When I was 16 years old, our church hired a new pastor. I was excited and intrigued because this was the first time I could remember our church hiring a new pastor. (Turns out there was a good reason for that, as the previous pastor had been there for 19 years.)
The new pastor was awesome. He was young and full of energy. He preached outstanding sermons, and he even counseled me when I wanted to surrender my life to the ministry.
Then came the phone call. My father is a deacon and one night he was summoned to church for an emergency deacons meeting. The new pastor had been caught talking to his girlfriend on a cordless phone. During the 90’s, if you had a police scanner, you could pick up the frequency of a cordless phone if you were in the vicinity. Subsequent investigations revealed that he had engaged in this behavior in three other churches. I was beside myself because, even as a 16 year old, I knew that the other three churches should have told our church something about his behavior.
Fast forward to ten years later, and the deacons are meeting again, this time to address the pastor who has just had charges filed against him for harassment. The victim was a female whom he had been having an internet affair with. How does this happen twice in the span of a decade? In the following paragraphs, I’d like to suggest some practical steps that churches can take to prevent this sort of can kicking, and then some suggestions for the SBC in general. We have got to get a handle on this, and while we can’t prevent every instance, we can certainly make our churches safer for the next generation, and make it harder for leaders who have a history of sexual promiscuity and abuse to continue working and leading our churches.
Individual Churches
- More training—Pastor search committees should undergo a period of training before they commence their search. Most search committees are not trained in what to look for, how to go about a thorough background check, or how to ask the tough questions that ought to be asked. I can see a day coming when church insurance companies will require search committees to be trained or they will not cover any litigation that is brought against the church for the actions of a pastor or staff member who was hired but not properly vetted.
- Deeper, deeper, deeper background checks—While most search committees obtain criminal background checks, most stop the deep dive at that point. The criminal background check should be the beginning of the deep dive, not the end. Search committees should ask the candidate if he would submit to an audit of his finances; bank statements, credit card statements, and the like. This should be done by an independent third party, and the search committee members should only be given the results if there something malicious or disqualifying. Why search through financial records? This search will probably reveal whether or not the candidate has been involved in pornography. The type of predatory behavior we’re trying to prevent usually has its roots in pornography. The committee should also ask the candidate to submit to an audit of his personal computer. This again might reveal any involvement in pornography which would in turn disqualify the candidate. Is this an invasion of privacy? Yes it is, but God help when we’ve come to the point where we check out our candidates for political office with more scrutiny than we do the men who are supposed to lead our churches.
- Spies—My home church, to my knowledge, sent people to the towns of their candidates to ask around about them. This didn’t prevent what happened, but I think if more churches would take the time to do this, there would be some grief saved.
- Speak up—My father noticed a few eccentricities and odd behaviors on the part of the first pastor I mentioned above. His wife was hardly ever at church. He kept having to go to the hospital in the middle of the night. He would cancel services. He probably should have raised the flag on those issues. We need to foster a culture in our churches where there is safety in speaking out.
The SBC
I have one suggestion for the SBC moving forward, and I think it would show how serious we are about our #metoo problem, and go a long way to creating a safe environment for victims to speak out.
We should create a separate entity, or a branch of an existing entity, headed by a trained investigator, whereby victims of abuse or misconduct could report their situation. That investigative service would then investigate the report and take appropriate actions. Those actions would include informing the authorities if there has been criminal behavior, or informing the church if there has been immoral behavior. That investigative unit would have branches in all of our state conventions so as not overburden one person or one team with a litany of investigations. Those state branches would all be led by trained investigators, and if we wanted to go a step further, those trained investigators would be non Southern Baptists.
Would the cost of such an undertaking take away money that could be used for missions? This is missions. James writes that true and undefiled religion is taking care of the vulnerable among us.
Those are my suggestions, and they may or may not have prevented my home church from hiring the two pastors, and they may or may not have kept Mark Aderholt from serving in other ministry positions. There wil always be someone who knows how to game the system and who slips through the cracks. The key word in that last sentence is cracks. Right now, our system looks more like a sink hole when it should be the size of a crack.
Would the cost of such an undertaking take away money that could be used for missions? This is missions. James writes that true and undefiled religion is taking care of the vulnerable among us.
Absolutely correct. We need to stop using being busy with “real ministry” as an excuse for not dealing with this. Paige Patterson didn’t have time for Meghan because he was preaching in Europe. Willow Creek and Highpoint were busy with evangelism and couldn’t be bothered with the problems. Dealing with the people the church has harmed IS ministry. It IS evangelism.
The local church suggestions are good. I don’t think the SBC could or should assume an investigatory role but I expect that the new ad hoc group will examine that. Every church, association, state convention, state entity, and SBC entity should do proper investigations of things within their purview.
Just to clarify, were these pastors having adulterous affairs, with other adults, who were not members of the church? If so, it illustrates a common problem which 1) is immoral 2) may not include any crime (depending). So in these posts on #metoo and churches with sexual abuse, I’m never sure what all situations are included in the term ‘sexual abuse.’
Not trying to be technical. I just hope the category being addressed doesn’t get narrowed way down (e.g. male pastor sexually inappropriate with a minor at a church related venue) and leave out large swathes of problems.
Both of these men were adults and to my knowledge there was nothing criminal except the harassment charge on the one pastor, but that woman was an adult. You’re right, it’s a huge problem that should not be confined to inappropriate relations with underage minors.
Aderholt has been charged with 3 felonies for sexual abuse of a minor.
Karen, I believe a helpful way to define “sexual abuse” is that it involves any sexual immorality, or attempt at sexual immorality, where one person has some type of authority over another, threatens another, or uses force. All sexual immorality is serious, but not all sexual immorality is also sexual abuse. And obviously some forms sexual abuse are worse than others.
Examples:
1. A pastor has sex with a lady in the congregation other than his wife. This would be sexual abuse because the pastor has authority as a leader in the church. It’s not criminal, but it is very serious sin and does deep damage to the church even beyond what sexual immorality in general would do.
2. A pastor has sex with a lady not in his church. If she is consenting, this is sexual immorality, and should get the pastor fired, but it is not sexual abuse. Although if he was counseling the lady, it would be sexual abuse.
3. Any sex between an adult and a minor is of course sexual abuse. It is also criminal and should be treated as a crime.
Many more examples could be given.
Aderholt was sexual assault with a minor and indecency with a minor by contact.
It doesn’t solve the problem altogether, but correcting some glitches in the traditional pastor-search process would help. From a biblical perspective, ordination is not to at-large ministry. Once you are no longer pastor at one church, you are not a pastor again until another church recognizes you as such. In other words, one’s status as ordained minister, from a biblilcal perspective, is not conferred for life. Once you move to another church, you need to be ordained again for your ministry at that church. Also, our traditional system assumes pastors will move from church to church throughout their career. While there may be exceptional legitimate reasons for changing churches, it should not be looked on as the presumed norm. Ideally, churches should look for home-grown pastoral leadership from within their own congregation. But whenever they do, for whatever reason, look outside, there should always be a thorough investigation of the candidate’s motives for leaving a previous pastorate, or their willingness to entertain the option of leaving.
A fairly easy solution to this issue is to hire from within the congregation. Train up young men to lead and you will know who you call to be a pastor. Also, a plurality of elders is another biblical way to keep pastors accountable and avoiding burnout situations.
Yes, wouldn’t stop every instance, but a very good idea. Unfortunately, the majority of churches just can’t hide from within.
First, it is absolutely tragic that this type of thing is needed in the body of Christ! Men called to ministry are to be completely committed to Christ. Thus they should be living pure lives in thought and holy in behavior. How are our seminaries producing these men who are so ungodly? Total reform at every seminary is exactly what is needed now. There must be more accountability in the seminaries holding the accountable daily the seminarians who wish to lead in the local churches. If a man is not willing to commit to being held accountable to maintain a faithful godly thought life, demonstrated by godly speech and behavior, then they should not be allowed to remain in seminary.
How can a man practicing sin deliberately be trusted to selflessly serve a body of believers faithfullu? We must stop producing wolves in the seminaries. We must drive off current wolves and abusive pastors from the flocks now.
Yes to this.
I second Hunter’s yes.
While I agree, show me the man with a pure life in thought and behavior? If you say “me,” you’re a liar and need to repent!
Mark Smith: Your comment is what adds to the problem because it is wrong thinking and it is not what the Bible teaches on sin. It’s part of the Bible that has been the most distorted. I nor many men and women here do not sexually abuse women or men. I don’t hide sex crimes as if they are not there in the church when it is reported. I do not do these cruel and inhuman things and I am not a liar. Look in scripture to see what God thinks of the sins I have mentioned. Justice is the Gospel and Christianity. Compassion. To say “well we all are capable of doing it” is only a lie from hell itself but certainly not a Biblical response albeit a Christian response handed down generation to generation and it has to stop here.
I would argue strongly that anyone who does these crimes with no repentance or worse, false repentance is not a Christian and Christ never knew them. If they continue to do the crimes from church to church as has been done, it further solidifies my above statement. And Mark, I am born again and Christ committed.
Debbie, you are making a lot of unkind assumptions about me. My point is that no one is pure in thought and deed. How is that a free pass for anyone?
From the perspective of a local church pastor with a formal relationship with a seminary, when I see things like this, I always wonder first not about what the seminary has done wrong but about what the local churches are doing wrong. To my knowledge, no student attends an SBC seminary who has not received a recommendation from a local church somewhere.
If most seminary recommendations are done like mine was done: “hey, can you sign this so I can go to seminary? Sure where do I sign? Right here, thanks.” You are right, there’s part of the problem.
I agree churches should take that recommendation seriously. I still think we need to look at our seminaries. Those years can be very formative for pastors and professors can have life long influence for good or bad. We have done a good job making sure professors are orthodox, maybe we need to look deeper at character. There is still one person on faculty at SWBTS who retweeted the defense of Paige Patterson which included improperly obtained personnel files of Meghan Lively. This is still up on their twitter account which lists them as SWBTS faculty. Why is anyone on the SWBTS faculty who 1) is retweeting personal emails from a personnel file they shouldnt have access to and 2) who thinks Paige Patterson is someone to model?
I don’t disagree that it is the church. But SWBTS for example courted specific staff and students too. I agree 100% with Hunter. And how many years did Paige Patterson get away with treating cases like this as he had? Women like he had? Many, many years. It’s also the seminaries and the staff of those seminaries. I especially agree with ** “We have done a good job making sure professors are orthodox, maybe we need to look deeper at character. “**
We cannot allow seminary Presidents to have the power Paige Patterson had, which reached well beyond the seminary and into all areas of Southern Baptist life. Our IMB boards, other committees that he had no business being involved in. This went on for years so that no one dared cross him without retribution. That must not happen again. All he had to do was apologize or quiver his voice and all was forgiven. We are just as responsible for this happening to Megan, Anne and others. We as a Convention allowed it until this year.
Right, Dr. Barber. You are right as the rain, Bart. I thought that same thing when I read Fred Shellnut’s comment. The primary and foundational entities in the SBC are local Baptist churches. If wolves enter Southern Baptist seminaries, it was a local church somewhere that sent them.
This is probably too broad of a direction on this specific post, but I think a strong look at how churches and seminaries partner together is needed. I think we have too many folks (anecdotally, I admit) who go to seminary and then join large church staffs, then slide out into the wider pool. I’d love to see a stronger push, including doing the funding of the professors to help with it, to see seminary students get out and pastor or be just the second staff member at smaller churches. I know, Travis Avenue or First Dallas (or Bellevue, for MABTS) can hire a seminary guy as the 2nd assistant youth minister for jr. high boys, last named A-F.
But the result is that the seminarian goes out, having been recommended by a church that thought he was great at 18 (before he went to college) to the seminary, and now his resume shows he was at one of those Grand Old Churches of the SBC. But he was so far removed from the deliberate interaction and relationship with the experienced pastors there that he didn’t grow from that, and he never learned to deal with the vices that were growing in his heart. But had he gone at 24 to a smaller membership church, say of 75 in attendance, and had to live with and grow with those folks, then he would have been better accountable to his church. Add in that this church was one of 5 to 7 under Dr. Professor Experienced Pastor’s oversight, where the church AND the young pastor knew Dr. PEP was going to check up and guide him through, help him grow.
It would take more professors—maybe a few adjuncts could help with a lighter load of those. It would take a deliberate choice to be patient and connected by the churches. But perhaps it would help young men grow in such a way that they handle the challenges better, and it would provide a screen that caught predatory tendencies sooner. Some, perhaps many, do not show those colors until they are actually in the position to abuse–any idiot can answer interview questions and sound like they aren’t a scoundrel or an abuser. We’ve got to work on some ways to spot and remove folks when the stripes start showing up, before they do real harm to another. But there’s no way to spot them until they are off, pastoring in the distance in an autonomous congregation. A strong connection and more real/direct supervised ministry experience could be a part of the solution.
Hey, Doug. It’s good to see your name. I enjoyed our conversation a few years ago.
This is a very difficult read. I read this and am still crying, But I suggest reading this as I think this will help in making decisions as to database and other solutions. https://thouarttheman.org/2018/07/27/day-three-of-the-thomas-chantry-trial/
In full disclosure. Tom Chantry was a big help and ally in the Ergun Caner articles. He read and commented on my writing on this and vice versa. We helped each other with our sources. It blew me away to read of these crimes committed against boys by Tom. I never would have guessed and so I guess I am especially shocked and horrified by both the beatings and the sexual abuse of boys in his church where he was serving as interim pastor. This will also show what horrors the victims go through at trial as the defense attorneys use tactics beyond comprehension to discredit and get their clients off. I have had personal experience with these type of tactics in court. It’s beyond torture I assure you because one has to listen to this and not say a word.
The ad hoc investigator might be something worth looking into, but it wouldn’t help in some of the situations mentioned in the article. If the Pastor has a girlfriend, she’s not going to report abuse. However, I do wonder if the search committees could do a better job of asking every former employer of a prospective pastor if there were anything in the Pastor’s behavior that would indicate infidelity, promiscuity or sexual harassment or any indicators that there should be concern. Some may not be forthcoming, but I think most of the time the question is not being asked.
Not the same thing at all, but it applies…Until recently, I never asked prospective staff members much about their personal views on alcohol. That is, until a situation was brought to my attention about a staff member that had been seen drinking. Now, I’m not meaning this to be a conversation about alcohol, but the fact is – I assumed he felt like I did about it and I was dead wrong. I was wrong for not asking. Thankfully it had a happy ending but I would have rather had that conversation on the front end and I will from now on.
You confirmed my suspicions when you removed my remarks. Yes, I am angry about abuse. I’ve seen it up close and saw a lot of people hurt. Also saw guilty people walk away and never punished. Don’t worry about me Deb. Get out of your middle class comfort and get your fingers dirty.
Floyd,
Maybe you misread Mrs. Debbie Kaufman’s comment or maybe when you used the name “Deb” you were stating your comment toward someone other than Mrs. Kaufman. I don’t know. However, if your were directing your comments toward her, I do engage you here and now.
Although, Mrs. Kaufman has many times gotten angry with me through the years, I know for a fact that even though she is a person from middle class America, she has never lived in a “comfort” zone. She has dirtied her “fingers,” as you describe it, many, many times in defense of the abused and the down trodden. Mrs. Kaufman can be a pain in the “neck” at times. That is for sure and I know that all too well. Yet, she is no mamby-pamby or an arm-chair quarterback when it comes to being involved in helping the abused or standing up to abusers and those who would protect them. You can take that to the bank, Floyd. That check will cash.
I empathize with you in your being “angry about abuse.” Your having served as a Law Enforcement Officer means that you have seen far more than most on this blog. I agree. However, that does not make you exclusive to all others here in experience with abusers and victims, nor the knowledge of how to deal with it. Mrs. Kaufman is among those ranks also as are others who read and comment here.
I do agree with you that pontificating about the subject is of little value and that the first call when church leaders and religious entity leaders are informed of a sexual crime should be to Law Enforcement and let the chips fall where they may in the aftermath. I also think Mrs. Kaufman will agree with that. . . . unless because it is me that stated she would agree, she decides not to do so.
Thank you CB and yes of course I agree on the law enforcement, even if it is you stating that I would agree. 🙂
And I didn’t remove any remarks. I do not have the power to remove anyone’s remarks. That is at the decision of the owners of this blog.
Thank you Mr. Scott for your remarks. I understand them completely. Have a good Lord’s Day.
I like several of Tony’s suggestions, and I certainly agree that we need to implement measures to deal with this growing problem. I’m old enough to have known and known of several serial adulterers in the ministry. They need to be disqualified for the ministry. We also need to see to it that those who abuse minors in any way are reported to government authorities for prosecution. Zero tolerance should be ou policy. Surely, the study committee can find ways to help our children, women, churches and entities protect themselves from predators and scandals. I do disagree with one thing Tony wrote. He wrote “this is missions,” and later he wrote “this is evangelism.” Evangelism is telling people the gospel so that they will become followers of Jesus. Missions is crossing geographical and cultural barriers with the gospel so that people will become followers of Christ. I don’t agree that implementing measures to suppress ministerial misdeeds and child abuse is evangelism and missions. To my mind these measures are definitely needed, but they are ethical actions, not missional measures.
When I say “this is evangelism”, I was referring to the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who have left our churches because of abuse and heavy handed pastors. Many young people have left because of what they saw and experienced. That is a mission field we should be working. These people need the Gospel too.
You state that hundreds – if not thousands who have been abused. If you know this, why didn’t you report them. If you know of abuse and fail to report it, you are culpable. In some cases the statute of limitations has expired. This is very sad that these monsters have not been held responsible by the courts. Why the silence?
Read what I wrote. I said “hundreds (if not thousands) who have left our churches because of abuse and heavy handed pastors.” Not that that many had been abused – although at the rate these cases are coming forward over the past few months the number is probably a low guess. Many people have left after witnessing a culture of abuse and/or because of heavy handed pastors – which is specifically what I wrote. Also, abuse can take many forms – including spiritual, verbal and abuse of authority – in addition to physical abuse.
All that being said – to the larger point – dealing with the aftermath of this culture which has been allowed to fester for too long is ministry. Or at least it should be.
Ok, so a multitude left because of abuse and autocratic pastors. I ask the same question: why didn’t some of these folks report the abuse that was taking place? This is a sad commentary on their spiritual state.
The name of the article is protecting churches from sexual predators. So maybe you misread the title.
There are so many reasons cases of abuse are not reported. They fear they won’t be believed. The fear of being ostracized. The main reason is fear. It’s sad really. Cases should be reported, but at least up until now, there has been so much fear. And then there’s the fear of ruining someone’s life of the claim is false. I know most claims aren’t false, but if you’re best friend is accused, it does give you pause because if you report it, his life might get ruined.
Mark,
Amen! I could not possibly agree with you more, here!
“I do disagree with one thing Tony wrote. He wrote “this is missions,” and later he wrote “this is evangelism.” Evangelism is telling people the gospel so that they will become followers of Jesus. Missions is crossing geographical and cultural barriers with the gospel so that people will become followers of Christ. I don’t agree that implementing measures to suppress ministerial misdeeds and child abuse is evangelism and missions. To my mind these measures are definitely needed, but they are ethical actions, not missional measures.”
I’m not overly concerned with what you call it – but Jesus did instruct us to teach people to obey all his commandments when going into “all the world”.
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
I meant this is Missions in the sense that we need to spend money on the solution and not hide behind the “that takes away money for missions excuse.” You are right, it’s not Missions.
To be clear – I am NOT suggesting we “hide behind the this takes money from missions excuse” to ignore these issues and do nothing….
I am simply saying that in our search for needed solutions we ought to be mindful that acting negligently, illegally, and/or in ways that infringe on someone’s civil rights – do in fact place at risk missions/ministry resources (resources aren’t just money). Maybe there are times When it’s clearly worth the risk… Maybe there’s other times when it’s not so clear.
My point is To do this haphazardly is itself both unwise and yes, potentially unethical.
This post features a church that has suffered two ‘fallen pastor’ situations in 10 years. I wonder how many churches have the same repeat experience? Mine did, but even more, over more years. Churches need to take a hard look at their history, and see if their own church culture & unwillingness to acknowledge trauma, grieve & learn from/improve/change is part of the problem. It’s hard. It’s hard to do physical therapy after surgery, too. But if you don’t, nothing improves & you’re back in the same situation.
You’re right. There are probably churches that have suffered more trauma. I’m not sure my church would have caught on to the second Pastor since he didn’t have a criminal or adulterous history. My dad, a deacon, started complaining about him about a year before he was charged. The Pastor I was working for at the time told me to tell my dad to check the pastor’s computer. I told my dad and was ignored. If they had checked his computer, I have no doubt they would have found pornography.