m not sure. I remain uncertain if the EC should, or even can, address crime in the almost 50k SBC churches.
___________________
If you don’t read the FAQs, don’t comment.
I’m a retired pastor of average-sized churches in the Deep South SBC hinterlands. If I am totally missing things on this, it doesn’t offend me if someone points this out. Be my guest.
