SBC head suggests expelling churches, creating registry to address sexual abuse

[T Howard]

Bert Perry wrote:

Keep in mind as well that “rejected for pastoral pay or unpaid service in AWANA” is not going to earn as much sympathy in a court as “you looked aside as a child molester groomed ten little girls/boys for sexual acts.”

Bert, I understand your point. However, the first time a church loses a lawsuit for invasion of privacy and/or defamation because it “flagged” a former pastor, deacon, or congregant based only on accusations, that will be the end of the database.

Nah. Think about it a moment. We fundagelicals are infamous for pathetic pay, so your hypothetical victim would be trying to tell the court that not only was he willing to sue fellow believers in the courts of men (1 Cor. 6), but that because he was deprived of $30k/year or so, he somehow deserves millions in compensation. Good luck with that one. Reality is that while courts would occasionally make awards, those awards pale in comparison to those that attorneys for sexual abuse victims like John Manly are getting—his top three are $1 billion, $500 million, and $140 million. He’s probably the best in the business, but again; that’s just three cases by one guy, the biggest against the Catholic Church.

Praying that the GARBC/SBC/EFCA and others get together to get their own version of SafeSport going, as the numbers are not subtle. A bit of intestinal fortitude born of the numbers will go a long way to make sure it’s not dropped.

[Bert Perry]

T Howard wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Keep in mind as well that “rejected for pastoral pay or unpaid service in AWANA” is not going to earn as much sympathy in a court as “you looked aside as a child molester groomed ten little girls/boys for sexual acts.”

Bert, I understand your point. However, the first time a church loses a lawsuit for invasion of privacy and/or defamation because it “flagged” a former pastor, deacon, or congregant based only on accusations, that will be the end of the database.

Nah. Think about it a moment. We fundagelicals are infamous for pathetic pay, so your hypothetical victim would be trying to tell the court that not only was he willing to sue fellow believers in the courts of men (1 Cor. 6), but that because he was deprived of $30k/year or so, he somehow deserves millions in compensation. Good luck with that one. Reality is that while courts would occasionally make awards, those awards pale in comparison to those that attorneys for sexual abuse victims like John Manly are getting—his top three are $1 billion, $500 million, and $140 million. He’s probably the best in the business, but again; that’s just three cases by one guy, the biggest against the Catholic Church.

Praying that the GARBC/SBC/EFCA and others get together to get their own version of SafeSport going, as the numbers are not subtle. A bit of intestinal fortitude born of the numbers will go a long way to make sure it’s not dropped.

Invasion of privacy and defamation lawsuits are not limited in their awards to one’s lost salary. Churches have had to pay $400K+ when they’ve lost similar lawsuits in church discipline cases.

Tom, I could grant your whole point, but I’d still be at the “choose your poison” decision of a 10% risk of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars vs. a 90% risk of losing tens of millions of dollars or more. So even in the worst case, it’s a pretty straightforward choice. Shoot, even if you were “flip of the coin” for getting things right, you’re still talking a couple orders of magnitude difference in the risk.

Plus, as many other groups have found, it’s not that difficult to get things right. Pretty much every state has lists of teachers, coaches, and the like who are not allowed in their profession, professional governing bodies do the same, you’ve got SafeSport, etc.. If you mind your Ps & Qs in the matter, paying attention to the rules of evidence and all, you’ll quickly improve the relative risks of doing vs. not doing by another couple of orders of magnitude.

Not that there is no risk, but quite frankly, the relative risk of not doing something is far worse than of creating and using the database. I hope and pray that “our movement” is not completely idiotic in this regard.

[Bert Perry]

Not that there is no risk, but quite frankly, the relative risk of not doing something is far worse than of creating and using the database. I hope and pray that “our movement” is not completely idiotic in this regard.

Fully agree (and hopefully those in charge agree as well…)

I would advocate a database that is a referral service and not a list of crimes or accusations. For example, church (or seminary or school or …) ABC contacts SBC headquarters and registers as having information on John Doe (without giving details on the accusations). Church XYZ is considering calling John Doe as a pastor. They contact SBC headquarters and are put in touch with Church ABC. Church XYZ then gets to decide what to do with the information from Church ABC. This is not a cure-all. Churches still need to do background checks, verify timelines and employment, contact other denominations/associations, etc… However, this process does keep the information flow between those who need to know. Therefore, this process minimizes the liability that the SBC headquarters may have, while providing the benefit of flagging certain individuals.

I don’t think Bert’s 10%/90% ratio has been substantiated. Regardless, churches won’t get sued for not posting to the database, they just won’t be part of the SBC. There is no legal requirement for churches to keep records of who in their congregation was alleged or accused of child abuse. Other than reporting to law enforcement / children’s services when a reasonable accusation of child abuse is made, churches have no legal requirement to tell others outside of law enforcement. Therefore, their legal risks are actually HIGHER if they do decide to report allegations / accusations of child abuse to outside organizations when those allegations / accusations have not been proven.

We’re assuming all these abusers are poor pastors who can’t afford legal representation. That’s a false assumption as the article itself points out many were deacons and other congregants. Regardless, defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuits can be VERY costly to the church if it loses. So, I don’t think Bert has really thought through this well.

You either run the risk of not reporting someone who did something wrong or you run the risk of defaming someone unjustly if you create a database. I don’t know a workaround for that, but I’d still favor having something other than the “well, we knew he did something weird but didn’t do anything about it” line in a courtroom.

For me, Tom, it boils down to a couple of key questions. #1, is your church doing discipline of people who violate moral codes or children’s protection best practices? If not, why? #2, does your church do reference checks, and does your church answer them honestly—if Pastor Bob was fired for adultery, or Volunteer Jim was shown the door for being repeatedly being alone with children behind closed doors, does the church tell a new employer that?

If the answers are, per Paul’s denunciations of Alexander and Hymenaeus and John’s of Diotrephes and Jezebel, “yes”, then your church is rightly assuming the risk already. All the proposed database does is to make it easier to check up on people.

And if you’re not at least 90% confident of church discipline decisions, there are any number of resources to help you. And again, even if you are not, the fact is that a man can only sue you for wrongful inclusion on the list once. However, a man who rightly ought to be on that list can molest many victims, and the legal payouts for sexual abuse are generally much higher.

Once again, the math on this is not complicated, brother. I have little doubt that many misguided churches might refuse to take part, but it’s not because of any reasonable appraisal of relative risk.

[Bert Perry]

For me, Tom, it boils down to a couple of key questions. #1, is your church doing discipline of people who violate moral codes or children’s protection best practices? If not, why? #2, does your church do reference checks, and does your church answer them honestly—if Pastor Bob was fired for adultery, or Volunteer Jim was shown the door for being repeatedly being alone with children behind closed doors, does the church tell a new employer that?

Church discipline is not for violations of the child protection policy. Church discipline is for unrepentant sin. Pastor Bob’s adultery has no bearing on child protection, so why would he be in the database? Further, if Volunteer Jim was found alone with children behind closed doors but there were no substantiated accusations of wrong doing, you’d boot him out the church and place him on the child predator database?

[Bert Perry] And if you’re not at least 90% confident of church discipline decisions, there are any number of resources to help you. And again, even if you are not, the fact is that a man can only sue you for wrongful inclusion on the list once. However, a man who rightly ought to be on that list can molest many victims, and the legal payouts for sexual abuse are generally much higher.

Bert, my point is that the first church who did not put the guy on the list is NOT legally required to do so and is not financially liable if he goes to a second or third church and molests children there. However, if the first church puts the guy on the child predator list because of unsubstantiated accusations or just because he violated a “best practice,” he can turn around and sue the first church for defamation and invasion of privacy.

Here is part of our policy of when to report suspected child abuse:

If a children’s ministry staff member or volunteer knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in similar circumstances to suspect, that a child was or is being abused on church property or during a church sponsored event, that individual should immediately report the situation to the children’s ministry leader and to the church elder board.

Reasonable suspicion means that there is credible evidence or a discrepant or inconsistent history in explaining a child’s suspected abuse. A report based on reasonable suspicion does not require proof that abuse or neglect has actually occurred or that the reporter witnessed the incident in question. Reporting is not a determination that child abuse or neglect has actually occurred; rather, it is a request for an assessment of the condition of a child…

After receiving the report and allegation of child abuse, if the elder board has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in similar circumstances to suspect, that a child was or is being abused on church property or during a church sponsored event, the elder board will

• Immediately notify the Fairfield County Sheriff and Child Protective Services of the allegation and fully cooperate with the investigation of the incident.
• Immediately notify the parents of the alleged victim if it is not known that they have previous knowledge of the allegations.
• Immediately notify the church’s insurance company and complete an incident report. Any documents received relating to the incident and/or allegations will immediately be forwarded to the insurance company.

So, the question is does Volunteer Jim or Pastor Bob get put on the database because someone else in the church had “reasonable suspicion” that he abused a child and reported it to the elder board? Or, does it take more than reasonable suspicion? How about if Volunteer Jim or Pastor Bob gets reported to law enforcement and child protective services for suspected abuse, but these agencies don’t move forward with any charges against him? Does he get reported on the database then? How about if these agencies charge Volunteer Jim or Pastor Bob with child abuse but he is found not guilty of the charges. Does he get reported on the database then? In all of these situations, reporting Volunteer Jim or Pastor Bob on the database opens the church to significant legal liability and lawsuits. However, if they choose NOT to report him on the database in these cases and Volunteer Jim or Pastor Bob moves on to another church, there is no legal or financial risk to the first church regardless of what he does at the second or third church he attends.

I think it may help to point out that there are professional organizations that have databases like these already, though they aren’t necessarily shared outside a particular jurisdiction.

For example, I read police department policies and procedures from all over the U.S. almost every day. Quite a few of them have disciplinary procedures that are very detailed because of collective bargaining agreements or personnel-related civil lawsuits, or both—and they keep very detailed records of accusations, how they’re investigated, and final disposition. They’re all also very specific about what accusations are being made.

So the database has cases of cops accused of sleeping on the job as well as cops accused of using excessive force or showing up drunk, etc. Quite often, there are rules about how soon an internal investigation must be completed, and always what the final disposition was. Commonly something like:

• Baseless (investigation quickly terminated due to lack of evidence)
• Exonerated (accusations found to be false)
• Sustained (basically guilty of the accusation)
• Not sustained (not enough evidence to prove it but also can’t disprove it)
• etc.

Here’s an example: https://www.aacounty.org/departments/police-department/rules-regs/secti…

So I think SBC could develop a database that distinguishes between accusations of failure to report vs. accusation of sexual misconduct… and also how an internal investigation ended, including what was reported to police in the case of criminal behavior.

About when to contact police in general…

I think there’s a lot of unhelpful advice/policy out there on this. Ministries should not view getting the police involved as a “if we have to” kind of thing or only when some evidentiary threshold has been met.

What should happen is that church leaders should meet somewhat regularly with local police representatives to build and maintain a strong working relationship with them. That done, when there is any accusation of something with even the smallest chance of illegality, church leaders should have a conversation with their friend at the PD. There is nothing at all wrong with talking with a cop and saying “Hypothetically if someone at my church accused someone else of X, would that be a crime? Would I need to report that? Do you have any suggestions about how to handle that situation?”

I’m biased by my personal experiences in this area: I could literally talk with the local police Chief about absolutely anything on my mind during my days as a pastor (and did!). It helped that he was a believer. :-)

But most local PD’s view churches as important community partners and that’s a resource that we should be quick to use.

(Edit to add: If you talk with your lawyer about these things, you’ll have to pay him. If you consult the local PD, they won’t give you “legal advice,” but they’ll often give you expert opinion… for free.)

T Howard your policy is with the Church in mind not into proving the allegation is true or not. The initial Supervisor should immediately contact the Police and Parents period. Letting the whole Elder Board in on what’s going on only hurts the Investigation short of the witness seeing what’s going on Johnny on the spot and removing the child to safety. If the child tells someone what’s happening then that person should talk to ONE other person and the Police and family should be contacted ONLY.

Yes, our elders should be “in on what’s going on” if/when there is “reasonable cause to suspect” child abuse has taken place at the church. But, we are not the investigative body responsible to prove whether the allegation is true or not. Therefore, we shouldn’t be interviewing the victim or the suspected perp. Once we receive the report and allegation of child abuse, and we have “reasonable cause to suspect” (which is the standard provided in the Ohio revised code) that child abuse has occurred, we immediately call in child protective services and the county sheriff.

Much of our child protection policy is based on the guidance given in On Guard: Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse at Church, by Deepak Reju. I would recommend this resource to you.

Joeb, I think you’re on the wrong track here, though I might find several points of agreement in spirit.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the New Testament does not permit the church to leave findings of fact and actions of correction entirely to the state (the local police in this case).

What’s supposed to happen when a church member commits an act that is both sinful and illegal, is that the church involves the “powers that be” (Romans 13) to deal with the offender to satisfy the law, and it also seeks to know the truth about what happened and deal with the offender to satisfy it’s obligations to deal with sin (1 Cor 5, 1 Tim. 5:19)

So you have two categories that may apply to the same act (more or less, concurrently): (Matt. 22.21)

• Legal
• Spiritual/Ecclesiastical

Admittedly there can be practical problems when a whole elder board is fully informed of accusations, but the results of obedience are never our concern as believers. We are to obey, and the results are the results.

And we have to be realistic about any way the church deals with sin and/or crime. There are so many variables… and whenever even one human being is involved, there will be mistakes and wrongs. When a bunch of humans are involved, as with a team of elders, some types of mistakes and wrongs are less likely while others are more likely. God, in His wisdom, has ordered the church to do the best it can.

So I’m a big fan of getting police involved early but I would never advocate leaving all investigation and consequences to the government.

Could there be a scenario where some of the elders should be intentionally not informed of what’s going on? I think, temporarily, maybe. I mean, it may not be possible to inform all of them fully simultaneously anyway. And if an elder is the offender, there would need to be some conferring in his absence. But it seems clear to me that:

• All the elders need to be fully informed and involved promptly
• The entire congregation should be fully informed before there is action (Discipline is always congregational in the NT examples we have.

A clarification, though… and this may be where we agree

There isn’t any biblical requirement that the church’s duty to deal with sin has to happen before or even at the same time as the government is doing its work with respect to law. When a crime is involved, I think it’s clear we have to turn it over to the police, get out of the way while they do their thing, then step in and do what we can as soon as that’s practical…. which might not be until after the offender is in jail.

It seems to me that Joeb is talking about accusation and allegations against elders and Aaron is talking about allegations against non-elders (regular members). There are major differences between the two and they ought to be handled differently.

I do get the feeling I’ve missed something!

Either way—whether the accused is an elder or not—if criminality is involved, there are two paths of action that should happen. Whoever is aware of the situation should get the authorities involved promptly to deal with the matters of justice and secondly, the church has to pursue it as a matter of discipline.

As I noted above, if the accused is an elder, the rest of them are going to have to do some conferring in his absence. He is still entitled to know what’s going on, as is anyone who is accused in this way. I think I mentioned, too, that if criminality is involved, it’s likely going to be best for the church—having alerted authorities—to step back and let the justice system do its thing, then do its own internal review for disciplinary purposes after that. Can’t say that would be best in every case. In the mean time, the accused may have to be in some kind of condition of “suspended” while things are being sorted out.

It’s going to be a mess regardless, but it can be huge mess or a gargantuan mess…. a principle-driven mess or a something-inferior-driven mess.

[Jay]

It seems to me that Joeb is talking about accusation and allegations against elders and Aaron is talking about allegations against non-elders (regular members). There are major differences between the two and they ought to be handled differently.

I would agree that if an elder is accused of sexual abuse he would not be part of the elder board conference to discuss. However, the other elders would be notified. Here is more of our policy:

The pastors and elders will extend whatever care and resources are necessary to the alleged victim, the accused, and their families. In providing care, the pastors or elders should under no circumstances be drawn into a discussion of the truth or falsity of the allegation which could contaminate an official investigation. Do not assign blame or take any steps that involve establishing or negating the allegation.

Treat the accused with dignity and respect. If the accused has assigned duties within the life of the church, that person will be immediately relieved of his or her duties until the investigation is concluded. The accused should be instructed to have no contact with the victim or with witnesses. Based on the results of the investigation, their duties may be reinstated or permanently terminated. A paid elder or staff member who admits to the abuse will be terminated immediately consistent with the church bylaws.