The Christian Post on-line ran a headline story entitled, “Baptists Asked to Crack Down on Sex Abusers.” This article reports the following:
The Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has started a campaign to call attention to alleged sex abuse committed by Southern Baptist ministers and concealed by churches.
SNAP presented a letter Monday to Southern Baptist Convention executive committee members in Nashville, asking the group to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on sex abuse and to create an independent review board to investigate molestation reports.
The convention’s response was, I think, appropriate. Convention president Frank Page responded that the denomination plans to teach its churches how to conduct background checks, and to require letters of recommendation for job candidates. But he rightly pointed out that Southern Baptist Convention does not have the legal authority to create an independent board to investigate abuse complaints in the local churches.
“As much as possible within our structure, we’re going to assist churches,” Page said. “We’re deeply concerned about this. We believe children are the most precious gifts from God.”
The article also pointed out that the Southern Baptist convention passed a resolution in 2002 urging its churches to discipline ministers guilty of sexual abuse and to cooperate with authorities in their prosecution.
But that response did not satisfy the leaders of SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). Christa Brown, SNAP member from Austin, Texas, said that’s not enough. She claims that the Southern Baptists need an independent review board precisely because there’s no clear chain of command among Baptist churches. SNAP maintains that they have received approximately 40 reports of sexual abuse by pastors, some of them dating back several years.
Her solution? Here is what she suggests:
“The SBC also does not keep a list of ministers who have been accused of abuse.” She also added, “I believe kids are not safe in Southern Baptist churches.”
Kevin Bussey, friend and fellow blogger over at Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee, posted on this story today. He seems to agree with Brown that such a list is needed. The majority of comments on his blog post also seem to be going in that direction. But I must, at this point, respectfully disagree. I believe that it is neither wise, nor legal, for a denominational group that has no legal authority over autonomous local churches to compile any kind of “list” of people who have been accused of anything. Even sexual abuse.
Let me explain…
I refer you to Ms. Brown’s suggestion in the above quote. I added bold type to one word … accused. Again, that emphasis was mine. But it is a word that I think we all need to pay careful attention to.
Let us analyze this carefully, and thoughtfully separate our analysis from emotion. First of all, like many of you, I am not just a pastor, I am also a parent. I have two beautiful daughters. I shudder to think of dealing with the horror of sexual abuse in the lives of my children. I am repulsed by the very idea of sexual acts involving children. I abhor the sick, perverted predators who prey upon children. If I were the king of all things, their legal, earthly judgment would include a traumatic, painful separation from some of their select bodily members.
But let me ask … how many of you pastors have been accused of something that you did not do? I’m not talking about sexual accusations. Just plain old accusations … preposterous stuff. I’m sure that we all have, at one time or another.
I cannot fathom a ministry environment in which a vindictive person in one of our churches (do you know any of those?) or a political “hit-man” or fellow pastor in our convention (heard of any of those?) could sabotage the ministry of a faithful man of God … simply by making an anonymous accusation (that’s how these things get started) and getting that pastor’s name added to a “Southern Baptist Sexual Predator List.”
Really. Think about the abhorrent political life that exists in the background of our beloved SBC already. We already have self-preserving denominational bureaucrats who “mine” the blogs for information that they can use against people. We have people being skipped over for denominational jobs, or defunded by various Southern Baptist entities, or being “blackballed” in Southern Baptist life simply because of comments made on blogs! We have people writing letters asking for people to be “investigated.” This dispicable stuff is already occurring.
But can you imagine the destruction of ministries, churches, and families that could be wrought by a vindictive Baptist hell-bent on “cleansing” the convention of those who do not think like him (or her) simply by “dropping a name” or accusation for inclusion on such a list?!!!
My friends, we are not the Roman Catholic church. We have no governmental system beyond the local church. The police and law enforcement agancies already maintain lists of people convicted of sexual crimes. That’s their job. It is not our job, nor the job of our convention. Police records can be accessed through simple background checks. If a church fails to do a background check on a pastor, and that pastor turns out to be a predatory pervert, then that church should have its proverbial “clock cleaned” in court, if they are found to be negligent.
Baptists, let’s let law enforcement do its job. Let’s educate our churches on background checks and prevention. Let’s hunt down and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. But please, let us never, ever, ever, start to compile lists of the “accused.”
Sexual abuse is an important issue. It must be addressed and fought with all of our resources. But it must not devlove to an atmosphere of “witch hunting.” Because, remember, in a “witch hunt,” an accusation is all that is necessary.
February 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
Geoff,
Let me say I do agree with you about putting names of “accused.” But there are documented abusers who are slipping thru the cracks.
Also, why hasn’t the BP picked up this story?
February 22, 2007 at 11:52 am
Yes, legal lists of the convicted are a welcome tool. But I pray we never keep lists of the accused. Heaven forbid!
I cannot imagine why BP hasn’t done anything! It blows my mind.
Just another instance of trying to “sweep things under the rug.” I think that’s been the historical Baptist way.
Geoff
February 22, 2007 at 1:16 pm
geoff,
i agree with you. you are really telling it like it is about some mean spirited people who will stop at nothing to stop some ministers or to destroy some ministers that they dont like. some people are mean and ruthless enough to do it. a good friend of mine is going thru this very thing at this very time. it is really hurting him bad.
also, we already have a list of sexual predators. i believe that all states have a list of sexual predators already that people can look up. right? i know that tn and ky and ms do.
david
February 22, 2007 at 1:19 pm
You are right. What we have here is a movement to target ministers, specifically.
I still say that the majority of the sexual abuse in our churches (tragically) probably involves predatory volunteers. We have infinitely more volunteers involved with minor children in our churches than pastors, don’t you think?
February 22, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Church discipline – in every sense of the phrase – will go a long way to helping with this mess. Too often we allow fear of litigation prevent us from doing the right thing. So… letters of church membership are transferred without a word to anyone about actual fitness; former ministers and staffers are given good (or at least non-committal) references when warnings should be given.
I’m all for following prudent policies and procedures, but followers of Christ need to be in charge of church business, not attorneys.
February 22, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Bowden,
I quite agree. It’s the “sweeping under the rug” behavior that I mentioned in my post. The fear of litigation can, often times, open the door to more criminal behavior.
But I firmly believe that we must not create a convention-wide list of people who have suffered “accusation.” I’m sure it would be a long list, indeed, complete with many who were unjustly accused.
We need to let law enforcement dot its job, and we need to do ours.
Geoff
February 22, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I’ve gone to Ms. Brown’s web site and read her story and it certainly sounds like she was mistreated by a SBC church. Her solution, as I understand it, is to close what she sees as a loophole (the idea that a SB church is an independent entity and we are, in fact, barely a denomination in the traditional sense of the word).
I see our independence not as a loophole for avoiding responsibility but part of the essence of who we are.
Where I see an exploitation of our independence by pedophiles, Ms. Brown sees conspiracy among denominational leaders.
A database of rumors is a bad idea for two reasons: it goes against the grain of one of America’s core values (innocent til proven guilty) and it would require the SBC to move from a loose coalition of cooperating congregations to a hierarchical structure that I would consider unbiblical.
February 22, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Exactly!
February 23, 2007 at 7:06 am
I’m a little late with this comment but when Southern Baptists look at sexual abuse in their churches, the first thought of pastors seems to be a fear of false accusation, not prevention of abuse.
Southern Baptist leaders found a way to excise from our grand denomination churches approving of homosexuals. Why not look for a way to remove churches who harbor sexual abusers?
It is an insult and an offense to this Southern Baptist pastor that even convicted and/or confessed sexual abusers can move from church-to-church and state-to-state with impunity among us.
I am willing to consider how to end this practice while maintaining our autonomy and protecting the rights of the accused.
February 23, 2007 at 7:49 am
curmud,
all a pastor search committee would have to do is to check the states sexual offender list. then, doing a little background check….like the dom of the assoc. or a fellow pastor in the area thats not on his reference list on resume…would probably do the trick. that wouldnt even take a whole lot of time.
david
February 23, 2007 at 8:45 am
Sure, David, it is simple to do sexual offender registry checks – just a couple of clicks. The issue is a bit broader than that. The cases exhibited by SNAP include confessed sexual offenders who, for various reasons, are not and will not be on any state’s offender registry.
The simplest level of denominational attention to this includes a centralized list. The BGCT has one (the one SNAP always refers to as a ’secret’ list, a very effective description that highlights their objection to the way it has been handled). The SBC could have one. You think sexual offenders like some described in the literature don’t know that they can move from state-to-state and start over?
Sure, the devil is in the details on this thing, but it is imperative that the tough issues be tackled. The Exec Comm said about the same thing this week. Good for them.
February 23, 2007 at 10:53 am
The background check we do only covers 37 states. It would cost a fortune to do what we need but if the SBC had some system for us all us to check, I’d be for it.
February 23, 2007 at 11:28 am
To all-
Obviously, this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. But the very nature of our voliuntary associations cannot possibly allow for a centralized “suspect list.” Indeed, I question the legality of the Texas situation, and am shocked that it has not been challenged in court.
The most constructive thing the SBC could do would be to provide a centralized, inexpensive background check for all potential pastors AND VOLUNTEERS. Again I say, there have to be more instances of abuse among volunteers than among pastors. The sheer number of people involved would seem to indicate such.
Curmudgeon -
Finding the churches that welcome homosexuals is not difficult … they proclaim it and make public statements. The perverts lurk in private. They don’t want to be found. That comparison is a bit apples and oranges … but I get your point.
But all things considered, our churches simply have to do their “homework.” This is an autonomous church issue, not something that leadership in a voluntary association can tackle. There is simply no binding or legal authority for such action in our polity.
February 23, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Geoff,
I’m not for binding anything. I just wish smaller churches like mine (300 on Sunday) could have access to background checks that churches like Prestonwood and 1st Woodstock do. If we pooled our $ we could do a better job.
February 23, 2007 at 12:21 pm
That would be an excellent idea, and resource, for all of our churches.
February 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
The comparison to churches that approve of homosexuality was made only for the purpose of illustrating that, when Southern Baptists want to focus on an issue in local churches, they find a way to do it.
The objections offered that express concern that any SBC registry would include a list of suspects or accused are quite valid, but not overwhelming, and not without solutions.
At the very least, a list of confessed and convicted abusers would be a slam-dunk.
At any rate, the matter is not going to disappear. The SBC will take it up. The advocacy groups will continue to press the thing. All well and good.
February 23, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Curmudgeon,
You are right, indeed. We do have a way of discerning our differences, don’t we?
Agreed … the confessed and convicted registry is a “no-brainer.”
February 24, 2007 at 5:28 am
Here are my problems with SNAP’s request:
First, Southern Baptists are being compared to the Catholic church where accused priests were NOT reported to police or DHS and were instead transfered to other positions within the church. We (SBC) may have a problem with the first part but not the second. Asking the SBC to keep a registry in order to prevent the transferring of ministers to other jobs solves no problem… we don’t transfer people.
If the first part of the problem is addressed, the second part becomes a non-issue. The real question becomes how do we encourage individual churches to contact DHS and cooperate with law enforcement?
I think the answers include: education, insurance that provides discounts to churches who take reasonable precautions and actually follow their policies and procedures (is Guidestone in the church insurance business and if not, why not?), and legal help ($) for churches who find themselves on the wrong end of a law suit after reporting suspected abuse.
In my state the law mandates all adults report suspected child abuse. We don’t have a cover up problem, we have a problem with churches not following the law. SNAP’s suggestions for national involvement from the SBC won’t correct the problem.
February 25, 2007 at 9:41 am
Bowden McElroy, I do not see a deliberate conspiracy of denominational leaders. What I see is a dangerous blindness on the part of leadership and the same thing that you see….the “exploitation of [Baptist] independence by pedophiles.” The Baptist Standard cited a BGCT director as saying that Baptists’ disconnected system “indirectly shields perpetrators.” This is what I see, and I also see, perhaps more clearly than most, the real-world consequences of that “shielding” and of the fact that the denomination fails to deal with it.
No one is suggesting a “database of rumors.” That’s exactly why SNAP is asking for an independent review board so that there will be a place where people can report clergy abuse with some expectation that the information will be reviewed in a professional and objective manner to determine whether it is credible and so that churches can have a resource for obtaining objective information. An FBI bulletin estimates that less than 10 percent of of child molestation incidents are ever even disclosed, much less prosecuted, much less convicted. Background checks are important, but they are not nearly enough – not even close. If a Baptist minister can remain in the pulpit until there’s an actual conviction against him, then far too many predatory pastors are going to remain in positions of trust, and kids are left in harm’s way. FBC-Greenwood did background checks on its minister prior to hiring, but the checks didn’t reveal that he had been reported for watching pornographic movies with kids at a church in KY, and nor did they reveal that he was already being investigated by KY authorities. Greenwood hired him. A bunch more kids were sexually violated. Those kids could have been spared if the KY church had been able to report him to an independent objective professionally-staffed denominational review board.
February 25, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Christa,
Welcome to “Along the Shore.” And welcome to this discussion. I greatly appreciate your passion for this subject.
We do recognize that the autonomous nature of Baptist polity can be exploited by pedophiles and perverts. We absolutely realize the problem. But the difficulty is in the solution.
In the article that I cited in the Christian Post, you were quoted as saying, “The SBC also does not keep a list of ministers who have been accused of abuse.”
A potential list of the “accused” is what most of us are concerned about. In Baptist life this would, most assuredly, have the propensity to devolve into a “database of rumor” and innuendo. Yes, we desperately want to protect our children. But we must also find an effective and wise way to do that while, at the same time, protecting the lives and ministries of faithful, moral ministers … and THEIR children.
Most of us know, personally, ministers who have had those lives and ministries destroyed by false accusations. It happens. Sadly, tragically, it happens.
Yes, we must take every possible step to identify, prosecute, and punish pedophiles. But we must do so without pursuing an unjust “witch hunt” in the process. That’s the only point that we’re trying to make.
The simple reality is, I believe, that the very thing that you are seeking … an “independent” review board … is somewhere outside the realm of possibility in a governmental structure where the denomination has absolutely no authority … none whatsoever … over the local church.
I fear that, even if such a body were established, that the pedophiles and their “enabler churches” would simply avoid reporting to that body. Tragically, “sweeping things under the rug” is the tactic so often used when churches encounter crimes like this.
What’s the answer? I just don’t know. But the pedophiles, and the churches that enable them, should be made to pay.
February 25, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Ms. Brown,
Thank you for replying to my comment. I don’t know anything about the other 49 states, but in Oklahoma we already have a “a place where people can report clergy abuse with some expectation that the information will be reviewed in a professional and objective manner to determine whether it is credible and so that churches can have a resource for obtaining objective information.”
That place is the Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Division.
I simply maintain the problem is some churches are not following the law and a database – state based or national – will not solve that problem. Let’s assume my state had a independent review board; that board would be required to report to DHS all suspected abuse. All we would have done at that point is add yet one more layer of bureaucracy to the reporting procedure that victims and their families don’t need.
I would rather see the SBC focus it’s resources on helping to create a culture where reporting suspected abuse is the normal and natural thing to do rather than attempt to do the state’s investigative job for it.
February 25, 2007 at 8:01 pm
[...] would complain that waiting for a conviction is too late. On another blog, Christa Brown with SNAP left this comment: If a Baptist minister can remain in the pulpit until [...]
August 13, 2008 at 9:11 pm
[...] would complain that waiting for a conviction is too late. On another blog, Christa Brown with SNAP left this comment: If a Baptist minister can remain in the pulpit until [...]