The widespread publicity surrounding this scandal cost the leader of Michigan State University her job as well as that of various other MSU and Olympic officials. It is a sad, sordid tale of sex abuse, enabling, cover-ups, and girls victimized by a child sex predator. One of the victims, Rachel Denhollander, is an authentic hero in all this and some were surprised when she said,
It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help. That’s a hard thing to say, because I am a very conservative evangelical, but that is the truth. There are very, very few who have ever found true help in the church.
The church? Ouch.
In response to that and other aspects of the scandal Dave Miller brought to this site the opinion that The Church Needs More (and fewer) Rachel Denhollanders in which he outlined his views of the issue of sex abuse and the church and concluded by saying,
We live in a world filled with victims of sexual abuse. Unfortunately, the church is not immune to that. Rachael Denhollander is a wonderful example of how we can respond – upholding the holiness of God, responding with grace and not bitterness, and advocating for the victim.
Also in response to the Olympic gymnast sex abuse scandal Southern Baptist outlets made the point that a Southern Baptist Church [was] at the Center of Sexual Abuse Discussion. The church was a Louisville church and you can listen to the SBC This Week podcast and read the Christianity Today Denhollander interview article for details. It has to do with the Sovereign Grace Ministries sex abuse scandal (multiple links of it and related stories are in CT, here where a statement from Sovereign Grace Churches disputes Denhollander’s remarks. You can read up on that. It is too complicated for this article.
In the wake of the sex abuse scandal involving Roman Catholic priests one of the main victim advocacy organizations, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) targeted the Southern Baptist Convention. More than a decade ago SNAP made this request to the SBC Executive Committee back in 2006 (emphasis mine):
We request that, at the 2007 SBC annual meeting, the SBC Executive Committee seek approval for the establishment of an independent review board as an auxiliary to the SBC, but with adequate and assured funding from the SBC. Its purpose would be to receive and investigate reports of clergy abuse and to arrive at a determination of whether the report should be deemed credible. All reports should be archived, and as part of its investigatory powers, the review board should establish a procedure for notifying people in the pews whenever a report of abuse is made about a minister who worked in their congregation. In this way, the denomination can reach out to other possible victims, allow for the possibility of legitimate denominational investigations, and put parents on notice so that they can talk with their kids. Whenever a report of abuse is deemed credible, the review board would also be responsible for reporting that decision to the people in the pews in every congregation in which the minister has worked. This board should be composed of independent professionals, including non-Baptists, who have extensive experience in dealing with the dynamics of clergy sex abuse and whose careers will not be vulnerable to any sort of political considerations within the denomination.
Neither the SBC, nor any SBC state convention, nor any SBC Association has ever established an independent review board to receive, investigate, arrive at a determination of such reports credibility, and archive the reports. The SBC Executive Committee’s response to the SNAP request said that “Baptists would never authorize or recognize such a panel if it were composed of people outside their local church” a statement that was true in 2007 and remains true today, I suspect.
Except for those ministers who are employees of our various entities and institutions, no one hires, supervises, and fires church pastors but an individual, autonomous church. No church must have approval of any association, state convention, or the SBC for any minister that they have on their staff. No church is forced to do any evaluation of any prospective staff member nor to contact his or her former churches for references. Churches can be smart about hiring staff, or stupid. With the median church at an attendance of around 70 in worship, I suspect that most are somewhere in between.
As one with daughters and grandaughters who I hope and expect will be involved in SBC churches, I want the SBC to do all that can be done to keep them safe from the miscreants like the Olympic doctor. I’d like to know that my church is doing all they can do in this area but also my Association, State Convention, and all SBC-level agencies and institutions. I don’t think we are doing as well as we could.
Here’s what I observe,
- Training, education, and resources for churches on child protection are abundant and available at about evey level of SBC life. No church is forced to do the right and proper thing, though. Only insurance companies have demanded that churches adopt protection policies. I am unaware of any reason why an association, state convention or the SBC could not require the same for “friendly cooperation” although administering this would be difficult, especially at the ‘higher’ levels.
- Our publicity outlets, mostly state papers, Baptist Press and a few others are doing what they would not do a decade ago, publicizing news of sex abuse scandals involving SBC churches. Good. No one is helped if we ignore it. They shouldn’t shy away from churches of prominent SBC leaders, either.
- The SBC has passed resolutions on sex abuse. State conventions have done this as well. I’m not sure what can be done beyond this but am open to additional measures. Another, more current, resolution would be a positive move.
- Our entities must, be more diligent in vetting those whom they recommend to the churches. If there are credible reports of scandal for a minister, he should not be recommended to any church. This is problematic unless there is a confession or conviction.
- I join most every suggestion made by Todd Benkert in his recent piece, Before the #metoo moment: Act NOW to address sexual assault in your church
- On a personal level, SBC clergy, independent operators every one of us, need to be proactive if we know or suspect a colleague of being a sex abuser or adulterer.
- We should be firm at every level in excluding from our common work and ministry any and all confessed or convicted sex abusers.
I don’t expect to see, ever, any independent review board in the SBC or state convention. At times like the present, I wish there was a workable way to do something like this.
But, there are people smarter and more optimistic than me in the SBC. Perhaps someone has thought of a solution, or partial solution, that I have not.
I’m wide open to it.
William, these are excellent recommendations. Sadly, our SBC polity works against us in this matter, as you rightly observe. Still, we can and should do more. You have pointed us toward a way forward.
Bravo. I don’t know the best course of action. But at least there’s some movement now. And domestic abuse should be added to that list.
So much better to become equipped & prepared BEFORE any crisis occurs.
I also wish churches would be more open to outside consultants. Having wise, experienced, objective counsel in a crisis — or preferably before one — doesn’t abrogate church autonomy. And it doesn’t have to cost $. The church in crisis is shell-shocked, confused, & faced with 100 new issues & decisions at once, with the accuser/victim as a top priority. We’ll hire legal counsel; now its time to consider, in humility, what else we don’t know.
It would be nice to see the SBC EC take some leadership here by developing a system and inviting churches to voluntarily opt in. Then listing those churches so people can easily see who participates and who doesn’t. That should put enough pressure on churches to do the right thing and participate or risk being seen as uncaring about abuse.
It’s sad that “autonomy” is continually brought up as an excuse to not do the wise and caring and truthfully easy thing. At least this way cooperating churches could still claim to be autonomous whole working together to protect people from predators. Seems like a worthy goal to me.
If churches follow the law and also use careful background checks and references, I am not sure the EC needs to maintain a database.
I know the EC maintaining a database is an idea fraught with peril.
Imagine the first time a name gets on that database WRONGLY. Or some OTHER guy named Dave Miller gets on the list and I can never get a job because we share a name. Lawsuits galore.
Autonomy is not just an excuse. There are sound reasons for the EC’s reluctance.
But if churches will a) report and b) do background checks, then the EC need not be the police.
How about as a compromise a list of churches committed to doing background checks on all employees and volunteers and listing the name of the company their use?
Not as good as a database but better than nothing. I would also add that a database of offenders with pics would go a long way towards alleviating your legitimate concern. Unless I have a doppelgänger with the same name, which I doubt, that would seriously lower the chance of mistaken identity.
Ryan,
A middle way on that would be for one of the 3rd party groups that are doing well in this area to set up some form of “certified” status in the way that EFCA does for finances. It won’t be perfect, as that system isn’t perfect, but you would have a list of things that your church held to, an outside agency that double-checked your practices, and a status that you could lose for non-compliance.
Then, as people sought churches, they would have a question to ask: “Why isn’t your church a participant in (whatever) accreditation?” The church would then have to try and explain, but if a person felt uncomfortable with it, people would know.
It would be a similar process to what academic institutions do with accreditation. Again, not perfect, but you’d have that opportunity as you would with schools: “Why aren’t you accredited by SACSCOC (or ATS, or NY Board of Regents, etc…)?” If you’re satisfied with the answer, then you go to the unaccredited school. And if an accredited school starts hiring profs without valid degrees, they endanger their status (or should).
A third-party agency that a church could voluntary participate with that did something similar: reported mandatory background checks, used a valid service for them, definite policies and training for all workers with children, and if you hired someone with a conviction or string of unaddressed accusations, you lose your “accredited safe” status.
But that would insulate from the risk of church politics interfering to either keep someone off the list or put someone on it, and provide something that crosses boundaries of a denomination. After all, if the SBC gets too grumpy with any SBC church, we could vote to sever our ties and have no consequence. And there’s plenty of other excuses why we left the SBC (excuses, not necessarily legit reasons) that would cover for “They were going to throw us out because our minister to (whatever) was a sexual predator and we shielded him.”
Again, you’d be looking at something autonomous and voluntary, but church attendees would hopefully then have one more avenue of information and accountability.
I think we make the “perfect answer” an obstacle to getting something done. We need to stop 100%, but if we have a way that could stop 50% while we work on the remainder, it’s better than doing nothing until we find a 100% solution (or even 95%).
Churches should be calling references and if someone was fired for Cause that should be disclosed.
In the Andy Savage case, he went from one church to the next without issue. That would not have been solved by a background check.
Not only has Andy Savage gone from church to church, that has been the MO for those accused of sexual abuse in the SBC and Roman Catholic churches for years before the Andy Savage scandal.
In the same light, I would add a #8 to William’s post. (It may be part of one of his points.)
8. Anyone who has actively or passively aided in the process of cover-up should be held accountable.
Of course, I believe Nasser is an evil man and a sicko. But MSU and the Gymnastics federation leadership should possibly be in adjoining cells.
William,
I think you have wrote some really good stuff with this one my brother.
I do think we need a review board…
However this board would still have to be Southern Baptist in some manner, and even still respect the autonomy of the local church.
How do we get that and have a board that is impartial?
My .02 …
Of course, I believe in complete transparency of leadership too though, something we’ll never reach in our national and state conventions.
It’s healthy to explore options, I think.
I’ve often heard the comment that the SBC uses autonomy as an excuse for inaction. Maybe somewhere some SBC church has done this but not the EC. Autonomy is a reality.
The “opt-in” idea is interesting. If the EC creates the system, staffs, and maintains it then that’s not much different than a review board, since someone would police those who opted in and expel those whose actions disqualify them from the organization.
A third party created and maintained entity like EFCA is fine with me but such “certification” would have little value to the average church or pastor. Do SBC churches or pastors feel the need to be certified that they are not sex abusers or enablers through inaction? Institutions and larger churches might find this helpful.
Any database administered by the SBC, even a database of churches that declared that they were doing background checks and maintaining child protection policies, looks impossible to me. An association could if they so desired make it a membership requirement that churches certify such things and expel churches that did not provide an annual reaffirmation of their policies and practices but I don’t see this happening. This is essentially what insurance companies require. The last time I check my church insurance the carrier required a box to be checked on this else professional malpractice coverage wasn’t available.
Others have suggested some voluntary guild-type of organization, like a trade association – AMA, board certified, licensed etc., like some of the counseling organizations but I have difficulty seeing the average SBC church checking credentials.
I do see church shopping families closely scrutinizing prospective church homes, especially in the area of preschool, children, and student ministries and facilities. Every church, even the smallest, ought to have policies and practices that protect children.
The CBF of Alabama set up an independent review board. I never heard how it functioned or whether or not it still exists.
This is a major issue, and it is a major ethical issue.
We have an agency that deals with ethical issues.
This issue should receive attention from that agency, I believe.
I have been opposed to an SBC database or top down reporting or control.
I have written the reason why many times. In brief, I will try to summarize why.
A centralized database is a complicated thing to compile and manage. We want to be accurate. There could be false positives (someone gets on it who is not guilty) or false negatives (we made a mistake and forgot to put someone on the list). There are obviously difficulties about what goes on the database. Convictions? There are already databases of those run by pros. Why would we want to try and duplicate that? Non adjudicated allegations? Doesn’t seem fair. Adjudications not from courts? We don’t have SBC courts or investigators.
The main point first point is that we want to be accurate. I worry about not being accurate, and thus, not being helpful.
Second, the SBC only exists for 1 purpose. To collection donations and distribute them according to an agreed upon budget to support missions. We raise money for this purpose. We do not want to put missions money at risk. A centralized database would put these contributions at risk in the event of a mistake. Why would we want to do that?
The SBC doesn’t ordain or keep lists of ordained ministers, as other more centralized denominations do.
Autonomy is not to be sniffed at. That is one of our biggest attractive points.
There are lots of ways to deal with this. We have done a good job on education. We need to do a better job on the ethics side. Mahaney’s Reformed credentials have helped stop this issue being addressed by our ethics agency, as Mahaney travels in the same circles that many of our ethics leaders and agency heads travel in. Mahaney often speaks on panels with these guys. It’s hard to do that, and then take this issue on hard. Look at what this young woman faced? Can you imagine what an agency head would face if he upset the 2 SBCers in the TG4 group? You would be branded forever.
But we can keep talking.
I am not sure about resolutions. I tend to think that resolutions on issues like this make us feel good, but they are typically self-immolation. They also seem to be self-serving.
Evangelicals are always trying to grab on to the latest trend that will make them look good. Hate to say that, but it’s my observation. We do it sincerely in most cases, but we also do it so people will like us.
We need to stop passing resolutions where we basically condemn ourselves so that we will feel better, and so that others will think more highly of us.
We can do the quiet work of trying to influence the cultures in our own churches. That will have more of an impact, I believe.
Louis,
You might not be aware…The ERLC has done lots of work in this area… They have compiled lots of resources for churches and pastors in this arena.
Tarheel Dave:
Thanks. I am unaware if that is the case.
I know that LifeWay has really done a good job on compiling resources.
I was addressing using the bully pulpit on this issue.
I have not seen this issue mentioned any year in the top legislative agendas or top ethical issues. Nor have I seen this issue mentioned in any op eds in the NYT, WAPO etc. that our guys often take the time to write.
I haven’t seen it reported on at the Convention etc.
If they have compiled resources, I am glad for that.
But I also hope that our agencies will speak out about this in a more public way.
The Denhollander matter may allow or force them to, but with SGM and Mahaney now part of the CT story and all that went on with SGM now getting a 3rd and 4th look, maybe we can hope for a greater effort.
Thanks again for pointing out what has been done.
As a victim of such childhood abuse, let me point out that the perpetrators we ought to fear most are the ones not yet caught or on anyone’s list. The greatest weakness of background checks and predator lists is the false sense of security they provide. I was 8 and was abused by a 17-year-old cousin who was qualified to be in a youth group himself (though neither he nor his parents went to church). Abuse within the home is more rampant than abuse within the church walls. Shouldn’t we care about both?
I’ve heard much about education as a preventative measure, and even had to attend a mandatory class years ago when I taught children Sunday school. It even went so far as to try to teach us proper and improper ways of hugging a child. It was offensive to me. It seemed to presuppose, to some degree, that the abuse problem was simply a lack education. Sin cannot be educated out of a person.
The best preventative education—and the only one that has a chance of really being effective—is have children told by every adult they trust exactly what sexual abuse is, what it looks like, and what the common tactics are that are used by abusers (such as threats of violence against the victim or the victim’s family). Teach children at a very young age all about sex, so that you take away from the abuser his power to reveal mysteries. Make the abuser and his crimes look small and easily faced by the trusted adults so that the enormity of the crime (in which the child can’t help but feel implicated) will not be so large (“now you’re in such BIG trouble”) that the child fears to ever tell anyone. Assure the child, after describing in gory detail a sexual abuse, that if that child comes to you today (or any day) and says that he was abused, that you will not be angry with that child, but that you will be that child’s hero and defender. Remove the power of all the lies that abusers tell in order to make the abuse happen and keep it secret.