Who, aside from the local church or churches involved, can do anything about SBC clergy who are accused of sex abuse? The answer depends on what actions are considered or are to be taken.
You may have read about the case of a Tennessee SBC pastor who resigned after accusations of his abusive behavior at a Texas church in the 1980s. The story is told at length here.
It is a sad story and one that should grieve any and all of us. It raises a number of questions about how sex abuse is handled in SBC churches and also about how SBC entities outside of the local church react when approached about such.
In the case above two local churches are involved, the church where the abuse occurred and the church where the accused minister was currently serving.
The story reports that an email was sent through “Southern Baptist Convention’s website asking how to turn in a pedophile” which ” never got a response.” I assume this is the sbcnet.com site. Also, the local association in Tennessee was contacted as well as the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee. The accused minister’s current state convention was also indirectly contacted. The responses were,
- The pastor of the church where the abuse allegedly occurred acknowledged the case and worked with two victims to “confront” the current church of the accused.
- The minister’s current church confronted him and he resigned with a statement about earlier “inappropriate” behavior.
- The “email through the Southern Baptist Convention’s website” did not receive a response.
- The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission responded: “Specifically engaging in this matter is not in the scope of our role, authority or ability,” Lauren Konkol, the commission’s team coordinator, wrote in an email back to Amanda on Feb. 3. “Within Southern Baptist churches, the local church is the highest authority, and we as a denominational organization have no authority to remove or rebuke any local pastor.” Konkol deferred response to the commission’s vice president for public policy and general counsel, Travis Wussow. “We’ve been grappling with what is our responsibility, what is our mandate,” he said. “But what autonomous doesn’t mean is we are autonomous from every authority.” Criminal justice, he said, belongs to the state to execute.”
- The local association’s “Executive Director of Missions” promised to “discourage” the minister from “pursuing vocational ministry” and, if a church came asking about him, he would “tell them that I cannot in good conscience recommend him.”
- The state convention leader was informed of the situation indirectly. He told the paper that, “…he didn’t know the specifics. He hasn’t informed other churches…because he doesn’t have enough firsthand information. He said he wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to alerting the churches in the Tennessee Baptist Convention’s network to an abuser, though. “It is pressing the envelope of church autonomy, but I believe we need to become more involved in informing our network of churches how they can understand their responsibilities in vetting someone,” he said. “We’re desiring to be very proactive in helping churches to deal with these things openly.”
So, what can be done about situations similar to this one by SBC entities beyond local churches that are involved?
- A church where past abuse occurred or is alleged should be prepared to handle such a situation, acknowledge what happened or is alleged to have happened, and take appropriate steps which might include reporting to law enforcement.
- A church where a staff member has been accused of abuse at a former place of service should take the accusation seriously and be prepared to take appropriate steps. This also could include reporting abuse to authorities.
- The local association, state convention, ERLC, and SBC Executive Committee should be prepared to respond to requests about member churches in a manner that conveys their concern about the integrity of their churches and clergy, even if they have no authority to make any staff changes. I would be surprised if the EC ever deliberately ignored any request of this type. Apparently, there was not an attempt to talk to anyone at the EC prior to the story’s publication.
In some cases, this one seems like a good example, it might be best to involve professionals in the response. That means lawyers and/or folks experienced with sex abuse in churches. It seems clear that many cases of abuse or alleged abuse will be taken to every possible SBC entity beyond the local church. There must be a way to respond appropriately where it does not look like the matter is casually deflected.
I’m guessing that all of our SBC entity leaders are aware of this and are working to provide appropriate responses.
Beyond this, at what point and after what evidence is shown should a minister be blacklisted? To many, abuse such as this is a permanent disqualifier for minister in any church. Since no entity in the SBC has power to make this exclusion, the strongest action would be to compile a list of clergy non-recommends. We already link convicted abusers.
What about others who never encounter the judicial system? Confessed abusers, and I know of only a couple in this category, could be added to such a list, I suppose, but is this a permanent status? Could the SBC at some level create or recommend a process of restoration after which offending clergy are taken off of the non-recommend list? Should the church that ordained the offending minister revoke or suspend his ordination?
The question of who creates the list, who is responsible for it, who decides which ministers shout be added to or taken from it are difficult. If a list were established would that stifle or encourage reporting?
There are prickly and difficult questions at several levels on all this. Fact is, not much can be done beyond the local church level but we should do what we can.
All important questions. My denomination requires a minister to have good standing with our regional body and complete training on child safety and healthy boundaries in the church. If an accusation occurs, both the type of accusation (I.e. area of misconduct) and results of the internal investigation are shared with church hiring committees.
That being said, I previously served at a church in a Denomination similar to the SBC in ecclesiology and structure. I served there for a year before I learned that the previous minister left after being involved with one of the teen girls. No one on the pastoral team said a word even though it had happened less than a year before I came on board and had greatly impacted the church. Meanwhile, the congregation was silent as well. The most disturbing part is that the previous minister is probably out there serving in a different congregation.
I am a fan of autonomy but it has drawbacks. This kind of behavior is the worst.
As everyone should know – no system is perfect. During Chaplain training days in the VA system, I knew of a high ranking Chaplain who had passed a stringent background check…despite having murdered his wife and served in prison. I think the best we can do is be as proactive as possible. I am a firm believer in going beyond background checks (which only reveal the ones who were reported) and implementing safety policies such as prohibiting chaperones to be one on one with youth in an isolated environment.
SBC pastors need to man up and have a “voluteer data base” for churches. If you are not on there for background checks no consideration for staff
Is it 100% perfect. No but its a start.
All churches should retro actively require all staff to submit to the background check or go somewhere else
Not a bad idea but the Executive Committee already does the reverse of this, that is, links the naitonal abuse database which contains convicted offenders. Any church may check this now. Your suggestion would be for a volunteer SBC clergy list of non-offenders. Not sure why an incomplete list of non-offenders would be better than a complete list of offenders.
Informed churches already do a background check on staff and volunteers and prospective staff. What would the ‘volunteer data base’ accomplish that this does not?
The church shouldn’t handle it. The police should. That has been the problem that the church has handled it. The church is not trained and has already fumbled the ball how many times now? Many states do not have a statute of limitation or like Kansas it is 3 years or 3 years from the time they realize what has happened to them and the anguish it has caused. Some states like Arkansas have a 3 year limitation. So calling the police not the church handling it.
If the statute of limitations is up, then you can begin to do what you have talked about here and definitely a data base which was proposed again by Wade Burleson and sent to the ERLC to study and bring a report in 2019.
Absolutely on all things criminal–but I think the question William’s trying to wrestle with is those matters that are either immoral but not “criminal” from a state perspective, or those which are outside of a statute of limitations. And the evolving nature of the criminal justice system results in some things being a crime now but they weren’t in 1994, so…on matters that fall in those cracks, the remaining recourse is how the church handles that.
But the first call on an accusation is always to the proper law-designated agency. (Here in AR, it’s a call to DHS for incidents involving minors; otherwise local police/sheriff’s department.) It’s what you do with the cases that don’t result in a charge/conviction that leave us with church decisions.
What types of acts do you think we should have a database for that are not criminal?
Debbie is absolutely correct, but I think both should happen, and where a church has clearly ignored its responsibility with respect to sexual abuse, it should be dis-fellowshipped by action of the EC and confirmed by messengers at the next annual meeting. As to the data-base it would seem to fit structurally at ERLC. A staff member with a law degree trained in this area of law could supervise the data base.
The database is not a workable idea but we can discuss that later. I presume ERLC is looking broadly at the entire area.
Here are some thoughts:
1. When a credible accession of sexual abuse is received, commission an outside investigation to find out the truth. Don’t be distracted by your knowledge of the accused or his family.
2. Tell the congregation about the existence of the allegations and the steps the church is taking.
3. Disclose the results of an independent investigation to the congregation.
4. Invite the offender into an intensive path of long term supervised repentance and confession. And if he refuses or engages superficially, withdraw fellowship from him by a vote of the congregation. (This will make a finding another church to lead very difficult and has the second advantage of being biblical.)
5. Tell the truth when you are asked for a reference from another church. “Pastor Bill was the subject of an independent investigation into allegations of abuse. We would not consider hiring him. We withdrew fellowship from him and he is not a member of this church”.
6. Be clear with all of your staff (including the senior pastor)that you will side with the victim and not offer a safe, confidential haven for the abuser. Abusers are artful at finding safe places that give them access to children, teens or women. If they are quite sure that you will bring sin into the light ( including the police as appropriate) they will be much more likely to not come to your church.
7. Do not gloss over prior reports of abuse with cheap grace and too-quick restoration. DL Moody said that repentance must be as notorious as the sin before restoration can be considered. The grace of Jesus allows for the forgiveness of sin before God; it does not provide for re-engaging a youth minister or an unfaithful pastor in their roles An embezzler is not preluded from employment but it’s foolish to hire one to handle your money.. .
8. Be clear-eyed about the difficulty that abusers experience in making sustained change. Don’t be fooled by fauxthenticity or easy tears. The sin is not just he abuse but the issues that lie beneath the behaviors. Time and usually a lot of time is needed to experience real freedom.. They are not beyond the grace of God but they may be beyond pastoral or volunteers ministry that gives them access to potential victims.
9. Would Jesus be on the side of abused or the institution? Be careful you don’t follow the leadership secrets of Caiphas in protecting the church at the expense of the wounded.
A set of best practices published to all the churches and taught in seminary would go a long way to push autonomous churches in the right direction without the easier but superficial registry bandaid.
On #1. Who determines what is credible? Seems to me that is the big gray area that most churches/pastors get themselves in trouble.
This is an unfortunate quote from our anonymous lawyer:
> “Who has the authority to go to a church and say: ‘Your pastor has a problem?’ There isn’t an authority within our convention with the legitimacy to do this,” said a lawyer familiar with the SBC, who required anonymity to speak freely.
The answer should be *other churches,* just as was done here. Both the police report and the intra-church report should have happened earlier, but this seems to be the right approach.
I think the most meaningful reform is to handle the issues around reference checking and giving. Churches should be expected to ask other churches about prior concerns, reports and allegations, and Churches should understand they have biblical duty, if not legal duty, to pass those concerns, reports and allegations on. Intentional failure to warn should be seen as non-cooperation.
The database is still a bad idea. I understand why people want it to work, but I see no way for it to work well. If someone wants to start a “Yelp for Ministers” that collects reviews, accusations and convictions, and wants to shoulder the lawsuit risk, let them do that.
Our church bylaws spell out precisely how accusations against me or staff pastors should be handled.
Look at Bill Hybel’s case. The first instinct of elders/deacons is to circle the wagon and protect the pastor and question the accuser. Will Creek has well written Bylaws so what. Bylaws fails sinful nature to judge first than to give a fair hearing first.
BTW, who should be responsible for Mark Aderholt case?
Would an EC database have helped? The failure here was in church leadership in acting appropriately. That is not something we permit our convention employees authority over.
I am not familiar with the details of the Aderholt case.
” Mark Aderholt, a former employee of the South Carolina Baptist Convention and International Mission Board missionary, has been charged in Texas with sexually assaulting a teenager 21 years ago.”
http://www.bpnews.net/51243
BTW just a side note: Tom Hatley was chairman of the IMB from 2005-2007.
Debbie, it will be interesting to see if the current chairman was made aware of this also, and if he was aware what action/inaction transpired
The Aderholt case really puts to bed the whole issue of autonomy and shows it for the excuse it is. We now have a credible case of abuse and cover up (ending in an arrest) in an institution of the SBC. Two institutions, in fact. The IMB and the state convention of South Carolina.Not an autonomous church but institutions. And what has been the response? An email from an IMB lawyer (from his official IMB account) telling a victim to “let it go”. And on David Platt’s Twitter right now? An article asking for money.
What cover up are you referencing? According to the article, charges have just been filed for the incident 20 years ago, which implies that the allegations were only recently made. How do you cover up something that there was no record of?
https://www.star-telegram.com/living/religion/article214758515.html
I encourage you to read this. The IMB knew about Mark Aderholt years ago. He continued in ministry, including local church and the Southern Baptist Convention of South Carolina Executive Office AFTER the IMB investigated him, found that it was “more probable than not” that the allegations were true, then discouraged the victim from reporting to police. The victim has released emails from an IMB lawyer telling her to “let it go”. The accusations were made to the IMB years ago, but only recently to the police which triggered the arrest. There are documents and emails which prove all of this. The Trustees knew. IMB lawyers knew. And no one made it public or contacted his new church or the SCBC. This man – now in jail for criminal sex offenses – was teaching youth at FBC Columbia SIX MONTHS AGO. Again, after the IMB knew, internally investigated, did not report to law enforcement, and told the victim to “let it go”. If that doesnt rise to the level of a coverup, I do not know what does. Having said that, I am more than willing to listen to David Platt’s side or the IMB side. However, they are currently busy tweeting out articles asking people to give money so we will have to wait.
If you want more information you can go to the victim’s webpage annemariemiller.com as well as google Mark Aderholt at FBC Colombia, to find photos of him working with 9th/10th grade students back in November (after the IMB knew he was a sex offender). I tried to post the links but for some reason could not.
It’s public and is in news outlets. Folks can go there for the story. I’m sure more on this will follow.
Anne Marie Miller’s statement on the sexual abuse by Aderholt.
http://www.annemariemiller.com/2018/07/13/anne-marie-millers-statement-on-her-sexual-abuse-story-and-the-international-mission-board-cover-up/
Thank you for posting this. I was disheartened when I tried to post it and the comment was rejected. Ironic since the current discussion is over a potential cover up.
Unfortunately my comment on this was deleted from Mr. Miller’s other article on the IMB data breach. So I will make it here. It would be callous in the extreme for the IMB to respond to the data breach by saying to those effected “let it go, forgive the criminal who did this” and then do nothing. This is, however , exactly what they said to Mark Aderholts victim – this callous disregard came directly from an IMB lawyer from his IMB email.
Hunter, I am not sure your presentation here is accurate as to all the facts.
I genuinely hope I am wrong. However the IMB and David Platt refuse to comment on the case. What we know – a former IMB Missionary has now been arrested for sexual assault and his victim has released copies of the emails she received from the IMB dissuading her from pressing charges. In the discussion concerning a database, people have correctly noted how unworkable this may be in a system like the SBC where each church is independent. My point is now we have an employee of an institutional entity. Church autonomy doesnt come in to play here – and what is the IMB doing? Did they warn the churches he worked with in Europe? Andy why are our leaders silent on this? JD Grear took time to endorse a Supreme Court candidate this week. Albert Mohler and Russell Moore have spoken out eloquently on the sins of Donald Trump and other politicians outside the SBC. Where is their voice now?
I see that Bart Barber addressed this on his twitter account, very thankful for him and his willingness to speak up. This is what leadership looks like.
You’re hinting at a bigger problem in most churches. If there is no one in the church who can “check” the pastor; abuse wasn’t the first problem in that church.
Deacons, elder board, church council, personnel committee; someone/group should be able to rein a pastor in.
The SBC isn’t going to maintain a database for the same reason you don’t report misconduct to them. Report to the police and then do background checks.
If the SBC did a database it would be a litigator’s dream. First time a false report was passed on and someone didn’t get a job on that basis the lawsuit would be extreme.
Report to authorities and do background checks with authorities.
Having said that, anyone who withholds information should be drawn and quartered. Metaphorically. We need a culture in which aiding and abetting a coverup is seen as equally heinous as the act itself.
Are they aiding and abetting; or are they trying to protect their own reputation? I agree, completely, it is terrible to not pass on info on an abuser. How may of these churches would be devastated (closed) if that “info” got out.
I don’t think the problem is women being disbelieved or pastors being protected; I think the problem is churches covering their rear ends to stay “in business”.
A distinction without a difference.
Why can’t the SBC disfellowship churches that refuse to handle these cases appropriately? Churches have been disfelkowshipped for racism; having women pastors, and support of LGBTQ. Yet no church has been disfellowshipped for abuse by clergy. Further, now that we have a case of the IMB covering up abuse and telling a victim to “let it go”, the autonomy question really is just proving to be a red herring. This is about men in power circling the wagons to protect each other.
There are several questions in this. Churches could be excluded for any reason. “Refuse to handle these cases appropriately” is very broad.
Sure, each case would have to be looked at individually. But the reality is we have a problem with churches and our institutions not taking these abuse allegations (and in some cases more than just allegations) seriously. But I simply refuse to believe we can’t do better. I myself emailed the executive committee – no response. I emailed the ERLC – no response. I emailed JDGrear – no response: I emailed Albert Mohler – no response. I understand these organizations and men are busy, but there is a pattern here of not addressing issues until the secular press draws attention to them (and then criticizing victims for going to the secular press). We can do better.
This topic is so much broader than sexual abuse. There is so much to say. It’s really hard to contain myself. Commenter John R gives me some hope. Churches HAVE to do better.
I have seen MANY people walk away from a church, a denomination, or God altogether due to seeing how allegations against/among church leaders were handled. (To be clear, NONE involved sexual abuse). I know it is terribly difficult. IMO two things to beware of are partiality & pride. From personal observation –
Partiality: Your popular staff member was brought on eagerly/quickly, perhaps not subject to normal procedures; was showered with attention & praise; had free rein & little accountability; was trusted & excused through red flags & when spiritual alarms went off; was believed when allegations surfaced; and was urged to stay despite incontrovertible proof of disqualifying sin, or confession. or even public arrest. OR your popular lay leader belongs to a stalwart, generous, longtime church family. In any case, agreed-upon procedures & policies (if any are in place) and Biblical standards are sacrificed. Having cast off those bases for unity, emotions and influence rule. Arguments erupt. Factions & division ensue, and may lengthen into bitter schisms. The devil has taken great advantage of partiality.
Pride: The first instinct is to protect the church via tight control within a small circle-of-knowledge. NO outsiders or even denominational help is permitted, and members are not trusted or equipped with basic truths. Surreal silence ensues. The matter is rarely if ever addressed in church, or on the website, or in meetings, or in any communications with church members. Church proceeds as normal. Any updates are vague & euphemistic. Real information channels are all outside the church, perhaps even in public records. Church members are left susceptible to rumor or even deceit, and therefore disagreement. To unify and show vitality, the church may start a new campaign or program; we are moving on. Collectively, the church is holding its head high. Individually, members cry in their beds, fall ill with grief & confusion (especially the elderly), isolate, and may take years to recover…or just repress everything. Anyway, as Matt M found, this loyal church — those who stayed — cooperates in basically erasing the event from history. Except for youth & many young adults. They are incredulous. And they are out of there, spiritually if not physically.
None of us are immune from these all-to-human sins. But they cause so much lasting church hurt and spiritual damage.
Karen, I agree completely. The issue goes beyond just sexual abuse. It is abuse of power and pride.
Absolutely, thank you for understanding. I don’t excuse myself. In fact, the sorrow and shame is in seeing how I have been part of that system.
Anyone know when the Paul Pressler trial is slated to take place? Understand Patterson and First and Second Baptist churches are also being named in the lawsuit.
Baptist polity, especially within a large denomination like the SBC, is difficult to understand and explain to those who aren’t involved in it. Still, it is disappointing to see that churches and denominational agencies hiring staff don’t look more thoroughly into their background before hiring. The pomposity of some search committee members implies that they are the ultimate professional personnel experts in their congregation when it comes to choosing pastors and staff members, so why don’t they actually do the work and find out what is going on?
I learned, while I was still a student at a Baptist college, that Southern Baptist churches and institutions don’t find leadership and staff members and pastors in a normal sort of way. If you are interested in vocational ministry, you “hitch your wagon” to a kingmaker somewhere in the denominational apparatus who has his fingers in a lot of pies, and who “knows key people,” like a pastor or a director of associational missions who spend more of their time going to meetings and chairing committees than they do working with their own church or association. Both of the high profile abusers mentioned in this thread got prestigious positions in churches or state conventions because of their connections, and because there were people along the way who were willing to ignore glaring problems simply because they liked the guy, or knew him, or had some kind of connection, or because they wanted a favor at some point down the way, and so they overlooked this issue.
I understand the issues with the database, the lines of authority, and all of that. If the local church is the place where this needs to be handled, then local churches need to have someone on staff, not a volunteer, and not one of their “well connected members,” who has expertise in human resources management, who can handle these specific issues with search committees and provide them with instruction and expertise when they come up. That might be something that a local association or state convention can help with. Among all of the various “specialists” when it comes to various church ministries, a human resources coordinator with some clout would be a valuable asset in situations like this.
This excerpt from Baptist Press on the IMB/Aderholt case:
“The IMB did not report the incident to law enforcement at the time, McGowan said, because the victim — who has identified herself in a blog post and other forums as author and speaker Anne Marie Miller — said on multiple occasions that she did not want to make a report to police.
Miller “was a grown adult at that time, and we followed her lead,” McGowan said. “We were more than willing to support such action at that time, but she stated that her desire was not to file charges. While some want to exclusively call out IMB for not reporting, keep in mind that neither her parents, her husband at the time, two trained clinical counselors or several other friends with intimate details of what happened reported the matter to police, including several individuals who actually live in Texas where the alleged events took place. We can only assume they approached this matter in the same fashion we did: that, as an adult, this was Ms. Miller’s story to share with local authorities when she was ready. We fully support her taking this step now, and we are cooperating with authorities.”
Miller wrote in a July 13 blog post that she didn’t know until recently the IMB didn’t report Aderholt to local authorities in 2007.
The Star-Telegram said Texas’ mandatory reporting law for suspected child abuse is not clear regarding cases “involving childhood victims who are now adults.” The paper cited a University of Texas law professor who said he has never heard of someone being prosecuted in Texas for failing to report the child abuse of someone who is now an adult.
In McGowan’s written comments, she posed the question, “Why did IMB not notify Mr. Aderholt’s future employers” of the allegations against him? She answered that to report the allegations to Aderholt’s future employers — including Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock, Ark., and the South Carolina convention — would have exposed the IMB “to lawsuits.””
http://www.bpnews.net/51277/update–former-baptist-leader-charged-with-sexual-assault
The decision to press charges does indeed rest with the victim. However, the IMB had a duty to notify both the SBCSC and law enforcement. They did not. Further, the “no one else reported it so we are not alone” is a very weak argument. I thought the policy was that when we learn of abuse, we (churches, institutions) report it? The IMB seems to be defending their decision not to report. Also, I again point everyone to the email from the IMB lawyer – the first line of which is “At this point, I advise you to let it go”. The SBC has got to stop blaming the victims for their inability to deal with abuse in their churches and institutions. We learned nothing from the Patterson debacle.
I would also make what I hope are two obvious points:
1. The Mission organization of the Southern Baptist Convention is now having to parse their answers and resort to legalistic responses about sexual assault. This should never have gotten to this point.
2. I see absolutely no words of compassion for the victim here. None. An organization that spends millions to send missionaries around the world cannot now say one compassionate thing to this woman who was assaulted by one of their employees.
Anne Marie has published a response. I encourage people to look at it. It includes transcripts of her interview with the IMB lawyer. His questions are so disgusting I won’t even reprint here. (Her comments are now in the comments section of the Baptist Press article, since they chose not to respond to her either).
I asked Anne Marie (the victim in this case) if Baptist Press contacted her for her side of the story before publishing. They did not. Not sure how this qualifies as any sort of journalism. She isnt hard to find. I was able to get in touch with her through her Facebook page.