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

Agreed that we’ve got both the secular authority of Romans 13 and the spiritual authority of Matthew 18 and elsewhere; one thing that needs to be made clear is that if we’ve got criminal activity, we really ought to default to “ought to report to secular authorities and deacons/elders both”. You need to discipline or punish at both levels, and per Tom’s comment last Friday about “is this really a church discipline issue?” the answer is emphatically YES.

Let’s walk through the refusal to abide by child protection policies; those are, if we do it right, in place specifically to “flag” grooming behaviors. The person who fails to abide by these—being alone with a child, inappropriate gifts, secrecy, etc..—is sending a signal to any predator out there (about 2-3% of adult males by some estimations) that he can get away with it too. It falls under “appearance of evil”, and it also tells anyone who has suffered child sexual abuse that that church is not a safe place.

The sequence one ought to follow; warning and a report on first time caught, end of participation in children’s ministries and listing on a pattern (notice here you have multiple reports and witnesses), and if the behavior persists even then, up to and including excommunication—and perhaps a report to the police saying “we didn’t see an actual crime, but we have a long pattern of unrepentant grooming behaviors.”

Not as difficult to handle as Tom makes out, really, and regarding the question of duty, I’m pretty sure that at some point when a person at church B is molested after church A did not let them know the offender was a repeat violator of child protection policies, that some clever plaintiff’s lawyer is indeed going to make that one stick. If the estate of a man who got drunk and urinated on the third rail after climbing over barbed wire can successfully sue for damages (true story), certainly a failure to warn a fellow church might qualify.

Two things:

First, on comparing church (e.g., SBC) based lists vs. Aaron’s lists: I think the difference there is that most of the ones (if not all) that Aaron mentioned are highly policed. They require more than “so and so claimed.” The problem with the SBC idea is that there is (as of yet that I have seen) any type of structure or qualification. Who is going to police it and try the facts? Who is going to collect and evaluate evidence? Who is going to adjudicate differences of opinion? What is required to pass a threshold of listing someone? What’s the ramification of a false listing? Who will pay the price for that? There are loads of unanswered questions and given the common claim that churches are not equipped to investigate this stuff, it would probably be better to stay out of it. At some point, sooner rather than later, someone will invoke the famous line of Raymond J. Donovan who asked, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?” And the SBC will not have an answer, but they will be exposed to liability most likely.

Besides, it doesn’t actually solve the problem. This won’t solve the problem of people who don’t report, but reporting solves any problem that this solves. So it either doesn’t work or is redundant. Greear listed ten churches and only three of them have been considered worthy.

Second, for all the talk of reporting, if you are a pastor, you better be familiar with laws regarding clergy privilege. The privilege doesn’t belong to you. You cannot simply waive it, even if you mean well. Consult with an attorney prior to making a report to find out what your obligations toward the “penitent” are. If you violate it, you could jeopardize a case and do more harm than good.