We are several years into abuse reform in the SBC and we can point to near unanimous messenger votes, two grand task forces, extensive and expensive reports, millions of dollars spent, millions of words…and no database of abusers.
Why is this?
The convention voted to implement this database to include four categories of offenders. From the first sex abuse task force:
- Confession in a non-privileged setting
- Conviction in a court of law
- Civil judgment rendered
- Determination by an independent third party according to a preponderance of evidence
We have now had the latest task force, the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force at work for most of a year. Their stated goal concerning the database was not to create the database the messengers voted to create but to create one that
will be limited to 2 categories, as I [ARITF chairman Joshua Wester] mentioned before: criminal convictions and civil judgements related to sexual abuse.
There have been difficulties with both of the other categories: confessions and the number 4 above which most people shorten to “credible reports” of abuse.
The idea of a database has been discussed for years. The problems have been evident from the start but with experts, expensive lawyers, highly attuned and committed TF members, messenger votes, supportive elected SBC officials, the replacement of non-supportive SBC staff, and millions in funding.
So, why is the database an empty shell? Why is the idea of creating a database that includes confessed abusers along with those with credible reports so difficult?
Chairman Wester said:
It’s not going to shock anyone in this room to hear me say we’ve encountered numerous obstacles trying to get the database online.
While we have cleared the majority of these hurdles, we are working with our legal and insurance partners right now to navigate the few remaining legal challenges the database presents. We are committed to doing this in a way that secures our convention’s ability to continue its mission and guards against unnecessary liability.
We are doing everything we can to address these outstanding questions and challenges in the most efficient and expeditious manner possible. Let me be clear: The ARITF is unwavering in our resolve to fulfill the messengers’ mandate.
I don’t doubt the resolve but I would like to see an honest, public discussion and comment on the problems encountered. It’s not credible to imply that lawyers, unnamed SBC leaders, and critics are the problem. Wester:
Our second objective is getting the Ministry Check database online There is tons of misinformation floating around out there about the idea of a database. I want to dispel that with GOOD information
You’ve been told “that no one has a database like this, that something like this would never be insurable, and that it would hold so much liability it would sued into oblivion.” To be clear, all of that is bad information. It turns out, databases like this do exist, they are insured, and they don’t get sued all the time.
Then, Mr. Chairman, lets have the “GOOD information.” If databases like this exist, are insured, and don’t get sued all the time, then let’s see the examples of those. Intelligent SBCers can verify this on their own.
Chairman Wester:
We have encountered more legal, financial, contractural, technical, and spiritual challenges than I can begin to count. I wish I could tell you that all of those challenges came from outside of the convention.
I know that the chairman is a stellar pastor and is said to have a formidable resolve for doing the right thing. So, sir, talk to us. Don’t scold us and make it like those who have severe reservations about this part of your task force’s charge are obstacles to overcome. Maybe what is needed is persuasion, facts, and solutions.
Here’s where we are:
- There is no database.
- The idea of an independent, private nonprofit which creates and handles the database, which hires its own staff is in a shambles.
- The ARITF has, presumably, spent considerable sums getting to where they are now.
If there is just the “few remaining legal challenges” then list these and explain them to folks who voted for the database and whose money is being spent to create it.
Talk to us. Tell us about the obstacles and challenges to the kind of database that messengers desire. Show us examples of equivalent bodies who have successful databases that include names of those credibly accused.
______________________
I have long doubted that this type of database would be possible in the SBC. Some of the reasons are covered in this previous article. In that I said, “I’m unaware if the system has been implemented on the scale of our almost 50,000 autonomous churches.” Chairman Wester said that there are examples but didn’t give any. Maybe he’s right. Let’s see.
My statement in another article, “The inclusion of “credibly accused” individuals in the new database may be it’s undoing, and if credibly accused individuals cannot be included, the entire concept of a database may be questioned.”
Obviously, I’m not a prophet. I wrote about a year ago, “Absent a catastrophic convention, which seems likely, the SBC will have the Ministry Check database of abusers sometime soon.” Nope. The ARITF acknowledges challenges and obstacles. I list eight of them in this article.
