Responding to the Scandal
We used to think that the problem of child molestation belonged to other people, but not to fundamental Baptists. Now we are learning otherwise. We are hearing more and more reports of sexual predation, pedophilia, and cover-ups on the part of fundamental Baptist leaders. The resulting impression upon the public is that the clergy of Baptist fundamentalism is unusually goatish, thuggish, and corrupt.
This is not the place to evaluate the truth of individual claims. In a few instances individuals have probably been accused unfairly. Over the past five years, however, too many of these episodes have been verified for us to dismiss them all. Men have gone to prison. More should. The problem is too widespread and has affected too many of the different networks of fundamentalism to permit us to believe that it is merely anomalous or that it is limited only to one branch of fundamentalism.
What is being exposed within fundamentalism is heinous. Pastors, missionaries, and deacons have preyed upon the powerless. Even worse, Christian leaders and Christian organizations have covered up the commission of these crimes. The effect has been to protect the perpetrators. Those who have suffered most—the victims—have been denied justice and have seen their abusers keep their freedom, their livelihoods, and sometimes even their positions of leadership.
So what are we supposed to do? If we are interested in truth and right, if we want to see Christ’s name exalted and not besmirched, and if we care about people, how should we respond to these reports? I wish to provide part of the answer to that question. More needs to be said, but fundamental Baptist leaders, churches, and institutions absolutely must adopt certain core responses.
Of course, certain responses are simply wrong. First, we should not blame the secular media for their reports on these scandals, nor should we dodge their questions. We are witnessing events that are not only newsworthy but salacious. We know in advance that the reporters neither understand nor sympathize with us. We must go out of our way to avoid any appearance that we have something to hide.
Furthermore, we must reject any temptation to blame the victims. An adolescent of thirteen or fourteen is an unequal match for an adult of thirty, especially if the adult is wrapped in the mantle of authority. Yes, the adolescent ought to know what is right and wrong—but our job is to protect youngsters from having to make adult choices. They are not yet prepared for those choices, and we must not treat them as if they were.
Nor should we blame the victims for going outside the fundamentalist network to seek justice. The whole reason that they have been forced to this extreme is because they could not find justice within the structure of the churches and other institutions that were supposed to help them. Our anger (and we should be angry!) should not be directed against the victims who have appealed to other authorities, but against those spiritual authorities who abdicated their responsibility to defend the powerless.
We must also refuse to allow ourselves to be distracted by extraneous considerations. Accusers should never be dismissed just because someone thinks they seem odd or neurotic. Those are actually behaviors we might anticipate in someone who was molested as a child. On the other hand, simply because the accused has a reputation for successful ministry does not mean that he is above accountability. The same character traits that can make a man a visibly effective preacher can sometimes make him an efficient sexual predator.
Those are responses that we should never make. We do have an obligation to respond, however, and that obligation includes certain right reactions.
Our first response must be to refocus upon personal integrity. Many accusations are true, but in the present atmosphere the possibility of false accusations ought to strike fear into every minister. All it takes is one, unsupported claim to end a ministry. Consequently, we have a duty to live our lives such that no credible charge can be leveled against us. We must go out of our way to ensure that we avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How? By common sense precautions. We will install windows so that people can see into our offices. We will never be alone with any female other than our wives and daughters. We will never be alone with a child, even of the same sex, other than our own children. We will never touch a minor in any way except in full view of other adults—and we will guard those touches carefully against misunderstanding.
Just as importantly, our second response must be prevention. We cannot change what has already happened, but we can do our best to ensure that it will not happen again. Every church needs a child protection policy. The policy should define when and where adults are allowed to have contact with minors at church activities. It should prohibit adults from being alone with minors in an unsupervised environment. It should require everyone involved in ministry to minors to receive specific training aimed at avoiding abusive relationships. Very importantly, it should require a background check for every church member who works with minors. It should specify procedures for pursuing complaints and suspicions. It should be widely distributed so that every parent knows its provisions. For a good example of such a policy in a secular organization, churches might look at the Cadet Protection Policy of the Civil Air Patrol.
Our third response should involve prosecution. When pastors and church leaders become aware of abusive situations, they should report these situations to police and child protective agencies. In fact, they should do more than to report. They should demand that the authorities take action. Concerns over confidentiality are badly out of place here, as are concerns over 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Paul was not writing to the Corinthians about situations in which crimes were being committed or the powerless being victimized. In most states, pastors have a legal obligation to report any situation that they even suspect of being abusive. Justice and protection for victims requires action against abusers. Christian leaders have a duty to protect the powerless. Too often have they adopted the role of shielding the abuser.
The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.
Pastoral authority extends no further than the right to proclaim and implement the teachings of Scripture. Pastors must recognize the God-ordained authority of the congregation, and congregations must hold pastors accountable. Churches must seek pastors who focus upon the exposition of Scripture, who are gentle in their dealings with people, who are open and transparent, and who welcome criticism and accountability. Most of all, churches must reject numerical and financial growth as a measure of success and realize that the very first qualification of any minister is that he must give evidence of knowing and loving God.
Baptist fundamentalism has endured dark episodes in the past, but none has been blacker or more ugly that the present hour. We have no one else to blame. We have been too lax for too long. If the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, then we should welcome the purifying effect that the exposure of sin will have upon us, and we should respond rightly.
The Descent From The Cross
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)
Is this the Face that thrills with awe
Seraphs who veil their face above?
Is this the Face without a flaw,
The Face that is the Face of Love?
Yea, this defaced, a lifeless clod,
Hath all creation’s love sufficed,
Hath satisfied the love of God,
This Face the Face of Jesus Christ.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 87 views
The sex abuse matter is no exception.
One extreme is the one Kevin has warned against here: that of pretending there is no problem, blaming victims, dismissing accusers, etc. He’s right to warn against it, and I don’t blame him for focusing on countering that error. Up to now, it has (way) more history in fundamentalism than the other.
But the other extreme is just as real: that of embracing a witch hunt mentality in which accusers are automatically right, alleged victims cannot be doubted in any respect, where anyone who questions any of the premises of accusers is immediately lumped in with the presumed-guilty, and—in this case—where we ascribe spiritual authority to legal, psychological and sociological authorities.
(Kevin does allude some to the reality of the witch-hunt danger, mentioning that some have probably been wrongly accused, for example. Because where I sit I see more of the witch-hunt extreme, I tend to focus on countering that one. But I have no desire to defend those truly guilty of the other.)
Just want to point out that there are two sets of wrong responses to the issue and we truly need to be alert to both, and avoid both.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Baptist fundamentalism has endured dark episodes in the past, but none has been blacker or more ugly that the present hour. We have no one else to blame. We have been too lax for too long. If the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, then we should welcome the purifying effect that the exposure of sin will have upon us, and we should respond rightly.That is the most powerfully accurate statement made about Baptist fundamentalism by a leader.
May God give us wisdom and humility.
We can argue the details (are the police responsible, consensual or rape, 15 or 16?!?).
We can argue the validity of the logic of the 20/20 program (e.g. Surrett).
But in the end, who cares?
The right response elevates love for the victims, humility over our sins, desire to change, and ultimately deepens our view of the Gospel. The Gospel doesn’t minimize sin. The Gospel doesn’t try to ignore it or pretend that it never happened. In the Gospel we see how big our sin is so we can see how big our Savior is! When we treat sin lightly, we do an injustice to the Gospel that we claim to preach.
Thank you, Dr. Bauder, for bringing us back to the Gospel.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.Thanks, Dr. Bauder, for this article! I would just add that many of these scandals might (and its a big “might”) have been avoided had the fourth “response” been a a basic teaching at the beginning of ministry preparation. Then maybe, just maybe, none of these “responses” would have been necessary on quite as large a scale.
I would propose that our Fundamental Baptist educational institutions (as well as informal mentoring and discipleship opportunities which are part of ministry preparation) need to spend even more time teaching such basics as (1) Bible as the Sole Authority of Faith and Practice (after all, there are not too many Biblical teachings more basic than Humility…and pride is at the root of all of the sins listed in the quote); (2) Priesthood of the Believer; (3) Equality of Clergy and Laity; (4) Importance of the Congregation, etc., etc.. And all of this ON TOP OF the teaching of personal integrity as Dr. Bauder points out in his first “response” All of these distinctives/beliefs impact the issue in question. I think these teachings ought to be basic (read, constantly and strongly taught) in ministry preparation…”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” “Run the fence at the top of the cliff rather than running an ambulance at the bottom.” etc.
Again, I want to thank Dr. Bauder for showing, in a very eloquent manner, the seriousness of this issue. Let’s pick it up from here and make sure that we not only “respond” properly, but also prepare for the future in such a way that we don’t ever fall into this dark chapter again.
Shawn Haynie
[Dr. Kevin Bauder] The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.For me it all begins with the text of Scripture.
It is quite possible to see how other forms of abuse — including the abuse of leadership and the abuse of people — could be fostered in an environment where, first of all, we (I am speaking very generally here) tolerated the abuse of the text of God’s Holy Word. We have all heard the allegorical sermons on the floating axe head, the four anchors, finding different members of the Trinity speaking at different points of the OT, etc., ad nauseum. In this and other areas of abuse, no one had the courage of conviction to stand and announce that the emporor had no clothes.
Add to that mix an unhealthy over-emphasis on separation — one by which we would divide from people more Biblical than ourselves because they were not aligned with us politically — and you do indeed have some of the marks of cultic behavior. Abuse can be hidden in such an environment. It is long past time for fundamentalists — if that is what we truly wish to be — to take these matters very seriously. Only then will we have an environment where the other needed correctives can be fully implemented.
Obviously, this is a huge area of concern, and only God knows all the details. Finding answers will be an immense task. I am sure that the support for the victims and those who have suffered in any way is overwhelming.
Having said that, however, the 20/20 story was about what I expected… Very sloppy journalism, very one-sided, filled with non-sequitors, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for fundamentalists to find a means of response (not silence) that shows complete sobriety and can begin to restore a measure of confidence.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Jim Racke
My concern is rooted in Dr. Bauder’s first suggested response:
Our first response must be to refocus upon personal integrity. Many accusations are true, but in the present atmosphere the possibility of false accusations ought to strike fear into every minister. All it takes is one, unsupported claim to end a ministry. Consequently, we have a duty to live our lives such that no credible charge can be leveled against us. We must go out of our way to ensure that we avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How? By common sense precautions. We will install windows so that people can see into our offices. We will never be alone with any female other than our wives and daughters. We will never be alone with a child, even of the same sex, other than our own children. We will never touch a minor in any way except in full view of other adults—and we will guard those touches carefully against misunderstanding.
My question then is this: Why is the need for increased “personal integrity” discussed only in terms of possible false accusations? Shouldn’t we take these precautions, not because we’re concerned about others’ deceitfulness , but because we’re concerned about the deceitfulness of our own hearts? It’s easy enough in the current tragedies to demonize the abusers as inhuman souls whose only bent in life ever was the destruction and manipulation of young girls. And that WE would NEVER do such a thing; WE are not tempted those ways; WE are above those sins. When are we honestly going to say, “there go I but by the grace of God.”
His argument seems to be that “personal integrity” is mainly about protecting our good name, not guarding against our own sinful hearts. As pleased as I was by Dr. Bauder’s response, this underlying presupposition is very dangerous and lulls many good men into a false sense of security if they have taken all the appropriate outward precautions. When are we going to call men and women to recognize the sinfulness of our own hearts and take precautions against that?
We have work to do.
My question then is this: Why is the need for increased “personal integrity” discussed only in terms of possible false accusations? Shouldn’t we take these precautions, not because we’re concerned about others’ deceitfulness , but because we’re concerned about the deceitfulness of our own hearts?I think you missed the larger context. The essay on the whole emphasizes the “own hearts” problem.
But since most of us are never even tempted to abuse a child, it is reasonable to focus on integrity as a feature of our relationship with the general public, which would include what happens if we’re accused.
I haven’t been following the thread, but hear there were some questions about the nature of clergy confidentiality and reporting laws. These vary from state to state. Some links to resources have just posted in Filings.
http://sharperiron.org/filings/4-18-11/18697
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[RPittman] Whereas the whole of IFB is not responsible and accountable for the sins of a few, we are responsible for tolerating and even promoting false teachings that are contributing factors in producing an environment where the sin may be practiced and hidden. The craze of Gothardism skewed our view of authority. Authority is not blanket coverage for the benefit of the individual in authority. Rather authority is a God-delegated power within a specific, confined context for the advancement of the work. Gothard et. al. misled many with his concept of the “umbrella of authority” that was absolute and pervasive. Pastoral authority (i.e. limited, specific, and Biblically defined) is balanced by the authority of the congregation, similar to our “checks and balances” in our government. Pastoral authority, however, gives no special perks or privileges, although we owe our respect to the position. Paul asked, ” Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man (1Corinthians 3:5)?” Thus, we must remember that our leaders are mere men.No real quibble, but I’d just like to point out that Hyles et al was abusing his role long before Gothard hit the scene. Of course, abuse of authority isn’t really a new problem either (III John, among other passages.)
The real problem, of course, is that IFB’s didn’t separate fast enough from men that do abuse their positions, and now we’re all tarred and feathered together.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Perhaps I’m responding to a larger culture that I associated with Bauder’s comments. As a movement, the “personal integrity” card has been played mainly to protect against the accusation of immoral conduct not against the temptation to immoral conduct. Usually it is discussed in context of the more “normal” sin of adultery, not in the the current extreme of child abuse, but the philosophical argument is the same in both cases. My only point is that the that whole concept is illegitimate and misleads people about the nature of sin. You say “most of us are never even tempted to abuse a child” but how do you know what each individual struggles with? (I GUARANTEE you that confession is not going to come out at the next pastors’ luncheon.) And so instead of teaching people how to fight sin in their own hearts, we teach them how to avoid being accused of sin.
My point (as minor as it may be) is that we cannot assume our hearts wouldn’t stoop to this sin or any other. On the whole Bauder seems to be saying “yes, we have sin in our midst; we need to deal with it.” I’m just asking that the FIRST thing we say is “yes, we have sin in our hearts and we need to deal with that.”
I mentioned on another thread that we are to “flee fornication”, but after talking to many Christian friends, IRL and on the net, there isn’t very much fleeing going on. When Twilight is being marketed in some Christian circles as a basis for abstinence curriculum, you know that several sets of marbles are bouncing around on the floor. And we have the gall to wonder why sexual sins of all kinds are so prevalent?
Discussion