[From Christian Post]
The victims’ advocates who dogged the Roman Catholic Church over sex abuse by its clergy have now turned their attention to the Southern Baptists. The 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.
Church leaders concede there have been some incidents of abuse in Southern Baptist congregations, but say their hands are tied when it comes to investigating complaints across the denomination.
Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page said the denomination plans to teach its churches how to conduct background checks, and to require letters of recommendation for job candidates. But he said the Southern Baptist Convention, which has 16.3 million members, does not have the legal authority to create an independent board to investigate abuse complaints. Because Baptist churches are independent, they make their own decisions about hiring ministers and conducting investigations.
Christa Brown, a SNAP member who says she was sexually abused as a child by a Southern Baptist minister said that’s not enough. She says the Southern Baptists need an independent review board precisely because there’s no clear chain of command among Baptist churches. The SBC also does not keep a list of ministers who have been accused of abuse. Advocates say this means molesters could move from church to church.
Read about it here.
[From me]
This ought to be one area that every Southern Baptist agrees on. We need a Sexual Abuse Data Base like the one Christa Brown mentions. Some of churches don’t have the financial or manpower resources to do the proper checks. Had it not been for a pastor telling me the truth about a potential children’s worker we would have had a predator working with children at a previous church.
There is no reason that the SBC can’t have some sort of website data base that keeps tabs on predators in our churches. It may not be perfect but something is better than nothing. 40 cases in the last six months alone? One is too many. Our children matter way too much.
We argue over styles of worship, Private Prayer Languages, Landmarkism, Alcohol, The Emerging Church, etc… while predators slither through the cracks.
Kind makes the secondary issues seem pretty unimportant.
What do you think?
Filed under: abuse, children, church, religion, sinful behavior
Kevin,
I don’t see how we in the SBC can afford to not pursue putting in place a Sexual Abuse Data Base.
We absolutely need a data base like that. If they are going to work with children, they must have a background check by law enforcement authorities.
The problem is as with police and doctors, we have a wall built to protect our own. We know the damage of a false allegation, so we do almost nothing to investigate a new staff member or worker with children under 18. We also don’t ask the hard questions of previous employers or follow up with 2nd generation references.
Perhaps I have missed something but Page is not well versed in all this, seems to me. I like his attitude towards the matter, though. The SBC alerady seems to be able to find and kick out churches that favor homosexuality or homosexual clergy and members, so we can certainly find a way to find and remove churches that knowingly have sexual abusers on staff.
The devil is in the details of this proposal. A permanent database is a very frightening thing, and adding names to it for those who have not been convicted but only accused (with “credible reports” of abuse) is a matter that needs close scrutiny before the SBC unleashes anything of the sort.
There is certainly no need to agonize over a database that contains convicted or confessed sexual abusers.
I believe there needs to be some system in place. SBC churches have been too convenience a place to hide for too long. And too many children have been the victims as a result.
There are so many problems with such a system, though. First, what constitutes inclusion on the list? Will someone suspected of being an abuser be put on the list? And if he or she is included, and they are NOT truly a predator, the SBC would be liable in court for it. And the opposite is true as well. If there is no real proof of abuse, so a person does not get put on the list, but later abuses, people will sue the SBC. Also, the potential for abuse is massive. Church members have proven through the years that they do not need a good reason to lodge false accusations against pastors and staff they do not care for.
I don’t believe that the SBC is building a wall to protect its own, they just don’t see any other conclusion that keeps them out of the courtroom.
Here’s more about this, with comments from victims.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/21/southern.baptist.ap/index.html
Our polity does make it much harder for us to do what would be best and set in place some hard and fast policies. It simply can not happen. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t do somethings like a data base. At the very least, we could provide the services for background checks. We could make it a lot easier for Churches to utilize convicted child predator registries in the various states. I think some education would help but education can not be considered our first line of response. jasonk is absolutely right about the inherit dangers of defining who would be put on this list. A disgruntled member calls in a complaint to the x-comm and a pastor’s name is put on the list. The next search committee calls and receives a warning from the x-comm. The allegation is unequivocally false. Can you imagine the lawsuit?
Does anybody know if it would be legally permissible to mine the child predator registries for ordained Baptist ministers? Compiling that list alone would be a great first step. I know that it wouldn’t cover church members who serve in leadership roles but it would be a start. My point is that we can still do some significant things to protect our children in spite of the fact that the only power the Convention has over a local Church is to decline their money or not seat their messengers.
Every major denomination in America needs to set up such a data base…regardless of the cost.
When I was in first grade, my dad (pastor) was accused by a disgruntled of being homosexual. Absolutely silly, but it led to him leaving the church. If two people can decide together to put a name on the list (credible charge), we’d be in serious trouble.
Perhaps the convention can come up with a way to make background and sex-offender-list checks cheap or free for cooperating churches, but they’d be out of their minds to actually maintain a list, for reasons already stated.
That should say “…by a disgruntled member of being…”
I think faster than I type, I guess…
Polity? seriously, do we have nay idea what it sounds like to victims when we mutter something about polity? There are times when we need to SACRIFICE our treasured traditions to do the right thing. If a national body should have power to do anything at all, it should be to investigate allegations like this. And in any case, we are talking about a research and investigation thing – even if, according to Baptist polity, we can’t force the church to not hire someone, we can be absolutely be sure that the church is informed, and that if the church turns a blind eye, that the association is informed…etc. Churches that knowingly protect a predator should be disfellowshipped – that simple. We are very good at policing ourselves regarding homosexuality and other issues; the answer is that we need to care more about this issue, and then something will get done (can you tell I am a little bothered by this?)
In Christ,
Tim Cook
Emotionally, yes–I want the SBC to have such a list. Ministers taking advantage of their position, damaging another person, and so maligning the name of Christ is wrong and we should make every effort to ensure that no one is merely “passed around” from one church to the next.
But as JasonK points out, there are extremely difficult problems such a list would create.
Within the last year, I finished a search for a new pastorate. One of my frustrations is that our denomination doesn’t have a good way of connecting searching ministers with searching churches. There is no promoted and encouraged denominational posting board–and even many churches do not take advantage of their Association, State or other services when they do have them.
I suspect we don’t have a list of positions and ministers for precisely the same reason. The SBC could be liable for “allowing” a questionable minister to post their resume. The SBC could be liable for “recommending” a church to a minister when in fact the church has a history of abusing their pastor.
In any event, churches must be strongly encouraged by the SBC to conduct background checks on all hired ministers. The SBC should put in place a system that helps any church do that for themselves– for example, if we had a one stop place for searching churches and ministers–then to post a position or resume, you must agree to perform or submit to a background check.
A list scares me because I could preach a sermon on the sin of adultery one Sunday and then find my name on the list by next Sunday because of an “accusation” from an adulterer in my congregation who didn’t like how their toes felt. We all know some partings with churches does not go well and some want to make sure that the pastor is kicked on his way out. Don’t forget the quote about the church being one of the few places that frequently eats its wounded. One false accusation can destroy a genuine, godly minister.
By what criteria would someone be put on the list? How would you get your name off such a list (if you’ve ever been a victim of identity theft, you may know what this is like on your credit report)?
Additionally, if the SBC ever did make such a list, should it stop with child abusers? If we really didn’t want to pass bad ministers around from church to church, shouldn’t we include those who had affairs with adult members of their congregation, or those who embezzled and abused the church’s finances, or those who inflicted abuse and manipulation on their congregation?
Again, emotionally, I want to sign off on such an idea, we should have the highest standards, but I have a hard time how it won’t create more problems and hurts to innocent people and families.
Kelly
Perhaps there could be two lists available. One for those who have been convicted and one for those who are suspected. Churches could make even more of a point to not leave the second group alone with a child/teen. While that should be the policy in churches all along, I know it is difficult in smaller churches.
PFFFFFTTTTT to the politics.
1st,
I’m not criticizing The SBC here. This is a difficult topic. But I could not believe that the Baptist Press didn’t even mention this article. I had to find it on the Christian Post.
I’m grateful for Dr. Page and his leadership. I don’t know what the answer is. I sure don’t want names on this list that become rumors. But if someone has been “convicted” I think that is a good place to start.
I mentioned in a post last month about a guy who wanted to work with children at our church. His former pastor contacted us and said don’t let him work with children! PTL! Because he was already talking to our children’s minister.
If we just allow ministers to go from church to church because we don’t want a law suit then shame on us!
I think we need a database and support for churches to do background checks. We also need to train our churches, particularly search committees, to simply do their homework. When I graduated from seminary, I was called to serve as an associate pastor (minister of everything from education to announcements) of a church in a small town that was still recovering from having had a pastor who was involved in several instances of sexual abuse. It caused a split in the church, because no final determination was ever reached as to the extent of what he had done, and no formal charges were ever filed because he left the scene. I was quite surprised to find out less than a year later that he was pastoring a church in a rural area about 60 miles from there. I was not surprised to find out that the church he pastored was dealing with similar issues being raised. People in my church were surprised that he was there, and baffled as to why no one in our church had received any kind of a call or request for a reference or even a request for church letter from them.
My current church just voted on a child protection policy that includes regulations relating to the supervision of children under 16 by any employee or volunteer worker at the church. We are already doing background checks. We had to do this or the insurance company would not provide us with liability coverage. The addition of a data base among Southern Baptists would be yet another means of assuring people we have their best interests at heart, and one more way to make sure we are being as careful as we can be. Surely there would be ways to prevent the sort of thing that Wes mentioned from happening.
Yes, we need some sort of database. The BGCT already has one for Texas. We have no problem policing churches regarding homosexuality issues or women in ministry issues. This is more heinous than either of those.
[...] 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 [...]
Kevin & All,
I agree with all of you about the heinousness of sexual abuse. lees1975 made an excellent suggestion … that we should create a way for our churches to have easy access to quality background checks. We should also have training and instruction in creating policies for volunteers.
But I must respectfully disagree with regard to creating a database of the “accused.” That is what Ms. Brown (and (SNAP) called for in the letter to the ExComm. I neither think it wise nor legal for a non-governing entity to keep a list of the “accused.”
Can you imagine the abuse that could occur, or the homes and ministries that could be destroyed by false accusations?
Law enformement keeps ample records and lists of violators. We need to access those. We need to do our “homework.” Any church that doesn’t should pay … and they will.
If we really want to impact this issue, our churches should start prosecuting violators with vigor instead of trying to “sweep them under the rug.” But please, let’s think carefully about keeping lists out of “accusations.”
I posted on this today as well.
Geoff
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
I agree with those who support establishing a convention sponsored service for helping churches perform background checks. But for reasons already mentioned, I am opposed to the establishment and/or maintenance of a database by the SBC. The SBC is not by its nature an investigative body; it is not reasonable to expect that the convention would be able to investigate every accusation reported. But it is entirely appropriate, and I believe necessary, that the convention provide resources to enable churches to obtain information from those entities (police, courts, etc.) that are charged with such investigations. The SBC also needs to work through state conventions and local associations to ensure that all churches are aware of such resources and to encourage churches to use them. But like it or not, in the end it is up to the local church to decide how—or even if—it will use such resources. The SBC could set up the most effective and efficient process for providing churches with access to a potential worker’s background info (and it should), but it cannot force the churches to use it.
Yes there is a need for such a database. I saw the Nashville TV news report where Christa Brown stood in front of the SBC Executive Committee Building and said that they weren’t able to meet with Morris Chapman or Richard Land after two tries. This is a typical head in the sand appoach way we deal with life issues. There needs to be this database so that predators can’t move from church to church without being discovered, no matter how few there are, but I suspect their are more than we think. Often one church will allow a staff member who has a problem to move on to another church without saying anything, just to get rid of them. In the area of sexual predators, this is not acceptable behavior. Get it done now and quit explaining away the problem no matter how small it is.
Kevin,
Last Fall, the folks at BaptistLife.com had a nearly month long debate on this topic with Christa Brown and other members of SNAP. It was a productive conversation and we learned alot.
I don’t agree with every proposal made by Christa Brown. Not at all. The details surrounding the proposed Databased are definitely up for revision.
However, the issue of sex abuse by clergy is a debate that must be had in the Southern Baptist Convention. All denominations need to get serious and have an on-going conversation on how to prevent predators from getting behind that podium.
Baptists of all stripes must not hide behing our sacred Congregational Autonomy to avoid having this conversation. Baptists have hid behind other doctrines in decades past to avoid addressing moral wrongs. Lessons must be learned from the recent scandals that have plagued the Catholic Church and society at large.
This is a great post and thanks for your role in helping to get the conversation rolling…
I think we need to do background checks, but there needs to be something between a criminal background check and a database that contains any/every allegation that one could make. As an example, there was a prominent member of the SBC EC last year who was “caught with his pants down,” so to speak, yet as far as I know no criminal charges were ever pursued. The staffer at Bellvue would not show up in a criminal background check today. And as Chas has pointed out, there is a tendency for some to sweep matters under the rug just to get rid of someone.
Here is another interesting article regarding a Baptist pastor’s sexual activities.
http://365gay.com/Newscon07/02/022207pastor.htm
Our boys in Nashville need to do something. And they need to do it about 5 years ago. Maybe it won’t please all the SNAP people but we need more than excuses about denominational structure.
Kevin,
If the SBC had a list it could not be a list of accused it would have to be a list of convicted. If a church fires a minister for any sex abuse they must turn all information over to the authorities to be prosecuted. I know many will talk about forgiveness and we should be restoring them back to a right relationship with God but sin has consequences. In the case of sexual abuse you lose your right to be in the pastoral ministries.
This is a far to serious a matter to over look. What does worry me is the accuser (i.e. Satan) though people would accuse good men wrongfully and this would become a witch-hunt. The church and I mean each local church in the SBC should take this very seriously the issue is becoming a huge thing.
In Him
Kevin Lancaster
Catholics, Presbyterians and other faith groups have implemented independent review boards for considering reports of clergy abuse. I agree it’s something that must be done with the utmost care, but there are models to follow. Baptists wouldn’t have to completely re-invent the wheel. Tim Cook -thanks for your wise and understanding words.
Background checks aren’t near enough. FBI reports estimate that less than 10 percent of all child molestation incidents are ever even disclosed, much less prosecuted, much less convicted. So most won’t show up in criminal sex offender registries. The largest clergy abuse case ever in the state of MO wasn’t a Catholic case – it was a Southern Baptist case. And the church that hired the guy did a background check, but it didn’t show anything because there had been no criminal conviction even though there was a report of him having watched pornographic movies with kids at a prior church and even though KY had an ongoing investigation of him in progress. The background check showed nothing; Greenwood hired him; and a bunch more kids were sexually violated. It’s far too dangerous to have a policy of leaving men in the pulpit unless and until there’s a conviction.
Most cases cannot be criminally prosecuted even when there is substantial evidence. This is because the nature of the psychological damage is such that people stay quiet for years – often decades – and because criminal statutes of limitation haven’t yet caught up to reflect current psychological knowledge. (Yes..SNAP is working around the country to try to get those changed, but that takes time, and meanwhile kids are at risk, and I believe church and denominational leaders have a moral obligation to get those ministers out of positions of trust so as to protect the safety and well-being of kids.)
plittleton: You’re right – the BGCT keeps a database of ministers reported BY CHURCHES (i.e., a mere victim’s report doesn’t get in that database – or even get considered), and for whom there is either a confession or substantial evidence the abuse took place. But how much good is it? Only if a church search committee specifically asks about whether a name is on the list will the BGCT say yes or no. My own perp was in that BGCT database in Texas and yet he was still working in children’s ministry at a prominent Florida megachurch. No one stopped him. Don’t even get me started on the BGCT – you don’t wanna hear all that I could say. On the issue of dealing with clergy sex abuse I haven’t seen that the BGCT is any better than the SBC, and from what I’ve seen, I think they’re worse.
[...] Kevin Bussey’s post “Do Southern Baptists Need a Sexual Abuse Database?“ [...]
[...] Kevin Bussey’s post Do Southern Baptists Need a Sexual Abuse Database? [...]
They might start the database with this list of child sexual abuse by Baptist clergy:
http://www.reformation.com/CSA/baptistsabuse.html
The documentation seems to indicate a database and/or clearinghouse is warranted.