I recently listened to a podcast discussion between two SBC pastors. The discussion caught my eye when I received an email about it. It was a discussion about the new curriculum put out by The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission called Becoming a Church that Cares Well for the Abused. I was interested to know what these two SBC pastors had to say about the curriculum, so I gave it a listen.
As I began listening, I quickly became very frustrated. While these two pastors admitted that the curriculum has some clear things to commend it, the discussion was not a thorough review of the curriculum. They never even mentioned the things they liked about the curriculum, though they pointed out several times in the discussion that the curriculum says some good things. No, instead of reviewing the curriculum thoroughly, they picked out one phrase and critiqued it. The phrase is “believe the victim.”
Now, the very fact that they only quoted one small phrase in their critique of an 180 page book was frustrating enough. But the phrase they quoted should not be problematic for anyone reading this book.
The phrase is found on page 87 where the curriculum is addressing physical abuse. The curriculum states…
Regardless of whether the victim wants to take steps to pursue safety, there are two powerful things you can do as a ministry leader. First, you can believe the victim. “Innocence until proven guilty” is the appropriate legal standard, but you are a ministry leader, not a judge or investigator. We take the posture of 1 Corinthians 13:7, “love believes all things,” until there is evidence to the contrary.
“That’s disastrous. It’s sad,” one of the pastors said. They even argue that the curriculum’s counsel is contrary to the Word of God based on Proverbs 18:13.
But what should we do when someone comes to us and says that he or she is being abused? It seems that we really only have two choices. Either we believe him/her or we don’t.
Think about it, pastor. A lady comes into your office. She tells you that her husband has been beating her. What do you do?
Do you preface your comfort and counsel to her with “If what you have told me is true…”? Or do you assume that she is telling you the truth?
I do not make a practice of assuming that my church members are lying to me. Why would I treat them any differently in a situation where they are being abused?
Believing the victim does not mean that we rush with demands for the perpetrator to be thrown under the jail. It doesn’t even mean that there are never false reports. It simply means that basic pastoral care demands that the shepherd believes the sheep when the sheep comes to say that he/she is being abused by a wolf.
One of the reasons this curriculum is needed is because for far too long pastors and church leaders have operated from a posture of suspicion. We’ve sided with perpetrators rather than victims. We’ve played investigator, judge, and jury instead of providing the pastoral care that victims of abuse need and deserve.
The curriculum is right. Pastor, please believe the victim.
Note: This post has been edited because it’s original version mistakenly identified Mika Edmondson as the source of the phrase in question.
The problem with many of the comments here is that the article is not about how to deal with the accused. It is about an initial step to care well for the victim. When you turn that into a discussion about the accused, you communicate (even if unintentionally) that you are more concerned about those being accused of abuse than you are with those who are victims. That is the kind of concern for abusers instead of victims that has been demonstrated in the past. It’s why this curriculum is needed. Sadly, it sounds like the two SBC pastors cited in the article are not alone. That’s bad for victims moving forward.
Just so we are clear – anyone who disagrees, regardless of whether the disagreement is in large or small part, with your article and/or your vocabulary is pastorally “bad for for victims” and “more concerned with accusers than victims”?
C’mon, Dave. Read what he said, not what you want to read INTO what he said.
Is there a single thing you want to disagree with in Adam’s statement or are you just wanting to be combative with him?
I did read what he said.
I agree though – there is a lot of “reading into” things going on here today….lots of name calling and derision too for that matter.
As i said yesterday – i disagree with the tge notion of automatically and uncritically taking one version of a story as the truth – as such would necessarily mean you must then uncritically assume that another church member who tells a different story is lying. ( remember there are various forms of abuse… It’s very simplistic to assume we’re always talking about sexual abuse/assault)
This approach potentially puts a pastor , despite what adam poisited in his article, in a situation of “assuming a church member is lying to him.”
As i have said – I do not have a problem with a first assumption of believing a child… But when it comes to adults there are myriads of situations (again various forms of abuse) where deceptions can be involved.
As To the specific comments to which I am responding… What he said certainly implied that if we do not agree with his proclamations that we are “caring for abusers and not caring for victims”.
Recently when another issue was being discussed on this blog you, Dave Miller, took great exception to people demanding that other people do or don’t do something… That their view was the only way to see an issue… There’s a lot of that happening here on this topic.
Ken’s comments and some of Randall’s bring to the fore one of the key issues, as I understand it, in abuse situations. When an accusation is made, my job is NOT to investigate (assuming the accusation has a criminal component, which most do). My job is to listen to the person who makes a report and CALL the authorities.
If we get into the habit of trying to play private investigator or trial judge we will get in deep trouble. It is not our duty to break down witnesses or to get the full story. We minister grace and we go to the authorities. Once they’ve done their proper investigation, we then proceed.
Much of the trouble that has occurred in churches has happened when pastors/deacons/elders tried to play the role of cop or investigator.
Agreed – we are not cops or investigators. I have said – report it then get and stay out of the way of the criminal investigation.
I wish someone would explain though, how to pastorally deal with a situation of abuse by without reservation believing what is told to you -what about other facets of pastoral duty that come into play?
Are there not other responsibilities to address – pastorally – and potentially through church discipline – other facets of the situation? In order to show the accuser I *believe* them – shouldn’t it follow that I castigate (in some form) the accused without blinking? Seriously. Think about my question.
I hear what y’all are saying – we ain’t cops – but at the same time there are “consequences” to asserting that we always unequivocally and without reservation “believe the accuser”. This is why I I favor the “we will take your accusation seriously” instead,
Simply put: please do not dissect this from its context – it is only meant as a birds eye not the whole….”Wow, the legalities of this is above my paygrade – lets start with calling the cops and/or DSS or whatever agency is appropriate, and then lets talk about how I can help you through this as your pastor.”
How about those who claim verbal abuse? Wouldn’t it a wise and pastoral approach to seek to counsel each spouse through the situation? How about the spousal situation where the truth is (this has happened in my ministry a couple of times) that BOTH spouses are verbally and sometimes both physically abusive but the first I hear of it from one is that the other is the sole aggressor. If I *must believe* unequivocally and without questions or further discussion the first spouse – then where does that leave me as far as being helpful to the other victim as well? If I have already taken sides? Have I not cut off a victim?
I really do wish these issues were as simple and easy as some appear to think they are.
Well, you are right and the two pastors are wrong and this is a critical point. All the abuse survivors, their advocates, and those with experience in the field agree on this. It is critical to get this right, especially with abuse of minors.
Thanks Adam and William. You’re both on to one of the major points of adjustment our churches and pastors need to make on this issue. No surprise there is resistance from some corners. I’m not sure if they don’t realize how poor our handling has been in the past or they just don’t care.
This is really slippery ground. I agree up to the point of providing assistance, help and support to the victim—we absolutely have to believe in order to properly and thoroughly provide! However, churches are horribly equipped to investigate anything criminal to ascertain the truth—and should not. No investigation is done in a perfect ‘silence’ when accomplished by one of its church members—none! So people will find out; people will take sides. It is these internal investigations which is a major source of the problem. “Love believes all things?” I submit we all need to go back, reread, restudy, and put that verse back into context. What happens when the allegation is a lie? It has been known to happen. We are not required to believe a lie or deception—and at first contact, we only know what we are told without reference to truth. Believe to assist? Absolutely. Believe as to truth? Not without facts that only a criminal investigation can pry forth. (Heb 10: 28; 2 Cor 13: 1; 1 Tim 5:9)
The same discussion ensues whenever this comes up. Adam explained it well, that “believing” isn’t applying any legal standard.
We don’t have a widespread problem with false reports, almost always put at single digit percentages of all reports. We do have a problem with dismissing reports under the rubric of lack of witnesses or reflexive disbelief of the victim. Almost any time the matter is discussed among clergy, it quickly goes to false reports. It’s a shame that it does because that allows abuse to continue. Focusing on false reports is to enable abuse.
As a layman I am a little confused on why this is an issue that many struggle with. In the case where a person is confiding to their Pastor about sexual or physical abuse my first response would be to encourage the person to notify the legal authorities. Secure the safety and well being of the person. If the person did not personally feel the legal system should be involved or if it involves the church itself the matter is out of your hands, you must notify the legal authorities. I am surprise that there would be many who would even consider not believing the person who would come forth . The old common sense better safe than sorry. As a manager of a large workforce in my career if there was activity involved than just routine job issues, I told my supervisors when it comes to serious reported issues of theft, assault , threats and actions that were criminal we must notify the police. Luckily we still have a legal system that still innocent til proven guilty. Most leaders and those in the church understand the hard issue now and again , you can repair and mend a reputation but not a life that is subject to sexual, physical and mental abuse.
With respect to both you and Mr. Hobbs, I prefaced my comment with ‘believe’ in order to get ‘help’ the victims—I probably should have added ‘first and foremost.’ And I do mean ‘all help available.’ Legal, counseling, criminal, safe place to live, safety checks, including children if appropriate, etc. Nor did I intend to focus exclusively on ‘false reports’—my comments pertain to all reports—especially the real. But the ‘real’ reports also depend upon facts. The fact is that many predators have been passed from church to church for lack of proper criminal investigations—that is, they have not been held accountable; rather, the individual churches have dealt with the problem themselves—or, have not dealt with the problem. I do not understand why these two approaches are mutually exclusive. Its not ‘either/or’ but both to bring complete relief to the victim.
Thanks for the clarification. No question about children…report and treat the matter as if it were true – remove the accused, inform the church, etc., etc. It cannot be a private matter.
What victims almost always say is that they were disbelieved and at some point the behavior of the church and church official focused on protecting the accused. That’s why when folks immediately begin to talk about false reports and accusations, it is a mistake.
I completely agree! But I think a thorough analysis shows that the church did neither; 1) didn’t help victim and 2) didn’t report abuser. I think a default to ‘just believe’ to correct the past will prove to be equally frustrating in the end. Both paths working together ensure justice—regardless of how the facts turn out. And it allows the pastor/elders to focus on their calling—the well being of BOTH the victim and the abuser. After all—the pastor is going to visit the abuser in jail…isn’t he?
I also believe this issues, as framed in this article, shows that the church really needs to be more careful in adopting and adapting the language of the secular; in invoking ‘believe the victim’ in light of recent political events, while ‘eye catching’ for a timely read, is treading upon really thin ice. Because what has been discussed here is NOT how they define ‘believe the victim!’
WIlliam, (and Adam)
“The same discussion ensues whenever this comes up. Adam explained it well, that “believing” isn’t applying any legal standard.”
Flesch that out a little bit please….after we *must believe* what then?
If I believe a church member who tells me that so and so other church member did such and such vile and disgusting thing to them….what *must* I do, if anything, with regard to the church member on whom I have assumed guilt based solely on an accusation?
What taking it seriously mean?
– Report and get and stay out of the way of criminal work. Cooperate fully. work with authorities in providing assurances for safety of the one alleging the crime, their children, whatever is necessary..
– Remove accused volunteer, staff person immediately from all forms of responsibility and possibly (depending on the circumstances) the grounds until the criminal *and* separate internal church discipline is completed (understanding that one might be criminally “cleared” and still find their membership/employment/volunteer position terminated.)
I am not sure I agree though with the absolutist statments being made that that the church should not investigate at all – clearly though not in leiu criminal investigations or as a PR stunt or in any manner that will interfere with the criminal investigation. Churches could never carry out Matthew 18 or the Corinthians passage about “putting the adulterer out of the church” or even as a practical matter various employment issues (connected and not connected to allegations of abuse) if we do not in some way “investigate”.
Brian, you say you don’t want the church to become investigators. No one in this discussion does. But the result of your position is more like an investigator than the other option.
The default position many churches have taken through the years: the detached observer just waiting for “the facts to come out.”
This says to victims that they can’t be trusted and they’re not really going to be believed by their church. If a victim in your church saw what you’ve written here, they would be less likely to disclose abuse they’re experiencing. And I hope you realize how awful that is. What’s more, I believe a victim would be better off not involving you or your church and going straight to secular authorities to report their abuse.
Please reconsider. Please take the caring well training.
Mr Hobbs, I don’t disagree at all. But even churches who have acted like investigators have tended to ignore or cover the facts they do uncover. That is partly why the victim is ignored. My point is only that, when allegations are made, and without levying ‘judgment’ on the allegations, both 1) the victim must be absolutely taken care of when they come forward just ‘as if’ the report is true AND 2) a criminal investigation by the proper authorities must be initiated (if, of course, the facts warrant it…there are cases of abuse that do not rise to criminal). I guess I would add that how the church handles the matter within the church body matters too—I find that the ‘secret squirrel’ approach rarely works as it just fuels rumors and ‘sides’ being taken.
Brian: That is not your job or the churches job to assess whether the action is criminal or not. Call the police. Call the police. Call the police. Take this training.
I hope that churches who do not call the police no matter what the abuse, are seen as non-cooperative churches and voted out of the Convention. But first, education as in this curriculum is available for those who truly care about the victims. We can no longer say we did not know what to do. It’s laid out here and I am only on Lesson 2.
Lesson 3 deals with reporting abuse. It should answer all questions.
Debbie, you are correct – call the police. My position after that may be different than others. I would seek the steps I need to take from the police and follow their instructions so any case that may develop does not get messed up because I did something wrong.
If the law says tell my church or just my leaders, I will follow their instructions.
Thanks for your comment.
Ms. Debbie—that is exactly what I am saying. Churches must turn over to law enforcement & get out of the way of a proper, thorough criminal investigation. Period!
Alright, I believe the woman’s report that she is being abused by a wolf. Now what do I do for pastoral care, Adam? You left that out. That is the most important part!
-Do I ask her to report he husband to the police?
-Do I call in the man and ask him?
-What if I do that and the man makes things worse for her?
-Do I just council the woman to be strong in trials and help disciple her?
-What if I do that and it is found out later I did not report the abuse and something worse happens, or I am later a feature in a Houston Chronicle article about SBC pastor’s not reporting abuse?
What is “pastoral care” in this case?
Mark, the Caring Well training addresses all of your questions.
I am so grateful for the resource that was developed., and have already utilized it in my church.
I’ve read the curriculum and I am not so sure it answers those questions. It doesn’t to my satisfaction at least. Basically, the curriculum says to turn the victim over to a counselor and to help her make a safety plan. As for the abuser, the training does not say how to approach them. Chapter 10 tries, but is woefully lacking.
Mark Smith: There are videos, 257 pages of reading and other articles at the end of the video page. That is an awful lot of material that you say you have read. Utilize all the sources mentioned. It will take me a long time to go through all the materials given. Don’t rush read this. READ IT. Watch the videos. Read the extra sources. If not, you aren’t going to cultivate all the information in this curriculum.
I myself am going through the Caring Well now, and just a few minutes into it, feel it is good material, better yet it is free, and I am grateful for this first step. I will go through it all and it will take me at least all week to do so, if not longer.
Thanks, Mike.
Adam is likely unavailable to respond. All fair questions. Get the book, take the curriculum.
Here’s the link to the free online training: https://churchcares.com/
Presume you are not talking about minors here.
Thanks William, but I already knew where the curriculum was and have read through it. It is not anywhere near sufficient in my humble opinion.
The online training is a comprehensive introduction to the matter. The clergy staff starts there, and the book, and adds as necessary. Like any other serious problem, referral may be the best route.
Food for thought… Most child molesters have never been accused and never will be. Most child victims feel like they’d rather die than have the truth come out that they were molested (or fear that they will be killed if it does). And it’s far more common than we in our baptist bubbles dare imagine.
Some Scripture to consider:
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. -Exodus 23:2
You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor. -Leviticus 19:15
If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. -Deuteronomy 25:1
He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him. -Proverbs 18:13
The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him. -Proverbs 18:17
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. -John 7:24
David R. Brumbelow
We are always quick to make sure accusations against the powerful are discounted, aren’t we?
Dave,
I don’t understand. What is your point?
David R. Brumbelow
You have a consistent record of seeking to defend a certain indefensible former president who mistreated abuse victims. My assumption, not without reason, is that you cherry-picked verses designed to defend that indefensible former president who caused great harm to our denomination with his actions.
Your intent in cherry-picking verses was pretty transparent, David.
Frankly, maybe we could move beyond defending him. He is facing the courts now, and I suspect the full, sordid story will probably come out.
David Brumbelow: Tell that to the 700 plus victims of sexual abuse in Southern Baptist churches alone. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Abuse-of-Faith-Southern-Baptist-churches-13912529.php
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php
Why is this Caring Well resource silent on the subject of preventing abuse?
You’ve read and watched it, jt?
I do not understand why anyone is arguing with these texts, Mr Brumbelow…may as well argue with God since He is the author.
DRB has Paige Patterson in mind; unjust treatment, etc. etc., a victim. While I don’t know anyone’s state-of-mind (scarcely my own at times) this is a regular occurrence. I don’t think PP qualifies for victim status.
Paige Patterson has caused great damage to victims and deserves to be held to account. Defending him is indefensible.
No one here is arguing with the text of scripture. However, none of the texts cited by Mr. Brumbelow say anything about not believing victims who report abuse.
I honestly did not have your accusations in mind.
Just an issue of being fair to both sides in any allegation, as the above Scripture affirms.
David R. Brumbelow
Okay. My apologies for my assumption then.
I still don’t see how your verses pertain here.
Another scripture to consider:
Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved – 2 Cor 13:7
One of the things that seems to drive the attempt to keep such things “in-house”, and hence results in reports of abuse being mishandled, is concern for the church’s reputation, and, perhaps even moreso, concerns about not having control of the church’s reputation. Based on Paul’s attitude above, this seems to be misguided. As I usually unpack this scripture: Doing right is primary, looking right is secondary, and occasionally optional. Being more concerned about preserving the church’s reputation than about treating a reported victim right turns the attitude Paul shows above on its head. It also, in the long run, will do more damage to the church’s reputation than if things had been done right in the first place (which, I think, we are seeing now).
It is heart-breaking that such an attitude exists (the one expressed in the podcast mentioned and displayed in some of the comments) and it will be a major roadblock to true change in churches and the SBC. We must believe victims when they are brave enough to come forward. What is being advocated is not that we do not allow for investigation by proper authorities and allow for the truth to come out. What is being advocated is that when a victim is brave enough to share their abuse, we believe them and don’t assume they are lying or mistaken or that they misunderstood something. The rates of false reports of child sexual abuse are staggeringly low. And yes often when an allegation is disclosed there may be little “evidence” and the accused may be a well thought of church member or community member but we must be willing to believe the victim. It is ridiculous if we think of all the other things we take at face value in church – i.e. a man says please pray for me I lost my job….very few of us would demand to see a pink slip.
In my sample size of 1, I worked for 15 years in child protective services and I can think of less than 3 (out of hundreds) cases where I dealt with an actual false report of abuse. I dealt with many, many cases where victims were not believed by authority figures because of the abusers position in the community or prominence. Sexual abusers are predators plain and simple. They stalk their victims, they choose the time to attack so that there are no witnesses, they choose victims who will likely not be believed and then they use their relationships with others to discredit their victims. We need to come to terms with the fact that churches are prime hunting grounds for abusers and the culture of not believing victims is one of the things that makes our churches “safe” for predators. If this sounds extreme, I mean it too, because having repeatedly sat in interview rooms listening to children detail repeated abuse by their pastors I have some understanding of how serious this is.
I’m not familiar with the curriculum under discussion, so I can’t comment on its’ merits. And while I tend to agree with most of the sentiments in the post, I would also urge discernment and consideration of the context to each situation. Every situation has a context.
I have a former wife who twice tried to have me accused of abusing our children when they were younger; once for physical abuse and once for sexual abuse. I’ve later come to realize just how fortunate I was that I had a discerning school public school system and a discerning CPS case worker (although in hindsight, astoundingly young) who had the wisdom to dig deeper than the kids’ initial coached answers. In the reports I was later given it was indicated that the accusations were found to be baseless.
I say all that as an example of the reality that every situation has a unique context. Had I gone to my pastor, or to my mentors at church, for guidance, would you have advised them to consider me a presumed abuser? Had my former wife come back to the church with accusations, would you have urged taking her accusations at face value, without asking any questions to understand context? I was too embarrassed to ever seek any guidance in the matter from anyone at the church, but if you had been advising my pastor, maybe it was best that I didn’t. I guess I was fortunate that in both cases I was unaware of the situation until most of the investigation had already been done.
Again, I only share this to urge some level of caution and discernment. My kids and I came out of this ok, but if this happened today, I’m not sure the same results would have come as quickly.
We were protected in a sense. The kids were young and not really comprehending the situation. I was rather niave about the potential repercussions, and both situations were over almost as soon as I realized what was happening. The kids are adults now and are much more aware of the context.
Again, I urge a certain level of caution and discernment. Wisdom is always in order. I didn’t turn to my church for guidance. I suppose I felt some of the same shame an abused person does. But after what I read here, I’m not sure that in all churches it would be safe to.
Philip Miller, If a woman such as your wife when to her Pastor, your Pastor , and reported the false abuse charges only to the church, the church should tell her to notify the police and child protection authority. Your case would have had the same outcome. The church only has authority in the area of the church and what is in their control What would you have a Pastor do if a person reported abuse to them but had not told the legal authorities? As noted above for every false report there are literally hundreds of no report. The church is not child protection services, the court system and etc. but it is there for those in need, including those falsely accused . The church is not the decider to quote GW Bush but it is there to help those in a bad situation. Tough issue but it must be address. I am a very conservative , old school type but I agree with the course being offered Children and abused women are at risk and in a terrible situation. We can not go back to pretending this issue does not exist. I do think there is a danger of over statement of the issue but that is a different issue. It is the collapse of the nuclear family unit and the extended family unit that is at the heart of the problem. Tom Covington, I appreciate you sharing your experience, it adds to the conversation. Tough issue .
Philip: When you begin your post with “I am not familiar with the curriculum”, you have already shown your face. Get familiar with the curriculum. It is not your place, your church’s place or anyone else outside of professionals to discern. Your job is to report it to the police, regardless what you “discern.”
Shown his face?
How dare you speak to a *victim* that way, Debbie!
Don’t you believe his accusations?
Interesting timing. I listened just this morning to a NYTimes “The Daily” podcast interview of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s taken fire from other Democrats for pushing former Senator Al Franken to resign in the aftermath of harassing photos and other accusations.
Here’s what Gillibrand said about the phrase, “believe the woman”:
“When you say, ‘Believe women,’ what that means is not, they get to decide whether something happened or didn’t. It means that you will do an investigation…What the phrase means is, believe them as much as you believe someone else who runs into a police station and says, ‘My car was stolen,’ and start the investigation.”
That makes perfect sense to me.
So I’m asking Adam and others who’ve agreed with him here: Is she wrong?
I should clarify: Her explanation makes perfect sense. I don’t see how it corresponds to the normal meaning of the phrase, “believe the woman.”
Sometimes I think it is just a problem of terminology. Believe the victim implies that you automatically believe that the accused is guilty, not something any of us would want if we were falsely accused. How about “Take it Seriously”. It would accomplish the same thing, without the automatic implication of guilt upon the accused. Take it seriously, report it to the proper authorities, do whatever would be necessary to keep people physically and emotionally safe, don’t try to handle it by yourself. Just a simple change in terminology and hopefully we can get away from arguing over semantics and start dealing with the actual problem.
Jon: Well said.
If we have not even decided as pastors to give the victims the benefit of the doubt and believe them we are not ready to be trained about ‘caring well’ for victims.
I haven’t read the book or watched the videos but props to the ERLC for making this available for free. And just perusing the TOC looks like they done a great job at scoping out the issues that come into play.
Adam,
Before reading this, I request that you assume that I find all forms of genuine abuse at least as repulsive as you do. And that I take every required pastoral and legal precaution in any case of reported abuse.
It seems to me that “believe the victim” is the mantra of the secular #metoo movement. And I am truly at a loss to understand why so many are embracing this nonsense.
If I believe the victim, I must, with no evidence but the accusation, believe that the accused is guilty. Do you really want to live in that world?
Juridically, upon initial report, the reporter is an *alleged”* victim. Yet I’m being told to “believe the victim.” That’s sloppy, incoherent thinking at best.
It appears that most proponents of “believe the victim” actually mean “take the *alleged* victim seriously.” But that is not what you are actually saying.
So here’s my question: What Scripture might you offer to support your (and others’) mandate that I “believe the victim”?
Because “ The Church” has been so remiss and sinful in their job of protecting the sheep, it is only natural that “The Church” will assume the pendulum will swing the other way. Instead of “The Church” doubling down to protect itself and giving the benefit of the doubt to so many( shall I say, Wolves, False Prophets) maybe it’s time to give the benefit of the doubt to those who claim abuse. In my humble opinion there are far, far fewer people who claim abuse than there are abusers.
I am sorry, I just don’t get this response. Someone comes into your office with a story of abuse and you respond as a prosecutor?
I do not understand the idea that Randall expresses – calling it NONSENSE to believe a victim who tells her story.
I don’t get it.
“I take every required pastoral and legal precaution in any case of reported abuse.”
You called it nonsense to take such reports seriously. Your word.
Maybe you should explain why believing victims is nonsense. I would like to hear that.
Randall’s next sentence explains his “nonsense” comment, “If I believe the victim, I must, with no evidence but the accusation, believe that the accused is guilty.”
“Take the accusation seriously” is much better terminology than “believe the victim.” I suspect most everyone realizes this but rather than have a serious discussion about what Randall is saying he is accused of protecting the church and covering for wolves, responding to the abused like a prosecutor, not being fit for ministry or even acting like a human.
“Becoming a Church that Cares Well for the Abused” is a valuable resource. It calls on us to provide security for the abused, to listen, to congratulate them on their courage, to offer grief over what has taken place. Our “behavior” must assure them we do not doubt the validity of their story. They are making themselves vulnerable to us; proceed with extreme caution never to add to their pain or shame.
However, this does not require I make judgment on someone’s guilt or innocence based on accusation. Randall is faithful brother who is not on the opposite side of any of you on this issue.
Thanks Dean. I appreciate you, brother.
If I *must* believe the victim, I must, with no evidence but the accusation, believe that the accused is guilty. Do you really want to live in that world?
Randall: I don’t think you should be a minister in any capacity if this is how you feel. How about just being a human being? Hiding behind the Bible is the problem here. Hiding behind religion is the problem here. Just be a human being. Let’s start there.
I believe the Bible and love the study of it, but if you even have to ask for Bible passages to behave like a human being, you haven’t read, let alone know the Bible. You certainly don’t know the ministry of Christ.
And before anyone writes that I am too harsh, so be it. There it is.
“Hiding behind the Bible is the problem here” That is exactly what Randall didn’t do.
There seems to be two different ways of understanding what the phrase “believe the woman” means.
One way is to accept unreservedly that what she is saying is unequivocally true, and therefore logically the one she is accusing is what she is accusing him of.
And in many cases he is. Most cases he is.
That doesnt mean in believing her you automatically throw the accused under the bus.
The other way to understand “believe the woman” is to give her the benefit of the doubt and to take seriously her angst and to seek to aid her in her trouble.
In other words, the difference is very slim and mostly semantics.
If a woman cme to me and told be she was abused, i would believe her.
I would want her to report it to the police, and if it happened at work, also to her superiors or theirs.
And if it happened at church also to the pastor[s] or the elders.
Now even on the slim possibility she was confused or outright lying, she needs help and aid and support,
So if a woman comes to you saying she has been abused, she needs comfort, aid and help, and the police need to be told.
And who responding here, or reading, disagrees with that?
“So if a woman comes to you saying she has been abused, she needs comfort, aid and help, and the police need to be told.
And who responding here, or reading, disagrees with that?”
I suspect no one, Mike.
“It appears that most proponents of “believe the victim” actually mean ‘take the *alleged* victim seriously.’ “
Randall ,
I think I see the distinction you are trying to make. I appreciate that you are arguing for more precise language. Assumptions and accusation toward you here you seems a bit of a stretch. You seem like a sincere and thoughtful man. I only know you through a screen though – But I choose give you the benefit of assuming the best.
At the same time I know Adam personally and very well – and I do know “take it seriously” is probably a more accurate assessment of his intents here than a reflexively unwarranted #metoo posture.
For what it is worth – I do think that both You and Adam have valid important pastoral concerns to bring to the table.
To me – taking it seriously means calling the police and then getting out if the way – letting them do the criminal stuff – we as pastors then have messy and hard and complicated shepherding and discipleship work to do. Both the alleged victim and the accused need loving, caring and faithful pastors – as will other sheep are touched by the situation as well.
Thanks Tarheel. When we don’t make the distinction we are using the culture’s morally bankrupt playbook
Randall
And if the child (minor), were your child or grandchild would you apply the same standard on believing them?
I hope not. For their sake, not yours.
Again I think the distinction here is between “taking it seriously “and “believing“ – and I think it’s largely semantics.
When some hear/read “believe the victim” … They automatically assume that people are meaning uncritical and unequivocal declaration of guilt toward the accused … And I do not think that’s what people mean to convey here when they say “believe the victim”.
As usual in social media… We’re talking past each other.
…and, also as per usual on social media, we are dug in with both our presuppositions and preferred terminology and i predict, also as per usual, none of us will budge an inch and assume the worst regarding those who see (and articulate) these complex issues with the slightest bit of difference than we do.
TD – I am not sure I agree fully. I think RC knows exactly what he is saying. To not believe a person who says they have been abused until evidence is brought forth and accepted, the bottom line is a presupposition that the one making the accusation is lying.
If someone told me they had been abused and then asked me if I believed them I would say yes and because I do I am calling the police right now. I would minister to them in Christ’s love. I am not a counselor and will not pretend to be. I am not an investigator and do not pretend to be. I am an undershepherd, called to care for the flock God gives me. This is not always easy but it must be done and a child who makes an accusation will be treated as truthful until the authorities say differently.
If I were to talk to the one being accused and they said they were innocent and I had to believe them. I would say – that is not for me to decide. I must allow the authorities to figure it out. I will offer prayer. I will go as far as if found guilty, I would still love them in Christ.
Well, with the exception of Tarheel, I see only hysterics and hand waving in response to my question.
Not one Scripture has been offered in response to my question.
Perhaps Adam will eventually deign to defend his post.
You did not offer Scripture to support the idea that as you put it, believing women is nonsense. Why are we obligated to answer you that way?
“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. – Deuteronomy 19:15
Thus, in the world of Randall Colfield unless a child rapist is observed in the act, nuthin’ we can do about it?
You’ve given this more thought, I presume. Explain yourself.
Evidence, William. 1 Tim 5:19. That’s the standard of both Scripture and our judicial system.
Now you explain to me why I *must* believe the accused is guilty based on nothing more than an accusation.
Not an answer, Randall. You propose the standard of witnesses. Almost alL child rapists commit their act absent more than the single witness whose testimony you are unwilling to accept. This could be stupidity or obstinacy. I’d like to hope it’s the latter. Either way you appear to have little knowledge of the issues here. Take the online training. It’s free. You might learn something.
Sure it is an answer, William, you just don’t like the answer.
Compare 2 Cor 13:1 and 1 Tim 5:19 and you see that a “witness” is referring to evidence, not just eyewitnesses. This is the Scriptural and judicial standard, and you well know it.
And child rapists leave a veritable trail of evidence.
As to my having “little knowledge of the issues here,” my knowledge of the issues is tempered by both experience and Scripture. Yours seems void of at least the latter. Perhaps you should take the training with your Bible in your hand.
Now, you explain yourself. Why “must* I believe the accused is guilty based on nothing more than an accusation?
And just so you know, I’m done “explaining” myself to you until you reciprocate. Quid pro quo.
“And child rapists leave a veritable trail of evidence.” Then why is there over 700 victims just in the SBC. MS reports that there are over 60,000 sexual abuse victims still living. So what evidence are you talking about Randall, since this crime is done alone with no witnesses? No evidence but the victims words and not even that was taken seriously till now by the church, save for a small few.
By your standard, no child rapist will ever be convicted because the child is the only witness. I am not sure you are properly applying those Scriptures.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. – Matthew 18:16
This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. – 2 Corinthians 13:1
Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. – 1 Timothy 5:19
2 Samuel 13:1-22.
So, as for the rest of the story, are you suggesting the launching of a conspiracy to murder the accused?
Mr. Cofield,
I hope that it is not your intention to communicate what you’re communicating to victims of abuse. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your beliefs and explain what you actually intend to communicate with your proof texts. Here’s what I’m hearing:
Unless I’m one of the few who are fortunate(?) enough to have the act of abuse perpetrated against me documented via video footage, audio recording, or no less than two eye witnesses, I have 3 options: 1) Keep quiet. 2) Move on to another church. 3) Just stop going to church altogether.
Because of the nature of these crimes, oftentimes there is no hard evidence that it actually occurred. Indeed, this is why it has been easier, both historically and presently, to just keep quiet about abuse for fear of being disbelieved. Your comments seem to confirm the legitimacy of this fear.
Hi Ashley,
I think if you will read all of my comments in context you will realize that is not what I am communicating.
As I stated earlier, I take every necessary pastoral and legal precaution in any case of reported abuse.
I am contending that such accusations should be taken with the utmost seriousness, but that to believe them wholly true and accurate without evidence is both unbiblical and unjust.
No crime is ever without evidence.
Grace to you.
Thanks for the response. I’ve read all of your comments and that’s why I’m confused. How do you pastorally take seriously allegations of abuse of which you demand cold, hard evidence and/or no less than 2 eye witnesses when crimes such as these, are more often than not, absent these kinds of evidences? Contrary to what you have just said, crimes are often without evidence – and unfortunately they are some of the most egregious ones.
The real question is, as a pastor, how do you care well for an abused woman whom you are not sure you actually believe? How do you hide your skepticism? People do not continue to confide in those who disbelieve them.
Ashley,
“How do you pastorally take seriously allegations of abuse of which you demand cold, hard evidence and/or no less than 2 eye witnesses…”
As I already stated, the requirement is not “eyewitnesses” (see above), but reasonable evidence. This is the standard of both the Bible and our judicial system.
“Contrary to what you have just said, crimes are often without evidence…”
Simply not true. In crimes of abuse lacking eyewitnesses, there is often physical evidence. And even in the absence of physical evidence, evidence of actual abuse is surprisingly easily discovered through careful, prayerful biblical counseling.
“…as a pastor, how do you care well for an abused woman whom you are not sure you actually believe?”
I recognize that a difference exists between disbelief and the mere suspension of belief. And I can care well for my sister in Christ by loving and serving her as Christ commanded me to.
Ashley, I hope you will consider how devastating the demand that we *must believe* every accusation could be in your own life and ministry and that of your husband. You really don’t want to live in that kind of world.
Grace to you.
Randall,
I’ll make these last comments, perhaps against my better judgment, and then I’ll be done here.
1) I said, “cold, hard evidence AND/OR no less than 2 eye witnesses”. “And/or” means both would be nice, but one will suffice. I did not misread you.
2) It is most certainly true that crimes of abuse and molestation are often without evidence. Not all crimes of abuse produce physical evidence, therefore, none can be obtained.
3) Disbelief and suspension of belief is a distinction without a difference. In both, belief is absent.
4) Just as I assume you would not appreciate a hypothetical regarding your personal life and someone you love (which, by the way, is why I have not made an appeal of that nature – and I could), I do not appreciate your hypothetical directed toward me, my husband, or his ministry.
If the only evidence is the word of an 8-year-old girl, against a pastor or deacon, what will we do? For decades we’ve shushed the girl and protected the powerful man. “Believe the victim” says we must listen to the 8-year-old.
Take it seriously say we must listen –
Believe the victim, as it is being argued here, means – uncritically and unreservingly believe the accuser…not one person is suggesting she be shushed or shunned or anything like that. Once you assert you believe them you necessarily also say something about the accused – guilty. I suggest waiting to pronounce that you, as the pastor of the church, believe the accused is guilty until you know that as a reasonable reality.
In fact, honest requires us to note that EVERYONE here says IMMEDIATELY call the ones trained to criminally investigate.
Let the government, government and the church, church.
According to your unbiblical standard, we *must* believe the 8 year old…and therefore believe the pastor or deacon is guilty. You really want to live in that world?
Blessings on you, Mrs. Blosser.
Well said, Ashley.
Yeah, it seems two sides are forming in this that are talking past each other when I think their positions are closer than they would admit.
“Believe the victim” simply means, as far as I can tell, take the accusation seriously AND take the appropriate actions, ie: put it in the hands of the relevant authorities. I don’t think anyone here is saying anything different although they are using different words.
What we are trying to avoid are these:
DON’T DO AN “INTERNAL” INVESTIGATION!!!!
DON’T COVER IT UP!!!
These two things are what is bringing shame upon the church and bringing down high profile leaders (although not enough).
Exactly right, Bill. Exactly right.
Randall colfield’s question was: What Scripture might you offer to support your (and others’) mandate that I “believe the victim”?
Why bother us with that? You should ask the victim while she sits in your office an describes horrific abuse. “Give me a couple of verses why I should believe you.”
Adam has said he was going to be mostly unavailable. My deigned response above
Randall,
What you “must” do is believe her enough to call the authorities.
William,
THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL:
A 16 year old girl accuses you of molesting her. The accuser *must* be believed. According to the mandate of the OP, you must now be regarded as a perp.
Defend yourself without “bothering” us with Scripture.
I deleted a couple of comments which made false accusations against one of our contributors as an example.
I know the author didnt intend to seriously make false accusations but making public accusations like that is unwise.
If he wiuld like to remake his point without using names, fine.
The post you deleted, which were not posted by me for the record… LOL, and your appropriate and discerning response actually demonstrate that no one actually And literally “always believes an accuser.” ( of course in this case the “accusation” was solely illustrative)
This is why I tend to think it is much more accurate and pastoral to use the phrase “ taking all accusations seriously“ or something similar rather than the culturally baggage laden “believe the accuser”.
I know what pastors and commenters here mean mean by “believe the victim/accuser” though, and I respect it.
I also think that all Those whose comments I have read here – reflect that we are on the the same team regarding this issue – except perhaps, semanticly.
As you well know, that was a hypothetical and I made no “false accusation.” But the question remains.
A 16 year old girl accuses you of molesting her. The accuser *must* be believed. According to the mandate of the OP, you must now be regarded as a perp and be dealt with accordingly.
Defend yourself without “bothering” us with Scripture, as William put it.
This is complete nonsense both biblically and judicially. And you know it is.
In your scenario of a 16 year old girl… You will either believe her or not. I get it that you are hung up on the word *must*. So you will make a choice if such happens. If you choose to believe her – you will call the police…right? If you choose to not believe her – what do you do? If you call the police the thought is planted on any who hear that the accused is a perp. You cannot get away from this unless you choose to not believe and do not act on it. I would hope that the concern of what the accused is labeled is less important than the possibility of an abuse having occurred.
I am not involved in this hypothetical – but one does not have to believe someone (collect and then come to a conclusion based on facts) to call the police/DSS. In fact the law in many stares requires the contact upon being told – mainly because most people (including pastors) aren’t equipped to make those determinations of fact. Not only the law but morality requires this.
We are not criminal investigators – nor determiners of legal fact – let the appropriate authorities (DSS and/or police) do that. Everyone here has stated and affirms that ought be the immediate course of action.
I do believe though that while the criminal aspect is handed completely over to the authorities… The spiritual counsel for all involved, shepherding the whole body, and potential church discipline for the accused continues (which, yes, requires an internal “investigation” and action) however great care must be taken to not impede or get in the way of the criminal investigation.
Again,
Let the cops/DSS – do the cop/DSS thing and let the church – do church.
The fact is that we have not believed victims of abuse when they reported their abuse. We have treated them as liars, as psychos, and as harpies. Powerful men tried to “break them down” instead of believing them. They told them to keep quiet and protected perpetrators instead of the victims.
So, “believe the victim ” is a call to stop doing what we have done and be decent, godly, people.
THAT is not nonsense.
The fact that some have handled abuse cases deplorably will never be sufficient grounds for demanding that we dispense with the mandates of Scripture.
Not SOME, Randall. You diminish the truth. This has been standard operating procedure in the SBC. Disbelieving the victims. Silencing the victims. Protecting the perps.
And it is NOT NONSENSE to change that.
We must not defend the status quo system.
And please…not accepting YOUR interpretations is NOT dispensing with the mandates of Scripture. We’ve not elected you the pope.
The ease with which you dismiss Scripture is sometimes startling, Dr. Miller.
Look, you have been the aggressor here. You have accused Adam of writing nonsense and me of being unbiblical – several times. You called Luke’s views eisegetical and chilling. You’ve been pretty demeaning towards others views. You can’t be a snowflake about a critique of YOUR opinions when you blast everyone else’s.
You insist that YOU and ONLY YOU hold to biblical views. I don’t think your views pass biblical muster, and I think they are dangerous, leading to harm to children. There you have it. Stating opinions and disagreements is completely within our guidelines.
If you are going to as free as you are to blast everyone else – call their opinions nonsense and unbiblical, and generally run them down – you cannot be hypersensitive and people analyzing YOUR opinions.
Nevermind….changed my mind about posting this comment.
I think the question of whether to believe the victim is answered definitively in Deuteronomy 22:25-27:
> But if a man encounters an engaged woman in the open country, and he seizes her and rapes her, only the man who raped her must die. Do nothing to the young woman, because she is not guilty of an offense deserving death. This case is just like one in which a man attacks his neighbor and murders him. When he found her in the field, the engaged woman cried out, but there was no one to rescue her.
So God, creator of the universe, the same yesterday, today, and forevermore, perfectly righteous and just, sees everything and knows every situation that has ever happened, tells his people when it comes to sexual assault: *if it happened where no one was around, believe the victim.*
Luke, the context of that passage is pregnant with evidentiary requirements concerning virginity.
Your interpretation is eisegetical and chilling.
Do you really want to live in a world where your reputation and life can be destroyed by nothing more than an accusation void of any supporting evidence?
What’s more, do you actually think the righteous Judge of all the earth intends such a world?
To be fair to Adam’s post, “believe the victim” is more than just alerting the authorities. It is about providing pastoral care to someone who is telling you they have been abused (harmed, molested, etc).
Not for nothing…..
But regardless of whether you agree with what Randall is saying… And I have not agreed with everything he has said…he has valid pastoral points worth considering – instead we’re seeing him pretty consistently attacked.
I thought name calling, perjoratives, insults and comments that are “more fire than light” were not allowed on this forum?
The problem it seems to me with Randall’s points is that they are the exact points that abusers have made through the years. Same scriptures (except he failed to use ‘touch not the Lord’s anointed!’), and same arguments have been made by the abusers. I am sure he does not intend this. But his last comment was the most telling.
‘Do you really want to live in a world where your reputation and life can be destroyed by nothing more than an accusation void of any supporting evidence?’
This is where the rubber meets the road. Those in positions of power use those positions to make sure they are protected while those without power get the scraps from the table. If Randall does not want to be attacked he needs to offer the powerless more than the scraps they have been begrudgingly given thus far. We are in a serious crises in Western Christianity. The world sees us as those willing to do anything to protect our positions, our rights, our prestige. As followers of Jesus we are those who lay down our rights, take up our crosses, and love recklessly. There are a few among us who do this. There needs to be many more. Believe the victim is an incredibly low bar that we are managing to not pass.
Strider, you are making a number of unwarranted and untrue assumptions about my motives.
This is an insightful and cogent comment.
Randall is defending the status quo. I don’t know his heart – let’s assume the best about him – but his comments are defending the status quo which enabled abuse and did not protect people.
An absurd accusation, completely without warrant.
Randall: The post does not suggest that you “take action” against the alleged abuser apart from alerting authorities. Whatever objection you have to this piece seems to be something you are reading into it, rather than what is there. If someone came to you and said they had been robbed, or a victim of some other type of crime, would you automatically respond with skepticism?
Bill Mac,
“The post does not suggest that you “take action” against the alleged abuser apart from alerting authorities.”
Agreed. But if I *must* believe any and every accusation, I must then believe that the accused is guilty. Far better to take the accusation seriously, respond with utmost pastoral and legal care toward the accuser, and await an evidence-based verdict.
“Whatever objection you have to this piece seems to be something you are reading into it, rather than what is there.”
I disagree. Requirement that I *must* believe every accusation requires that I *must believe* that the accused is guilty, regardless of whatever action I may take. I cannot do so without violating both Scripture and conscience, the later being bound by the former.
“If someone came to you and said they had been robbed, or a victim of some other type of crime, would you automatically respond with skepticism?”
I do not respond with skepticism toward any accuser, whether they are reporting a robbery or some other type of crime…or abuse.
And I won’t be dislodged from biblical standards of justice by the ever-shifting demands of social justice.
Randall: I think the word “must” here applies primarily that you believe enough to immediately respond by alerting authorities. I don’t think this has anything to do with social justice. This is encouraging people to break out of the established pattern of:
1: Being concerned about how “this will look”.
2: Encouraging the accuser to rethink or recant or reduce their accusation.
3: Launching an internal investigation.
4: Quietly terminating the offender, or worse, promoting them, recommending them, or otherwise protecting them.
5: Demonizing the accuser.
This has happened over and over again. If we could weigh false accusations against real abuse improperly handled, I don’t think the scales would balance, not even close. This isn’t about social justice, it is about justice, biblical and legal.
“1: Being concerned about how “this will look”.
2: Encouraging the accuser to rethink or recant or reduce their accusation.
3: Launching an internal investigation.
4: Quietly terminating the offender, or worse, promoting them, recommending them, or otherwise protecting them.
5: Demonizing the accuser.”
I am not sure I have seen *anyone* here convey that this should be the approach – in fact – EVERRYONE is saying the opposite.
But, hey – please do not let that stop y’all’s pile on of Randall.
Dave: I’m not accusing Randall (or anyone here) of wanting this. I’m just pointing out that this is the way things have been done in the past. We need to break this cycle.
I don’t have a problem (I think) with Randall’s comments, other than I think he is reading more into the post than is stated. I think people on both sides are doing this in the comment section.
And I disagree Bill Mac. Victims should be believed. They have not been and it is now numbers in epidemic proportions because pedophiles, sexual abusers have seen the perfect opportunity in churches forever. We have not disappointed them. Period. It should be reported to the proper authorities period. And Randall is saying what has been said for years, it’s just that now he is in the minority, and he is still wrong. Period.
I am frustrated with the comments by Randall, others etc. I can’t imagine how victims reading this are feeling. But it is more than frustration I am sure.
Gotcha.
thanks Bill.
Dave C: This seems to be a joke to you. All a joke. It isn’t, this is serious. Very serious. Your “cute” comments aren’t. They are more damaging then “cute.” This isn’t a one-upmanship comment contest that it seems to be for you.
I am not joking. At all.
Sure you are joking, Dave.
Debbie Kaufman is the victim of your jokes and you are the perp.
The victim *must* be believed. 🙂
How the absurdity of this is going over so many heads is puzzling to me.
Randall: That is the most ridiculous comment you have ever said. That is what is absurd to me Randall, and it has not gone over my or anyone else’s head. Fortunately it is in the minority. What is absurd is that according to Ministry Safe, there are 60 million sexual abuse victims. 60 million. Not all in churches, but over 700 victims and counting in the SBC churches. Even more in other denominations and sects. Get the pattern here? That is absurd. And without #metoo, unfortunately we would possibly and probably not be where we are now. Thankfully however we are. We should have been before #metoo and that is both the absurdity and the travesty. So yeah it’s absurd. We just disagree on where the absurd lies.
If you don’t believe the victims, you don’t care well for them.
Bill Mac,
“I think the word “must” here applies primarily that you believe enough to immediately respond by alerting authorities.”
Now *you* are reading into the post something that is not there… 🙂
“…established pattern of: (5 points)”
No conscientious, biblically-informed pastor would fall into the pattern of your five points. The fact that some pastors are guilty of those speaks only to the fact that they were not qualified to be pastors.
“If we could weigh false accusations against real abuse improperly handled, I don’t think the scales would balance, not even close.”
Agreed. Are you suggesting that we place our finger on the scales of justice by committing injustice to correct an injustice?………I didn’t think you were. 😉
“This isn’t about social justice, it is about justice, biblical and legal.”
My brother, I must disagree again. When we, the SBC, adopt the mantra of #metoo (you *must* believe the accuser)…and we do so all the while ignoring the biblical standards of justice (just look back up the thread here), well, it does appear that this is about secularized social justice rather than biblical justice.
Jimmy Hinton wrote this: “I didn’t witness my sister being molested by my father. But she told me. He’s now in prison. I suppose I was just gossiping it up with law enforcement when I reported?”
Randall: I guess I don’t get what you think the next steps are, after the authorities have been alerted. Frankly I don’t think you can force someone to “believe” anything. I have encountered people in my life that I simply came to disbelieve nearly everything that came out of their mouth. Had they, if I was pastor, come to me with allegations of abuse, I would not have been able to simply force myself to believe them after a long history of falsehoods. However I would alert the authorities and do my best, as Adam suggests, to provide pastoral care. I could be wrong but I don’t think he is calling for more than that.
Take the Caring Well Bill Mac. This is just unacceptable.
“This isn’t about social justice, it is about justice, biblical and legal.”
We have at least one man here who has been attempting to demonstrate exactly what *biblical* justice looks like, with loads of contextually-appropriate texts of the Bible, and everyone seems to think that it’s just somehow egregious to apply these specific texts in cases of sexual abuse. It’s ridiculous. Anyone -ANYONE – can accuse anyone else of anything at all.
So the question for all of us is this: By What Standard? By What Standard do we automatically BELIEVE an accusation. By What Standard do we not? By What Standard are genuine victims of abuse to receive real justice?
If only someone would make – oh, I don’t know – a kind of video or something that would address this question…
I think the proper approach to any type of charge would be for any third party mediator to assume that in the absence of any evidence – written, spoken, or physical – that either party may be telling the truth, but initiate action to determine the one at fault, if it is within your purview to do so, including turning the matter over to authorities if the accuser is comfortable with pursuing a finding to the issue, and will personally guarantee that he or she would be willing to participate in supporting the charges no matter in which venue the guilt or innocence of the accused party might be investigated and judged, including offering sworn testimony.
I think we all are aware of cases where a person, for various reasons, will make false charges against another, so, insisting that the accuser be willing to offer sworn testimony to the veracity of the charge is necessary. Without first hand knowledge or evidence it is impossible to make a determination of guilt or innocence. And, one result could be the destruction of the reputation of a person.
It is difficult to take sides on an issue when one party is saying something is white and the other says it is black; consequently, the mediator has no way of ascertaining who is telling the truth. I am aware of cases where one person felt offended by the words of another and investigation revealed that the accused used words about which the accuser was unaware of their true meaning, and it turned out that there was never an offense intended or committed.
That doesn’t mean that the mediator should refrain from comforting and helping in any way possible both the accuser and the accused.
I guess my bottom line is that care must be exercised when attempting to mediate any dispute to be careful to not reach conclusions favoring either side if there are no facts to support charges leveled. But, if the person making charges against another expects you to take some action against another person, tread lightly, but pursue any avenues available to you to investigate the matter. But, avoid becoming the judge and jury.
I guess I like the Ronald Reagan approach – trust, but verify.
The problem with the third party mediator approach is we are talking about Felony Crimes. If someone has been raped or abused, it is up to law enforcement to make the determination if a crime has been committed. An individual in the church shouldn’t be making that decision. What if they say, “No, the accusation was false.” would everyone in the congregation be convinces that justice was done? The problem is that too many have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury and this has let many perps go free to have more victims.
David:
I used the term “third party mediator” to describe the person to whom an accusation was made whether it be a pastor, deacon, SS teacher, choir leader, friend of the accuser, parent, etc. Sometimes in my quest for brevity I don’t provide enough detail.
Some offenses would not be considered a social crime, that is, a law-breaker, but certainly the crimes you mentioned warrant turning the matter over to the proper authorities, as I stated – with the prior approval of the self-described victim.
However, based on my knowledge about such abuses, which i admit may be limited, most infractions are not of the sexual abuse type. I would hesitate to call them minor because any insulting action against another is uncalled for. They many times result in people leaving the church, so some careful intervention to preclude that action might be warranted.
The Scriptures are pretty clear about how a person who is offended should seek to rectify the matter with the accused.
In my perspective, there is some difference between an accusation of sexual abuse made by a child verses an adult. I find it extremely hard to believe that there is a false accusation being made by a child. However, on the other hand, we have seen false accusations made by adult women against rich and powerful men. The best examples being the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in the Senate last summer when Senator Kristen Gillibrand said that all women who make such accusations should be believed without any questioning or scrutiny. Also, Michael Avenatti said he had a witness, Julie Swetnik who claimed that Kavanaugh was running a high school rape gang. Seeing the spectacle that the Senate Hearings became should make us aware that the accusers are not always speaking the truth.
With adults, it gets more complicated if the man has been dating the woman – the woman can after the fact claim that her sexual activity was a rape – It may very well have been, but it may not have been, too. Therefore, if such an accusation is made, it is incumbent upon those in authority to contact law enforcement officials to adjudicate the claims.
It seems like a lot of the contention in this thread is over nuance. Imagine if some woman accused you of inappropriate behavior – Do want the Kristen Gillibrand standard to rule?
It is the responsibility of the Church to make every effort to protect the innocent victims. In order to do this and to prevent any further abuse from happening, law enforcement must be involved.
Going forward, churches should make every effort to eliminate environments where such abuse can take place. The Houston Chronicle report told of a SBC church where a teacher in the fine arts area had a sexual relationship with a minor in an afterschool music program at the church. The situation where a youth pastor is driving an individual youth shouldn’t be allowed (I’m thinking of the Andy Savage situation). Billy Graham set the standard where he went the second mile when he established the Modesto Rules where he was never with a woman without others in the room. He also had a police officer to inspect his hotel room before he entered it to insure no woman was hiding out to get a phot op.
This is quite a discussion. I have a few questions, maybe there are answers, maybe not.
Do I detect that some of the resistance, criticism and even opposition to this particular product results from the fact that it has been produced by the ERLC and thus, there are those whose opposition to its leadership, resulting from their jiggling with rage over his failure to be a flag waver for Donald mean that they have to be against everything the ERLC produces or does? This is excellent, I’ve used it for training my staff in the non-denominational ministry entity that I work for. But it seems that some of the criticism is based not on its usefulness or quality but on the fact that the ERLC produced it and since the ERLC isn’t waving the Donald flag, it can’t be good.
Am I hearing, in the insistence that the #metoo movement is completely secular and related to that evil “social justice” and that the “believe the victim” approach doesn’t line up with strictly literally interpreted scripture (absent the entire cultural context) that the best way to handle this crisis is to go back to the New Testament era and bring along the cultural situation of that period of time? I mean, after all, if you want to be completely literal in your prooftexting, shouldn’t we go back to the cultural perspective when women were merely the property of the men who owned them, whether their husband or father, or someone that paid a big enough sum to actually have them in their position? I know some Southern Baptists who think all men are equal and women are inferior and therefore if they just kept quiet like the Bible says they should, there wouldn’t be very many cases of sexual abuse. That theme seems to be coming through as well.
How would the New Testament writers deal with a situation in which a woman came forward with an accusation of sexual abuse by a prominent leader in the church? Would they say, “Shhh woman. Know your place. You are not equal to the guy who abused you. Keep silent in the church.” Would they say, “well she’s a woman, can you trust her word?” Or would they say, “go tell your father/husband/owner and let him file charges if he wants to?” Or would they say, “well, he did so much for us in getting rid of liberals and restoring us to our conservative roots that we are going to give him a pass on this?”
Southern Baptists can handle this crisis in their denomination, and it is a crisis, with wisdom from the spirit, discernment from the word, and consideration and compassion for the victims, or it can fight, argue, fuss, disagree over the resolution and continue to earn a reputation exactly like the Catholic church.
Lee, unfortunately I think you are right. Many will never forgive Russell Moore for his opposition to DJT. This is where the SBC is now.
“It simply means that basic pastoral care demands that the shepherd believes the sheep when the sheep comes to say that he/she is being abused by a wolf.”
The problem I find with your rationale is that it leads to inoperable conditions.
Imagine two people are a part of your congregation: A and B. A accuses B of abuse and B accuses A of lying about that abuse. If B really did abuse A then A is a victim and B a wolf. However if A falsely accused B then B is a victim and A is a wolf. Your rationale is essentially this:
If a member of the congregation claims to be victimized, then the pastor should believe that claim.
A(a member of the congregation) claims that they are being victimized.
Therefore the pastor should believe A’s claim.
However that same rationale also works for B:
If a member of the congregation claims to be victimized, then the pastor should believe that claim.
B( a member of the congregation) claims that they are being victimized.
Therefore the pastor should believe B’s claim.
The problem is rather evident in that your rationale leads a pastor to both believe the proposition that B is abusing A and that A is falsely accusing B of actually abusing A. This is a contradiction and places the pastor in an inoperable condition.
This is not to say that there are no good arguments for your conclusion to believe the victim.
Additionally, as has been said in the comments, if a pastor is faced with a claim of abuse then the pastor should turn that over to the police to investigate the matter and bring justice through the court system. A claim of abuse is still a serious one even if it turns out to be false.
Very well put, Samuel.
Dave C: Only you would understand what Samuel even wrote, yet never get one thing I say right.
Debbie K, only you would not understand basic logic 101 – then in a single bound proclaim your victimhood on a blog and swipe at me for understanding his comments at the same time.
We all agree to turn a reported abuse over to the police.
But the police do not always come to a definitive conclusion.
They may turn over what they have to prosecution, who may or may not bring the accused to trial.
And even if it goes to trial, the accused may not be found guilty.
And if the legal system doesn’t render a decision, or if it renders a not guilty decision, we are left with a situation.
Despite how we feel, or what we think is the truth in the matter, we have to take action, and make a judgment and with the possibility in mind that we could be wrong and thus unfairly impact a life or lives.
And a pastor, as a pastor of both the accuser and the accused, is in an unenviable position.
He might make the wrong choice. Or the elders might make a wrong choice.
But it seems to me that he/they should err on the side of the abused unless he/they has clear warrant not to.
And sometimes that means an innocent-person-of-this-crime will suffer unfairly.
But no adult suffers in this world for all of their crimes against God. Though many suffer for crimes they never committed.
So if one suffers for crime they didnt commit, let them find solace and peace with the Lord, who suffered likewise and much more.
The Scriptures do say, two or three witnesses.
But in our legal system, the pastor/elders may not be privy to such witnesses or to the evidence.
That is true especially if the prosecutors decline to go to trial.
And then the church is left with a man with a cloud over his head, who might very well desrve that and more, and a victim, assuming she is truly, who did not receive justice from the legal system. And who has been used, probably deceived, and hurting in many ways.
So men protect yourselves from being in situations; and Church, believe the victim unless there is clear warrant not to.
Believe the victim. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Unearthed-tapes-letters-show-Southern-Baptist-14300738.php
That article is must-read for all. Look for the age-old pattern: “brilliant” man “greatly used” of God, who denies & explains all to other powerful men, who in their “internal investigations” tell the MANY accusers/victims not to “embarrass” anyone, including themselves, by persisting, and urge all to “forgive” (whatever, no one really knows) and move on. I know in my heart there are many more women out there who are absolutely sickened with grief that they left all this to the church men, and didn’t speak out absolutely insisting on a different course that protected the victims. The “internal investigation,” a mixture of informal & polite interviews, opinion, assumption, speechifying, dire predictions, half-truths and believe-the-powerful while the accused manipulates and cries and flatters and makes great & humble promises — whatever it takes. Believe the accused because he has so much potential! It must be a misunderstanding, we know his heart! We don’t need any third party, we’ll handle this! Lets not blow this out of proportion! Let’s put this behind us and move on! I am heartsick thinking of it.
The enemy is Satan, and his deception is powerful.
While there is new evidence in that article … There are no new revelations in the story.
Not to discount the story – but but this story merely offers more (repulsive and disgusting) evidence of what we already know and have known for a long time … Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines involved themselves and immersed themselves in huge cover-ups here and for that they should be absolutely ashamed and repentant… Sadly we have seen demonstration that from neither of them.
We’re continuing to see that what eventually happened to Paige Patterson at Southwestern should’ve happened many many years ago… But we can’t go backwards.
It is patently clear that every comment that I have seen on this thread ( despite disagreements in terminology and other approaches) and furthermore from *most* that I have seen from southern Baptists anywhere else is that the police/DSS must be immediately involved in these types of situations… That is a very positive change in “SOP”.
The new ERLC training, guidestone, church mutual, brotherhood mutual, and others Offer good and helpful resources… I encourage every pastor and church to avail themselves to it.
For me it’s the pattern more than Patterson. Will the pattern really, really change, on the local level?