NOTE: I just read the third installment, and to be honest, I may be sick. It is hard to read. Wow. Demented men.
NOTE: the second installment is out and is more specific, more maddening, and more saddening than the first. I will turn your stomach. I appreciate the research of the journalists at the Chronicle. They have done an excellent job of showing the problem.
I read the first installment of the Houston Chronicle’s “Abuse of Faith” story with much fear and trembling. The fact is that for those of us who have been following this story, there was little new there. The details of this indictment of the unacceptable SBC response to pastoral malfeasance have been known for some time. Many of the sad cases were ones that we had read of before and were just as painful to read again. I am guessing that the main effect will be to expose these facts to a wider audience, and that is a good thing.
Any response of the SBC, its entities, leadership, and the convention itself should be thoughtful, careful, and timely. As Todd pointed out in his previous article, we must listen to what the Houston Chronicle has to say – perhaps there are new revelations yet to be unveiled – and formulate a response. The initial response should be as it has been from our president, JD Greear, and others. Sorrow. Recognition that we have not done all we can do. A determination to do better. All of those things.
In addition to the wisdom of our leaders, I would offer the following observations, suggestions, and considerations.
1. We must admit that the coverup culture existed and was sinful.
I am old enough to remember the time when it was considered best for everyone to hush things up. It is sad, but it is true. Incalculable hurt was done to innocent victims because of the “keep-it-quiet” policy. Perpetrators were allowed to resign and move and victimize others elsewhere.
There is no defense for the coverup culture. It was wrong. It was sinful. It inflicted pain. The fact that it was widespread, almost universal, is no excuse.
Many churches, pastors, and other leaders of the SBC engaged in a culture of intentional coverup of sexual abuse and predation that enabled abusers to continue to hurt people. There is evidence that this took place even in some SBC entities. We must admit this, those who engaged in such must repent and seek the forgiveness of those they hurt, and if entities did so, they must also seek to make that right.
2. We must commit ourselves to seek real solutions to these problems.
It is right that we express our sorrow and horror over the mistakes of the past, but we must make real changes to fix the problems. It was actions that caused these problems and it will be actions, not words, that will fix it.
3. Our actions must be governed by who we are and what we believe.
I have no doubt that autonomy has been used as an excuse for inactivity at times, but if we are convictional Southern Baptists we cannot simply jettison the principle of free church polity because of this situation. We must find solutions that work in a free church environment.
Many of the suggested solutions are hierarchical in nature and conflict with our autonomous convictions. We are not autonomous simply to shield ourselves from responsibility. It is a longstanding core value for Baptists and whatever solutions we find must work within our autonomous system, not violate it.
4. Fortunately, there are solutions that work without violating autonomy.
Many people act as if the only solution is a national denominational registry, but there are other workable solutions.
- Churches must be encouraged to establish policies for childcare that protect minors. Such policies are available from denominational sources and insurance companies.
- Churches must do background checks on all employees and volunteers.
- Churches MUST report those who abuse minors or pastoral authority to authorities. REPORT. REPORT. REPORT.
There are other such solutions, that work on a denominational level.
5. Bart Barber has been promoting the “Excommunication Solution”
As autonomous local churches, we have the freedom to decide with whom we will fellowship. It is completely within the boundaries of Baptist polity and autonomy to say that if a church fails to report, if it harbors or protects an abuser, we will refuse to seat its messengers at the next annual meeting. We can pursue a bylaws change that will disfellowship such churches completely (as we did with churches that approve of homosexuality).
Bart offered a resolution that effect in 2016 but it didn’t make it out of committee. I’m guessing such a resolution would pass nearly unanimously this year.
For years, people were pressured to keep quiet. Now, pressure needs to be brought to bear on those who stay silent.
6. There are issues with a denominational registry.
Some continue to demand the denomination maintain a registry. I am not sure that is a great idea.
Rule #1 in abuse is that we are not to investigate, but to report! If churches report and do background checks, then the national database already exists.
This is a passionate issue – some have come to see support for a registry as the sine qua non of support for victims of abuse. I disagree. I do not think a denominational registry will be effective, and I believe it is a minefield to be avoided. It may not be legally possible to maintain a database that is substantially different from the information that’s already available in the form of criminal background checks. And if that’s the case, a registry would not help or accomplish anything other than a duplication of resources already available.
We can accomplish the goal of protecting the victims of abuse and punishing abusers in the SBC without a registry. That’s one old codger’s opinion, which I realize will expose me to attack in some quarters. But that is my opinion.
7. There are four fingers pointing back…
Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18
When those icon-worshipping Catholics got exposed for all their pedophilic ways, maybe we looked down on them a little. That’s what your false doctrine and the celibate priesthood does to you. When they ran the article about the Independent Fundamentalists and the rampant immorality and abuse in those circles, perhaps some of gloated a bit. We’ve been called liberal and apostate by the King James crowd for decades and now they were exposed. It was easy to feel superior when the other groups were getting hit.
Now, it is our turn and we need to deal with it. The Catholic Church denied for a long time until they finally had to admit the truth under an avalanche of crippling lawsuits. The fundamentalist report was relatively recent, but mostly what I have read is denials and attacks – granted, I’ve not read widely there. We must take our medicine ***(, repent) and respond in a godly way.
8. This is no time to try to score points.
If there is one thing the current #metoo movement has shown, it is that sexual abuse and the abuse of authority are pretty egalitarian sins. There is hardly a segment of society that has not been affected. From Catholicism to independent fundamentalism. From Hollywood to Washington DC. Businesses and schools. There is not a segment of our culture where abuse has not reared its head.
- A friend showed me a tweet from a man of questionable social media history, who was complaining that the Chronicle article didn’t detail the failings of CJ Mahaney. There are still two segments to come, so he might get his wish, but clearly, he wanted to make this another anti-Calvinist diatribe.
- Many will point to the SBC’s complementarian stand and say that abuse flows out of the biblical teachings on the roles of men and women and such things.
But abuse doesn’t exist only in complementarian circles or in Calvinist circles. In general, when you try to take a tragedy like this and use it to make a greater point, you are using those who have already been victimized in an unfair way. Sexual abuse has cut across all lines and if you try to use this tragedy to score bigger points, see point 7.
9. A little bit of perspective.
The whole time I have been writing this, I’ve been trying to talk myself out of publishing – a word out of line, and I am open to relentless attack. But I’d like to give a bit of statistical perspective here, in balance to some things I’ve seen on Twitter.
Since 1998, the Houston Chronicle found 380 pastors and volunteers in SBC churches who have faced allegations of sexual misconduct. That is a nauseating and horrifying number, and we assume because of the fact that many churches do not report that the actual number is much higher. Is it ten times that high? Twenty times that high? Of course, we cannot know that.
But with 47,000 churches, I would simply point out that as we grieve and mourn, let us remember that we are not a convention of abusers or adulterers. This is a problem among a minority of our pastors. That minority must be dealt with – strongly and comprehensively – but we must remember that the vast majority of the pastors of SBC are morally faithful men who do not abuse those they serve.
The number of abusers is far too high – unacceptably high. But those who want to paint SBC pastors as abusers of women are abusing the facts.
The bigger problem, of course, is not the number of abusers, but the culture of coverup – far more have been part of that, protecting abusers instead of the abused.
But we are not a convention of abusers. I realize that saying this will offend some – I am not sure why, but it will. The vast majority of pastors in the SBC who do not abuse women and who are faithful to their wives must determine that we will not accept sin or participate in coverups.
10. Serve the victims
A lot of problems can be solved if we remember that when a situation arises, our job is to serve the victims, not to protect the victimizers. It really isn’t that hard.
When confronted with a situation a few years back that horrified me, that thought helped me. I am on “Team Victim.” I still ministered to the abuser and God has done a great work of grace there. But our goal was to help the ones who had been hurt. It as still a minefield, but that served as a helpful guide.
There are still two more segments of the story to come and our leaders are still working on how we can respond as a convention. But ultimately, it will be an individual response that matters, as we decide to treat women with respect and decency, and as churches, as we establish and follow responsible policies and as we do background checks and report offenses. This situation is fluid and by the time Birmingham rolls around maybe we will have further clarity on all of this.
Lord willing!
I just made a fairly important edit.
Because of the sensitivity of this topic I got some editing help from the team. We did a little cutting and pasting.
I just realized i had some adjectival placement that could have been disastrously confusing.
In the first paragraph, I used the words sad and sick, which were meant to describe the response of Baptists to these allegations but in the cutting and pasting they ended up in such a way that it could appear that I was calling the Chronicle article sad and sick.
I did some editing. No one complained yet but I wanted to post this in case any if the early versions that go out caused a misunderstanding.
My bad.
Very good and thoughtful article, Dave.
Local churches must be more informed and proactive.
As for the convention – one important order of business should be that Bart’s 2016 resolution must come to the floor and pass and IMO, become part of actual policy (as we all know resolutions are not binding only reveal the sense of messengers in the room at any given convention)
Bart’s solution is THE solution denominationally. Exclude the evildoers.
Bart Barber himself is (generally) the denominational solution is he not?
Dave
There are actually Calvinists who are calling for an accounting of the SBC’s relationship with Sovereign Grace Ministries. The scandal associated with that group of churches is important to this discussion. Victims tried to be heard and many were kicked in the teeth by reigning stars in the SBC firmament. Some of those victims are Calvinists today. The concerns about SGM is not a fight about Calvinism. It was, and is, a fight against Sex Abuse and church coverup.The SBC took on this group of churches even when it was known that there were reports of victim after victim. Surely they knew a day would come that this would be called into question?
Dee, CJ Mahaney is not the issue here. My point is not to defend him or prosecute him.
It is that this ISN’T about Calvinism.
Please forgive me. I’m having trouble understanding. I thought this was discussing how to prevent and deal with abuse in the SBC. The Excommunication Solution is a great idea. How about stopping it before it starts by not permitting membership/co-operation to a group of churches embroiled in sex abuse sandal of large proportions?
There seems little point in engaging here Dee. You seem to be spoiling for a fight. I am not.
I am not a CJ fan, supporter, or defender. I only used him as an illustration.
Find someone else to argue with.
That’s fair: there’s no obvious nexus between Calvinism and the coverup culture.
I’m not sure you can say the same for complementarianism, though. Teaching that God wants, indeed requires, male authority and female submission (or, if you like, male headship and female support) has consequences. If a woman’s role is, fundamentally, to support male achievement — well, then it’s a /huge/ break with community norms for a woman to “ruin a man’s life” (or his witness) by reporting abuse.
Now, you can make an excellent case that complementarianism doesn’t *cause* either the abuse or the pressure not to report. As you point out, sweeping abuse under the rug has been the /rule/ in all parts of society, rather than the exception, since pretty much time out of mind. And there are plenty of complementarians who are appalled — and *infuriated* — by abuse.
But IMO, the SBC will find itself having a conversation about complementarianism and the coverup culture sooner rather than later. Not saying it has to happen on this blog and in these comments, here, today but it’ll happen. And I think it’s a healthy conversation to have, because the ONLY way to craft a better and healthier complementarianism is to look the wounded in the eye, instead of leaving them by the side of the road.
Anyway, that’s my two cents.
P.S. Unrelated, but: I would be careful about doing even back-of-the-envelope math on frequency of sexual abuse in the SBC based on this series. These are just the reports of people who were caught *and convicted*. Sex crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute and charges are frequently dropped or never brought at all, even when reported — and the expert consensus is that most abuse isn’t reported. So the 300-ish offenders here are, regrettably, the tip of the iceberg. I wish it weren’t so, but it’s so.
For sure no doubt about it.
Based on this passage??
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+5&version=CSB
I’m not sure what Dr. Bart’s resolution was about, however from what I know about him I would favor it. However, as you said they are not binding. Your second paragraph is the key. Churches must get the lead out and get this done. Local churches are the key. The denomination’s job as I see it is to flood the churches with training sessions totally saturating the cooperating churches with this. The time is now, not several months from now. For good or ill (IMO for good) the Chronicle made this story widely known. So now strike while the iron is hot. If the national level drags their feet, encourage the states and associations to take action, but get er done!!
Very good post Dave.
I agree that a registry has considerable issues. However the issues that I find would largely be eliminated if this was done at the associational level.
Excluding offending churches from the SBC is something I would favor, no doubt. However I’m not sure this is a deterrent in todays SBC. I would ask how many of those excluded from the convention actually would give a rip. That is a question not a statement…I’m not tuned in to things enough anymore to be definitive on this subject.
I am appalled that churches do not have background checks etc. in place already. This is Ch. Admin. 101 in Montana.
To be honest I think our voices should be directed at pastors in local churches. I’m not sure there is a “fix” at the SBC level. SBC structure should flood the convention churches with training and process on the handling such issues. Social media should flood the pastors with admonition to get their ducks in a row. Stating the obvious, social media is far reaching. Boldly confront and admonish pastors to set in place a process from A o Z.
I have personal experience with this in one of my pastorates, a staff member was sentenced to 15 years in prison. It it”s not rocket science. As has been emphatically stated REPORT to law enforcement immediately. In this particular state, failure to report was a crime with rather heavy penalties. I would be interested to know how many states require by law reporting of molestation. The church had no process in place regarding how to deal with the issues. Hence we moved forward writing the playbook as we went. One thing for certain we would cooperate with the authorities fully. The worse part of this is the fact that the staff member had been passed along by at least two churches who chose not to properly deal with it. Inexcusable, simply inexcusable!!!
My state is a mandatory report state. Especially pertinent to this discussion, I believe that Texas is among the mandatory reporter states meaning that there’s potential legal culpability if people have withheld knowledge of ongoing abuse.
Dave,
I want to ask a question that occurred to me to ask you, and others who would be opposed to a database based on any factor- autonony, confidentiality, etc- but who would support Bart’s idea of thre Excommunication Solution. (I think Bart’s idea isn’t a bad one, and would be in favor of that idea, in conjunction with a database)
Based on the article and evidence presented, would you vote to approve Bart’s Excommunication Solution, and then vote to remove Second Baptist Houston and Bellevue BC from fellowship?
I ask because my fear is the Excommunication Policy would never have any teeth behind it because of the amount of money that would not longer come into the CP if churches like these were removed for not reporting or covering for abusers.
Would you vote to remove? Do you think there could be a majority who would vote to do so at a national convention?
When I read the Houston Chronicle article yesterday, I just felt sick. I’m sure we all felt strong emotion. We need to channel that emotion into appropriate actions, both on the local church level and on the denominational level. My church graciously provides me with an office. When I went to the office this morning, I met with our church’s staff, and we agreed to these actions:
1. Review our church’s prevention measures.
2. Consult our church’s insurance company for suggestions.
3. Research the prevention measures instituted by sister churches.
4. Research the prevention measures recommended by Lifeway and the state Baptist convention.
5. Require all staff and children/youth volunteers to complete the MinistrySafe training.
6. Institute further measures, as seems proper.
7. Invite a consultant to review our church’s policies and practices.
I know for a fact that our insurance requires the background checks. It would have been my policy to conduct them regardless, but it always a good idea to know the actual terms of a policy (having served in congregations where basically one person handled the insurance policies and/or actually knew the policy terms).
Good advice
I echo both Dee and Ryan. I think CJ Mahaney should be in this discussion. There were signatures on a letter that was briefly posted on Facebook in support of Mahaney. The things done to these children were horrendous with him knowing albeit after the crimes. I do believe in repentance and forgiveness. But as you know I believe sexual abuse tantamount to murder. Not something to give just words to.
He has been featured although evidence seems to point to a cover up with him involved. Money is a factor. Let’s be honest. The SBC has loved money and with money has come the power. It is not just small churches who have hidden sexual abuse but SWBTS for example, big churches with big money. The SBC would take a big hit financially. Is the majority of messengers willing for this to happen?
I didn’t say he wasn’t.
I would be thrilled if you and Dee would read what I said, not what I didn’t.
I said it was wrong to make it about Calvinism.
I agree that it isn’t about Calvinism. If it were then those in the Independent Baptist church and churches that are not Calvinistic in their doctrine would not have sexual abuse in their churches either. But they do. I applaud the responses from our leaders thus far.
There are many Independent Baptists who are Calvinist, as well as non-Calvinist. Independent Baptists are diverse, kind of like Southern Baptists.
David R. Brumbelow
This is your response to the articles David B? You don’t want to know my thoughts right now.
“remove Second Baptist Houston and Bellevue BC from fellowship?”
Well I think we all know that’s not going to happen.
Wouldn’t removal have to take place in the association?
This will sound like I am defending the churches, which I am not. But, a newspaper article is not an indictable or removable offense. Said churches should have right to a hearing (for lack of a better term) and opportunity to defend or explain their actions or position probably with local association.
This is going to get so complicated. Very tragic and no easy solution.
I do not believe the SBC is the answer but can strongly admonish associations to investigate. A resolution is probably the extent of the national convention’s involvement and responsibility.
Read Bart’s resolution. You can find it on his blog.
I have read Bart’s resolution. And your article above. My question stands.
Not trying to be a pain, just don’t want to get caught up in the Mahaney drama that has consumed this part of the thread. And my question is pertinent, given what you have written about and Bart has proposed.
Bart’s tweet from earlier today.
Any church the @HoustonChron has identified as employing a pastor with a history of sexual misconduct, if still employing that pastor in June and haven’t already left the SBC by then, should be disfellowshipped at that meeting. I’m willing to stand up and make that motion.
Not sure how Bellevue or 2nd Baptist fit there.
Question: Is the Chron the last word on these churches or is there a hearing or investigation before the church would be disfellowshipped? That is a sincere question, i’m just trying to wrap my head around process.
A By-law could possibly provide for something like a 60-day “show cause” process, where the church would have 60 days to document their case against dis-fellowship, after which time the executive committee would be compelled to either enforce the action or institute some specific restorative process (for the church). The process must be as objective as possible in order to eliminate the potential for a political solution (cover-up). I think its important to remember as the article indicated, in some cases a congregation has seemed to have been a kind of secondary victim of the abuser or of a systemic cover-up.
We would not be looking to disfellowship any church that has had an abusive pastor in the past, but those who a) continue with such pastors or b) fail to report.
Look at the chart in the middle of the article.
Bellevue allowed a pastor to remain employed for 6 months ATER he confessed.
Would that qualify as you interpret the Excommunication Policy?
20 years or so ago? i don’t think anyone is looking to prosecute old offenses. I think the intent is to deal with current offenders.
That would be more punitive than anything else, wouldn’t it. You’d have to ask Bart for sure. I have not spoken to him in a while and I am not his spokesman on this. Just liked his idea.
I am not opposed to Dr. Bart’s resolution. However, I think it is simply a statement more than a solution, and that is OK. I do think we need to be prepared for a fight when a vote comes, and maybe that is OK also. However what about the State and Association? The church could still affiliate with these entities i would assume. While I do believe the offending church should be removed, that will in no way fix the problem. That will happen only at the local church level. The 3 levels must cooperate to totally saturate and consume the churches with the importance of this with the goal for churches to get their act together. We can motivate churches to send 40,000 plus messengers to vote for a President of the SBC. We can motivate Pastor’s to divide into Trads and Cals. Surely we can motivate churches/pastors to deal with this important issue.
It seems to me that several of the cases sited by the Houston Chronicle cry out for further investigation (by someone in the SBC) and immediate action. I’m not sure who should do such investigations. Here are some issues:
1. The article indicates that Dale Amyx was still serving as a pastor of a church in 2016. It wasn’t clear to me what his current status is, or if the church where he was serving in 2016 knew or should have known of his alleged past sins.
2. What were the names of the church leaders who allegedly asked Debbie Vasquez to get an abortion? Are they still church leaders?
3. The article states that the man who allegedly abused David Pittman is currently serving as a pastor. Who is he? What church is he serving in?
4. Allegedly, Michael Lee Jones, who is accused of abuse, was preaching at a SBC church very recently. This should be investigated.
5. The article makes it sound like Ratcliff, accused of abuse, is still actively serving in a church. Is this correct? If so, why?
I hope I did not mess up any of the details. The article was a bit confusing, as it mentioned the same stories in different parts of the article interspersed with other information. Light is a powerful disinfectant. Who should be investigating these specific cases?
Haven’t we been told over and over again that ecclesiastical entities do not have the expertise to handle these kinds of investigations and that they should be turned over to the authorities? Every one of these should be given to authorities and investigated fully.
After the report, though, a church has to decide what it will do with its own ministers. For example, a preacher accused of trying to procure an abortion. Or the man who is pretty sorry about his (entirely lawful) adultery. Those are no crimes (by themselves), and in most cases nothing will come of a report.
And the answer must be that local churches get to decide what they’ll accept. Is it a preacher without criminal conviction? An elder who has never been accused? Or something in between? Though, ‘ignore the conviction’ isn’t an acceptable interpretation of “above reproach” in any church claiming to cooperate with the SBC. But short of that, different churches may answer differently.
Dave, I realize that my question may have left the impression that I’m not sure if the police/government legal authorities are the right ones to investigate. I didn’t mean that at all. I 100% support reporting to the police. But while police should investigate, they are not the ONLY ones who should investigate. This is especially true since there will be many cases where legally there is nothing more to investigate but morally there is a lot more to investigate. Also, in each of the cases I mentioned I think any police investigations are long finished, but there is more that needs to be done, and part of that requires investigating, I think.
It would be wrong to use the following verses as rationale to not report a case of sexual abuse to the police. But these verses do indicate that we have an important role to play in investigating some cases of known, serious sin in the Body of Christ:
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
(1 Cor. 5:12-13 ESV)
The vast majority of the above type of judging should be carried out by and in a local church. But when a local church fails (or appears to have failed) terribly and the failure is hurting the gospel and the name of Christ, is there any place for associations/conventions or SBC entities like national and state Baptist news groups to investigate and report? Isn’t such investigating a necessary step if we are going to expel churches who do things like hide or cover up sexual abuse? Or if they employ a known sexual abuser as a pastor?
This one from 2007, an SBC affiliated church whose dad helped fake his son’s death to escape molestation charges. HT: The Baptist Blogger. http://www.kltv.com/story/6970522/faking-his-death-to-escape-authorities/
Three thoughts:
A) I’m reminded of the shock when, during my first staff position as an intern, someone informed me that the journey leading to our Senior Minister being at our church began with an “indiscretion” with a woman he had been “counseling.” However, he was able to resign and take up a post at that church (where he still resides) without any break in time serving as a minister. I’ve always suspected that he was able to transfer with limited/short-lived controversy because he was 1) a higher up in his state convention (in a neighboring state to this congregation) and (2) had been a mega church pastor, (and thus had a history of overseeing substantial numerical growth). I realize we are discussing a different area of sexual sin in this post, but that incident sticks out in mind because it is always a reminder for me that with the right connections – ministers who abuse their authority with sexual sins can easily shuffle among congregations given levels of influence or historical track records.
B) I’ll not delve into arguing for/against the national registry – it would be improper as I left the SBC a long time ago in favor of serving in a different denomination. That being said, I think the denomination as a whole would benefit from issuing recommended guidelines for child safety protocols for local congregations to use. These guidelines could perhaps be pushed down to the state conventions with the goal of having state conventions advocate for them at the local association level. Policy wise, I am specifically thinking of guidelines such as always having 2 adults present with children that are not your own whom are the same gender as the child, running a background check on everyone who works with minors in any capacity (and all church staff in general), and having reporting policies in place that specify that incidents involving minors are reported to the local authorities for investigation. These are the current policies in place for my current congregation. In addition, my denomination also requires every ordained minister in each region to complete boundaries training every five years, which includes a section specifically on best practices for keeping youth safe. Perhaps, a class of this nature could be offered at your yearly convention as an elective for those working with youth and children?
C) I’ve not browsed the original coverage, but I found it interesting during secondary coverage on NPR that they took care to report on the difference of enforcement capabilities of the Southern Baptist Convention itself in contrast to the governance structure of denominations that have regional/national enforcement (such as, in my denomination, the ability of the regional minister to disbar ministers from serving within the denomination under specific circumstances). My understanding is that the original coverage did not include that key aspect in the story.
The policy recommendations you suggest have long ago been published and are on our website.
To your B) comment- hasn’t the Birmingham convention completely cleared the Tuesday evening schedule? It seems to me that such would be an excellent time to give the stage to an organization like MinistrySafe for a presentation and Q&A similar as what was done in a lunch break last year for Dave Ramsey and Rachel Cruze. Kind of unofficial but available in a space where a large attendance could be accommodated.
There was some mention of Boy Scouts. I was a BSA registered leader for 15 years in Cedar Rapids during the time Dave was there. And, have read much about Scout history. Baden-Powell, founder of Scouts, was a British War hero. He taught Army Scouts how to be scouts, and after the Boer War, he was asked to do something for the sad condition of British boys. He responded by writing a book, Scouting for Boys, which essentially was a summary of his Scouting courses for soldiers.
It became instantly a national frenzy, and B-P was asked to lead the movement, which he did. He had access to an island off the coast of UK, and had groups of boys going out there. Almost immediately they discovered a pedophile working on the island with the boys. So, Scouting has a long history of trying to deal with sexual abuse of boys. And, of some trying to cover it up “for the good of the organization.”
Scouts had pretty much your problem of autonomy in churches. Each scout troop is run by a committee, comprised mostly of Scout parents. At the time I was active, 80’s and 90’s, some committees were pretty messed up, an obvious parallel to some of your churches. It doesn’t matter much what your national body does, if the local churches are stupid. And, no matter what the national decrees, there will be local groups which sneer at it, guaranteed.
Our troop committee had the usual rule of two adults on any camp-out. But, we also had policies to protect men from false charges, which are much more common than a lot of political propaganda says.
For example, if two fathers each drove a big, old station wagon on a camp-out, that meant one adult alone with a car-full of kids. So, the man’s own son was to be in his car with him.
And, when women were allowed to go on camp-outs, the women on our committee decreed there had to be not one, but two oe more women, but never one woman alone with the men. That was a local troop rule initiated by the wives of the male leaders, not a national rule.
Our problem was fortunately not sexual abuse. There are other kinds of abuse. We had a problem with big, seventeen year old Scouts, hitting the littler Scouts and knocking them down. One older leader said that was a normal part of growing up, and the boys had to learn how to deal with it. Another, the loser who once said the troop youth chaplain probably should not read an official Scout prayer because it might offend those of different faith, told the committee I was the sort of person who exaggerated things. The committee stated they did not know if that sort of abuse happened, but if it did, the adults were to stop it. Next camp-out, my son and I saw a big boy hit a small boy and knock him down. The guy who said I exaggerated things stood there with a smile on his face and ignored it.
My son and I packed our things and left, and found another troop.
I see this not as a church problem, but as a universal human problem.
Dave,
Great job on a sincere and well reasoned post.
I am hoping your thinking on this will be the course we follow.
There is an old adage about honor/dishonor among thieves that sadly applies here. One of the primary problems is that these individuals are allowed to traveled and spread their harm among churches is because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” mantra that exists among churches.
Let me give you a quick example – my dad was “stuck” with a HORRIBLE youth minister because his former bosses did not give honest references when dad called to check. Now “Bobby” was as far as we know not guilty of the crimes in question, he was guilty of malfeasance and divisiveness and being too cozy with adult woman at the previous churches. The same issues my dad encountered.
If former pastors would not pass their garbage forward, perhaps the trash could be stopped and a database in an autonomous Baptist environment could be tweaked to be an early warning system.
Amy,
You are right.
But I suspect that the autonomous nature of our churches leads to independent thinking instead of what is best for the greater good thinking,many times. So they are just glad to be rid of so and so and lets pray he does better wherever he lands.
That idea also brings up a question that I dont know how valid it may be. I/m in Ohio and rarely do we, as the congregation, interact with other SBC churches in the area even though my pastor certainly does with their pastors. Is this true across SBC land? It seems we would be stronger as a people if the people from the surrounding area/city got together on a regular basis.
Rest assured, if we have someone who leaves us and they are having difficulties, I will not gloss over those difficulties. I do not wish for harm to simply leave our church, I do not want it pushed on another church.
Isn’t that the heart of the problem? Churches that don’t report and pass the buck?
Please write a post that defines reporting – reporting to civil authorities, yes, but also, how do ministers and leaders in churches “report” to the next church calling for a reference? What ought to be shared? And how?
To Dave’s point about time being an issue “20 years ago” just referencing point article data spanned 20 years so why would SBC not call out leadership across same time? Problem includes embracing worldly church culture of today with unwillingness to call sin out. Abuse of boys, girls, men, and women is criminal and sick……no matter when it occurred.
In my view…….today we promote and elevate leadership in religious and secular circles who are known enablers or participants. How and why are questions worthy of debate in the SBC.
I would vote for Bart’s resolution. I would also favor the SBC establishing a data base like the one posted by the Houston Chronicle. The newspapers only included the names of those convicted in court. If I understamd correcctly, our SBC leaders and lawyers resisted establishing a data base in 2008 because the victims and advocates asked for a data base that included the names of those convicted and those “credibly accused.” The names of those convicted are in public records, so that would not present a legal problem for the SBC . However, listing people who have been “credibly accused” would leave the SBC open to lawsuits. I’m sure the attorneys for the newspapers approved the posting of the list of names. So, how would that be different for the SBC? I realize that I may not understand fully, but apparently others are puzzled like me.
If our goal is only to keep out convicted sex offenders, then no, we don’t need a registry. But if our goal is to stop abusers from abusing again, then we do.
Age-of-consent laws vary, but in my state, a youth pastor who uses his position to entice a 17-year-old into sex has committed no crime. But has obviously abused his office and abused the teenager. A registry would prevent him from moving on to another church and repeating that offence.
It would, but wouldn’t it just be simpler if that church passed that info if they are contacted by future employers. That seems to be the breakdown in our process.
Secondarily, what do we do if he is accused by this girl; and denies it and the only evidence is he said/she said. Then he is fired by the church because her family believes her and they have money so the church sides with her. He is now listed as an “offender” by the SBC based on 1 spurious accusation because it was deemed “credible” by someone, somewhere.
The SBC cannot and should not run such a registry.
So the Washington Post just quoted Boz T., the guy that started GRACE. He suggests churches need to give up some of their autonomy.
“But Tchividjian said the denomination ought to relinquish some of that independent spirit to more closely exert control over churches to prevent abuse. The denomination could require, for instance, that any church that wants to remain in the fellowship must agree to mandatory anti-abuse training and must participate in a shared database that would warn churches not to hire pastors let go from other churches amid accusations of sexual misconduct.”
Here’s my question: Why would churches want to “relinquish some of that independent spirit” to the national convention? There were a lot of convention heavyweights, present and past, in part one of the Houston Chronicle article. What guarantees a better result?
Also, I’m coming around to the database idea. My tweak would be to just hire a newspaper to manage it. They could publish regular reports in their paper. 🙂
Thanks Dave. Article is on point.
Moving to where I intended to respond.
With our autonomy churches cannot be forced to report abuse or take any measures to help prevent abuse. But could we not create a Good Housekeeping’ type deal of approval churches could earn? That way people could know how serious their church was in preventing abuse
Actually, that has merit
Yes, I like Allen’s idea, also. Institutions proudly display the EFCA seal, meaning their accounting procedures meet a high standard. Surely, the SBC or the state conventions could develop a similar system for the safety of children. I want my church to declare–This is a “Child Safe” church.
I don’t know that the states or SBC could reasonably do this without being an investigatory body.
Not if you worked with Boz T or Christa Brown or a number of others to help with this. An outside source.
No, I don’t think we would be talking about something a little bit simpler. It might, as William pointed out, be unworkable. But a church could present policies that conform to a standard, proof that they do background checks on all child and youth workers, and such things.
I doubt we will ever give outside groups administrative approval over our churches. If they want to give their own seal of approval and churches wish to seek it, fine.
But the denominational thing Allan mentioned would likely be focused on prevention and response policies being in place.
Some good points Dave Miller. I am listening and trying to understand. I just want something done yesterday(over 10 years ago to be exact). If we don’t, there are going to be even more stories. I think we did well this past summer. It was a good start.
I had to quit reading the article and hope to finish it today. I couldn’t read anymore.
Article 3 made me want to vomit
Yes. That is a tough one.
Some observations from an unknown back bencher:
– Education and support for churches on these issues will do far more to address this problem than threats of disfellowship. For one thing, how would Convention leaders find out a church was not following the “rules”? News reports? Arrest records? The whole “throw the rascals out” thing strikes me as a way to pretend to take action while accomplishing nothing at all.
– As others have pointed out, the newspaper article was based entirely on public records of people convicted of crimes, and even as that how complete can it be? Did the writers exhaustively look at the possible criminal background of all the staff members and volunteers at all 47,000 churches? Of course not! These cases are not the ‘tip of the iceburg’ they are the top layer of snow on the Iceburg.
– An effective database is probably impossible. Beyond the basic implementation problems (the actual work of creating and maintaining the database) the larger problems are what sort of data is included, where does the data come from, and how accurate is it? There is also the problem of fairness to those accused. It is hard to envision an accurate, useful database that would go beyond the current sexual offender listings. Do we really think churches will provide data to a denominationally run data base when they don’t report abuse accusations to law enforcement which in many states is required by law?
– Surely history teaches us that unquestioned authority of one group over another ALWAYS leads to abuse.
sensible